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

The result was delete. Tone 21:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John G. Myerson[edit]

John G. Myerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I believe that this author and alternative medicine practitioner fails WP:BIO. This may even be an example of self-promotionalism. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Zero hits at Google Scholar; only his own books at Google Books; references cited in the article don't amount to much. I really researched online to see if I could find confirmation of his importance in the Acupuncture field, but I couldn't. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 11 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 G5. — ξ^xplicit 05:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monster's Inc. 2[edit]

Monster's Inc. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This page is apparently being used as a grammatically-incorrect alternate title to avoid the previously-established consensus at the Monsters Inc. 2 redirect that this subject does not warrant an article. It should either be moved to Monsters Inc. 2 if it is agreed that it now qualifies for its own article, or deleted as an implausible typo of the correct spelling. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too little reliable information at the moment to negate WP:CRYSTAL. The current redirect is fine. Deor (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete CSD:G5 "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others." The page creator is one of at least three sockpuppets of User:Onelifefreak2007 who have been vandalising Wikipedia in the past 12 hours. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007 for evidence. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 23:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not sure I can find the "clear consensus" to redirect the other spelling. Nevertheless, either spelling seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL. IMDb categorise it as "In development", while the Guardian and a few other news papers merely confirm that it has been announced that the film is to be released in 2012, though since the production has been held up for various reasons already (hardly WP worthy stuff, given that most films suffer setbacks) we need to take that announcement with a pinch of salt. Even if the release date were 100% confirmed, though, we still don't have enough verifiable information for an article, IMO --Jubilee♫clipman 23:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per AussieLegend, in fact --Jubilee♫clipman 23:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2)I'm not necessarily saying a clear or even formal consensus (I haven't seen a discussion), but looking at the history of the redirect at the other spelling seems to indicate that these changes have been rejected at that page, and that this one is being used to escape attention from the editors who turned the correct spelling into a redirect. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if that was what you meant. Fair enough and thanks for the clarification --Jubilee♫clipman 23:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: I would had said redirect to the first film's article. I have already done this for the real article. But since it's been created by a banned user and is misspelled, it needs to be speedy deleted.Mike Allen 23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per AussieLegend; having had a look at the SPI, there seems to be sufficient evidence to support this. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This film also fails WP:NFF. "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." --AussieLegend (talk) 23:54, 5 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 a7 nonnotable, g11 ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Techtunes[edit]

Techtunes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article have too many issues to adress. I think that it is better to just delete it, and then afterwards recreate it, when the issues have been adressed. Heymid (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG patsw (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's an advertisement. --CliffC (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have requested speedy deletion on the article page now. Heymid (talk) 17:43, 10 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 21:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khairi Izwan Abdullah[edit]

Khairi Izwan Abdullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Mid-level academic with a raft of non-significant awards and publications. Mkativerata (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC, not influential in his field, not cited by others. According to the information in the article, he is not a full professor and does not have a PhD. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 11 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 21:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Von Aachen's Disease[edit]

Von Aachen's Disease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested CSD hoax. Without any sources at all and no web content at all to be found this looks like a giant hoax to me. De728631 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Agreed -- plus the so-called "doctor" in the article links to a painter. -- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 21:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link to the painter results from the use of a redirect of the same name as the "doctor's" so this isn't really a piece of evidence for a hoax. Still, the rest smells fishy. De728631 (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've de-linked the name. Peridon (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No ghits for von Aachen or Strauss, never mind the disease. I would also point out that fluid oozing from the scalp is unlikely to be a symptom of fluid causing pressure on the brain. Cerebro-spinal fluid can leak from the ear in cases of fracture of base of skull, and this is one of the surest diagnoses of this condition (along with the gibberish uttered by the victim...). However, in the absence of a fracture, the skull prevents the loss of fluid from the region of the brain. This is why Subarachnoid haemorrhage can be fatal. (I have personally dealt with three cases of fractured skull (one having a fractured femur as well), and my 12 year old cousin probably saved her father's life by her prompt calling of the ambulance when he had a brain haemorrhage.) I would like to see more evidence in almost any language for this condition, and more description of its mechanism. Also, von Aachen could not have detected PTSD as such in his patients, as the term only originated in the 1970s. These things can be back-diagnosed, but this should be explained and made clear. Peridon (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going for Delete in the absence of any more info from the creator of the article (and after conferring with medical friends who also can't see the connection between pressure on the brain and oozing from the scalp). Peridon (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coment Von Aachen referred to PTSD as "shell-shock." WE know know that shell-shock is real and that it is PTSD. Mucussummery (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But how do you know? Where's your proof? Delete. Only three Google hits: two Wikipedia and one blog. I don't think whoever declined the speedy took the hit count into consideration. Erpert (let's talk about it) 03:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 23:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Von Aachen's Disease is not a hoax. It isn't a widely publicized disease, but it is, nonetheless, real. There is some literature on it, but I'm not sure if it would be acceptable to cite because the literature is in book form. Mucussummery (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I can provide one main source, it will just take me a few minutes to get it into the proper citation format. It's an article called "A Summery of Doctor Johann von Aachen's Work over the Past 12 Years" published in 1938 by Dr. Strauss. It was originally a German article with a German title, but I only have the English translation.Mucussummery (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strauss, Dietrich A. "A Summery of Doctor Johann von Aachen's Work Over the Past 12 Years." Die Deutschen Medizinischen Zeitschrift 8 Sept. 1938: original pages unknown. Print.

(the information above was taken from a small note before the English translation of the original article)

I also have digital scans of some of the pages from Dr. Von Aachen's journals. Mucussummery (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd love to see them. Erpert (let's talk about it) 03:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is no ghit for 'Die Deutschen Medizinischen Zeitschrift'. Using 'der', there are 10. Two appear to refer to a specific magazine - one reference is in a German forum and I can't pin down the person quoted as writing in the magazine to it anywhere else, and the other is to a magazine in 1919. (Another of the 10 is now unavailable, but contained the same text about 1919.) The others are generic. Peridon (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correct title, if true, would be "Die Deutsche Medizinische Zeitschrift" or simply "Deutsche Medizinische Zeitschrift", none of which seem to exist. The only similar publication would be Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, est. 1875, which has been running under that title ever since. Searching the inventories of the university libraries of Kiel, Rostock, Jena and Magdeburg did not come up with any journal called "Deutsche Medizinische Zeitschrift". Neither do you get Google results for "von Aachen'sche Krankheit" in German. De728631 (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A more thorough search revealed this: [1], [2], [3], so "Deutsche medizinische Zeitschrift" at least did exist. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mucussummery, can you provide the original German title of that alleged review by Strauss in 1938? Given the circumstances of the era, no German journal would have published their articles in English. Not to mention "summery". De728631 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: and sources in book form are of course welcome. Please provide them all with the original titles and publishers. De728631 (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I should like to know more of the detail of the symptoms, and the reasoning that the condition is genetically linked. I am also somewhat puzzled by mucus oozing from the scalp, as this is (in humans at least) virtually always an internal secretion found in the respiratory, digestive and reproductive systems. Peridon (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know a bit more about the recent cases mentioned too - where were they reported? Peridon (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't know if this is a hoax, but I know that I can't verify it. No reported cases since 1938. Possibly redirect to scrofula. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why to scrofula? It doesn't sound much like it to me. That's mainly in the lymph nodes of the neck, and I've never heard of pressure of fluid on the brain being part of it. Peridon (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unverifiable at best. Edward321 (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Articles about historical diagnoses (which this appears to be) should include secondary sources like other history articles, so that they can be compared to modern medicine. Narayanese (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unverified, and makes no sense medically. "Mucus" oozing from pores? Pores do not secrete mucus. The treatment ("tubes put inside the head"?) seems to assume some kind of connection where pressure or fluid inside the brain causes oozing through the scalp; how this fluid would penetrate the skull is not explained. Conflicting etiologies - genetics, stress, aging, etc. - are cited without explanation. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 11 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. Akirn (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borg El Arab Stadium[edit]

Borg El Arab Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No references or sources have been added since October 2008. -- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. There are lots of online sources so I have added one that looks quite reliable. And I also added the AfD notice to the article. De728631 (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Possibly a white elephant, but appears to be of enough note. More referencing is probably needed, and also making the prose a bit less turgid. I feel the article tells me more than I really want to know, but the extra info might be of interest to those who enjoy it. Peridon (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Apart from anything, I don't really see a legitimate reason for deletion in the nomination.--BelovedFreak 23:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 23:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 23:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article needs work, but there are reliable sources showing it's notable. First Light (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 01:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 01:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - needs up to date sources but no need for deletion. --MicroX (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with (Peridon), the article has too much details that are most likely not necessary. Any way, I vote to keep the article and I personally will try (already did but will continue) to edit and improve it. Osa osa 5 (talk) 02:56, 11 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 per WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax, see evidence below, also WP:CSD#G7 author requests deletion (by filing this AfD) - take your choice. We do not need to let this run any longer. JohnCD (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lichtenberg[edit]

House of Lichtenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article was made before we got in contact with the Bavarian state archives for proof, Karl Franz was only made a count not a Prince.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lichtenberger (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 June 2010

• Keep and correct The title doesn't say anything about a prince and erroneous information inside the article can be fixed within a minute. De728631 (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Changed my mind to delete. The findings I have explained on the article's talk page make me believe that this alleged House of Lichtenberg as described here, is not any older than its official website. De728631 (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Copied from the article talk for inclusion in this log:

What I can tell already from scratch is that File:Greatarmssmall.PNG is based on a principal arms style with a prince's hat as crest and a principal mantling, so if Franz Karl was "only" made a count, it is most certainly not his coat of arms. Could it be that this coat of arms was only recently created? The following is an extract from the chronicle found on the town of Lichtenberg's website:

• 1248 Lichtenberg is inherited by the Counts of Orlamünde.
• 1427 Lichtenberg is sold to the Earls of Waldenfels.
• 1618 Sale of Lichtenberg to the Lithuanian Duke and Prince Janusius Radziwill
• 1628 Lichtenberg sold again, to Margrave Christian of Brandenburg
• 1792 Lichtenberg becomes Prussian.
• 1810 Lichtenberg becomes Bavarian.

There is no mentioning of any "Counts of Lichtenberg" as such. De728631 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J. B. Rietstap's Armorial général p. 64 (in French) mentions the Barons of Lichtenberg in Saxe-Coburg, which would have included the town of Lichtenberg, Upper Franconia, the blazon is completely different from File:Greatarmssmall.PNG though: argent (or azure), two chamois horns sable ajar. De728631 (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no - that's the [de:Fürstentum Lichtenberg], which was an "exclave" of Saxe-Coburg - it was so remote from their base of operations that they sold it off.Yngvadottir (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

For reference, the blazon of File:Greatarmssmall.PNG would be: or, an eagle sable, clawed and tongued red, legs and beak or, with a coronet or [note: this alone is a violation of traditional German heraldry which prohibits the use of two metals upon each other]; a mantling gules and ermine with a prince's hat. De728631 (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• '*Keep provided some more referencing is added. Peridon (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Just noticed that the AfD nom comes from the creator of the article. Apart from which, I quote from the About Us page of the Official Website: "The Fürstentum Lichtenberg Foundation was founded in March 2010 by Prince Maximilian to manage the Principality financially and universally to bridge the gaps between the Government, Princely House, and the people of Lichtenberg. The foundation handles donations to keep Lichtenberg tax free." My first thought is 'Who are they trying to kid?'... The only Germanic Principality in political existence is the Fürstentum Liechtenstein (interesting similarity of name), which is not tax free, however. I do wonder how many of the 'people of Lichtenberg' know about their young prince. I suggest looking at the application form for 'citizenship' (which makes reference to the State Secretary for the Interior' and to the 'Sovereign Prince' (and I note that one of the two places your info will be stored is on a "flash dive" (sic) in the Interior Office). Possibly a new micronation? Possibly not... Peridon (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a ((db-hoax)). De728631 (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 23:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Searching for sources, I kept running into other Lichtenbergs - but zero on this house. So I have to conclude that they are not notable. Either that or the info is seriously wrong. This DAB page on de.wikipedia lists numerous places called Lichtenberg, and several castles, and leads to a whole additional DAB page for Burg Lichtenberg, including the castle at the Bavarian Lichtenberg. There was a Principality of Lichtenberg, but it was at the other end of Bavaria and the territory is now partly in Saarland, partly in Rhineland-Palatinate. It came into existence in 1816 and received both the designation as a principality and the Lichtenberg name in 1819. There is also a former Alsatian House of Lichtenberg, first mentioned in the 12th century, which died out in the male line in the 15th century, after which the name continues through the Counts of Hanau-Lichtenberg. These Lichtenbergs and their Burg Lichtenberg are quite prominent online and in Google Books, but I just can't find the family this article refers to, in either German or English. So possibly there is some confusion with one of the other Lichtenberg locations or histories, but unless that is the case, I find no evidence of notability. Those with expertise in heraldry and documentation of nobility may find something, but I haven't. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't claim to be an expert in heraldry or genealogy but I have been into my own family's history and a possible coat of arms so I can tell that there is something totally wrong with this article. And as German nobility have always been quite aware of their heritage I do wonder why it would have been necessary to contact the Bavarian state archive for details only 100 years after leaving the country. De728631 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note from the [4] page that this principality was in the possession of a familiar dynasty for Brits - (as we call it) Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (or probably some variant of that - they got a bit complicated at times). And, unless I read it wrongly, the principality was sold to Prussia in 1834 (subject to a ground rent of 80,000 thalers annually. (I am open to correction on this.) Peridon (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Yngvadottir's research. The only source is the one-page website, hosted in the US, which is still talking about a "Princely House" of Lichtenberg although that claim has been retracted here. This looks extremely dodgy - I note that the website is inviting "donations". At best, this seems to be an attempt at self-promotion to the nobility. JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: a whois lookup for the domain reveals that the site is registered to a certain Mr. J. Langel. The article Maximilian Graf von Lichtenberg by User:Lichtenberger states that Maximilian von Lichtenberg is the son of Marie von Langel. You don't simply invent a von nor do you leave it away if you're a member of true German nobility (who would certainly not fall for such attempts of self-promotion because they know their peers). Furthermore: "Registrant Organization: Lichtenburg". Burg or berg? Sounds all the same in English, so who cares? De728631 (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Oh dear. There's another one. The Principality of Lichtenberg ruled by HSH Princess Maya - and this one has an airline! http://www.principalityoflichtenberg.org/page4.html Peridon (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You can see what that one's up to: "The Sovereign may grant honourary status vis-a-vis diplomatic appointments, grant chivalric orders, titles, or other ranks of nobility or distinction" - in return for a fee, no doubt. Perhaps this one hopes to go into the same business, but it might turn competitive... JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 6 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 The result was Delete---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Mizusawa[edit]

Bert Mizusawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

An article about a candidate for a nomination in Virgina with a classic case of WP:COI. Only real editors are the people he is paying to promote him by creating this article. Rohedin ^TALK 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm responding to this correctly, but I hope you do not delete the Bert Mizusawa article. I'm a volunteer trying to help out, and don't know how else to create a wiki page without using the information from the campaign. I'm happy to re-do, but would love some guidance! (I'm new at this!) Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Va02GOP (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By any chance are you also User:BertMizusawaForCongress? Rohedin ^TALK 20:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (no opinion) The claim of "one of the Army’s most highly decorated officers" is over the top but his Silver Star citation [5] is impressive. It has been mentioned in Joint Security Area for years. East of Borschov (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not realize that the nominator supports Soviet Communism [6], so the Korean argument quite likely worked agains Mr. Mizusawa. But I would like to see evidence of the money paid as stated in the nomination. East of Borschov (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• possibly notable, but a severe COI case; this is also not new text; an almost identical posting appears at: http://www.warriortown.com/3/miscellaneous3.htm. Speedy delete as copyvio unless someone comes up with a neutral non-copyvio rewrite. Hairhorn (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete copyright permission is claimed, so that's not a reason for deletion. But the text can;t be used anyway without considerable rewriting, for as observed, it's extremely promotional. I;d normally simply rewrite, but I see no sign he's notable; he will be, in my opinion, if her wins the Republic nomination but not otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, with coverage in google news and google books. (Note that many matches in google books do not show in the above find sources links because he has a middle initial: [7], [8] Reduce text to what is sourceable from the reliable sources cited. --JN466 15:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also redirect to Bert K. Mizusawa. --JN466 15:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Happy to see it re-created if he wins the nomination and the full election. Codf1977 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Codf1977. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep: I'd say that he has the notability to keep per WP:MILPEOPLE (and possibly as a political candidate), but the COI, POV, and just horribly advertorial writing needs to be corrected, or my vote shifts to Delete. Serious work is needed. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep: go with bahamut0013, person notable, article poor. Dewritech (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice or stubify - I think that the individual is notable (for his military service, not particularly for participating in a 6-way primary). I think that it should be stubbed and written by someone not from his campaign, though. (Full disclosure: I live in Virginia, though not in his district. I had never heard of him, though, and I usually think of myself as politically aware. I didn't have a particular preference in the primary, though I considered essentially a done deal that Scott Rigell would win it.) --B (talk) 22:58, 9 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 21:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of schizophrenic fictional characters[edit]

List of schizophrenic fictional characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Completely unreferenced, speculative WP:OR. Many entries probably added by people who don't know what schizophrenia is. I am only familiar with one of these characters, River Tam, who AFAIK displays nothing even close to schizophrenia. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete apart from the already mentioned reasons above, Wikipedia does not need a list like this.--Spoon Maniac (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete I mean, really? What's next? List of smoking fictional characters, List of lazy fictional characters, List of fat fictional characters. I don't think so.--_Gordon41 20:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting vote of indef-blocked sockpuppeteer. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 03:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 23:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ah, the good old "what's next?" argument. Fortunately, nothing came next for this 2007-vintage unsourced, uninteresting bullshit list of names. Mandsford 01:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 3 of the characters articles mention this 'diagnosis', but there are no references to support this (except for maybe one). one character had the diagnosis removed by the company marketing it after complaints from the APA. see, thats the problem. WE cant diagnose, the creator must state the character is (even if the character doesnt show accurate symptoms), or the other characters in the fictional world refer to them as such, or the character says "i am a schizophrenic". just cause a character is different in some way that people think means schizophrenia, dont make it so for fictional characters. they dont exist. remember? all we know is what is said about them. there is a lot true about me that is not said by me or others, because i am real, and this info could one day be sourced if i was notable and someone could figure it out. (at least i think i am).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if the list were more clearly defined ('as diagnosed by x'), it's still not an encyclopedia article. First Light (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft. I know it isn't that long, but considering there is no lead section, it seems like the article exists just for the purpose of being an unsourced list. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 01:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Maddog Williams in the Dungeons of Duridian[edit]

The Adventures of Maddog Williams in the Dungeons of Duridian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Magazine sources are available on the Amiga Magazine Rack, [9]. Someoneanother 04:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per findings of Someone another --Teancum (talk) 16:01, 8 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. Tone 21:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Élie de Rothschild[edit]

Élie de Rothschild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Repairing a malformed nomination; User:Nineteen Nightmares, the original nominator, had recopied the entire article into this page with a prod template at the top. His reasoning was that subject has done nothing of note, with the exception of having been born into an extremely wealthy banking family, having of course "run" one of the family's many businesses. The rest of the article talks about his time in the army and private family life, with little to no public value. This is strictly a procedural nomination to repair a user error; no vote from me. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I won't be nominating anything more for a while. My first time, had to go wrong I suppose. Anyway, thanks for the assist. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Ninteeen Nightmares[reply]

• Keep. Apparently notable enough to merit lengthy obits in The Telegraph, The Independent, and The Los Angeles Times. The London Times obituary claims he revived Chateau Lafite after the Second World War. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - four obits from four major newspapers. Bearian (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: person notable, here the artikle in French Wiki. Dewritech (talk) 19:50, 9 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) 00:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lilystars Records[edit]

Lilystars Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable record label. Repeated contested CSD A7. GregJackP (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Dmol (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added references from major broadsheets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.203.234.135 (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I moved this from where it had been inappropriately added (at the start of the nom) to the correct spot (chronological order). Had it not been in the nom area, and thereby confusing the issue, I would have left it where posted. GregJackP (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems to fail WP:ORG Codf1977 (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Couldn't find any reliable sources, and seems to be non-notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:08, 11 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.

Revised verdict to Delete based upon [[10]]. Most of the keeps, particularly at the end of the discussion, which helped sway the final outcome have been determiend to be either sock or meat puppets of the page founder. In his defense at the SPI investigation, Dmartinaus wrote, It is a stressful position to be in when it's YOUR business reputation on the line (and this Wikipeida site and the editing process pops up regularly on Gogle Alerts), and when YOU are the one being accused of truly astounding falsehoods. Well, the article would have probably been deleted without the puppetry to begin with and if he is worried about his public persona, then leaving an article on Wikipedia which is directly tied to his puppetry/misconduct here will only highlight the unethical behavior he has exhibited. Deleting the article won't remove it from the wikiclones and it won't hide the other stuff that has transpired, but oh well.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the unusual circumstances surrounding this case, I'm sending it to DRV for review. I'm leaving it deleted, but will have others look at it and agree or disagree with my verdict.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep Marginal notability, but enough to be kept... plus, the trend seems to be in that direction. While the person who claims to be Don, and I have no reason to doubt him, does not want the article to be deleted, if he changed his mind I would support his desire (after proving his identity) but as he supports keeping it and the consensus supports that as well, I think the result is a clear keep.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don Martin (public affairs)[edit]

Don Martin (public affairs) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable local PR figure; good reason to suspect this of being autobiographical (or created at his behest and with his involvement) Orange Mike | Talk 18:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly notable, this was addressed in detail at Talk:Don Martin (public affairs), numerous references, both already included in article and that are not yet cited. Concur that this article is either WP:AB or at the least WP:COI, however neither of these are valid reasons for deletion if the subject is notable. For disclosure purposes, I have edited the Lawsuit section of the article and participated extensively in talk page discussions. GregJackP (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per prior consensus: There has already been a discussion about the notability of this article, as well as a detailed discussion on the article later, involving several (at least 6) editors without any further mention of an issue of notability. There is a long list of reliable sources which firmly establish the article's notability, which is why the "notable" template was removed from the article several days ago. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this article has also gone through the Request for Comment process and was listed at the AN/I board. The reviewing admin did not question the notability of the article. GregJackP (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Article reads like a resume for his company as much as the loads of droll biographical blather is nearly meaningless to the average reader. In other words, who cares about some PR firm or its egotistical owner? Notable or not, this type of article doesn't have any business being on Wikipedia. I also have to wonder with all the "keeps" that have popped up so far, do we have a sock, or perhaps some other individuals close to the article that are trying to weigh it in favor or keep? It smells like fish in here. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Allegedly reading like a resume is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. Please be aware that BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, not just articles, and describing the article subject as "its egotistical owner" is unacceptable. Please refrain from insulting named, living people or you will be blocked. Sarah 02:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The claim that the subject is an "author" is dubious at best. In reality, he published a book of old postcards. I'd hardly call that authorship, maybe not even much editorship. Once again, that fishy smell is in the air. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

• Undecided. I'm not sure I care one way or the other, however I can positively assure you that the two editors above have no relationship to, familiarity with or concerns for the subject of the article. The extensive and much heated debate ove the lawsuit section shows their lack of concern (no offense intended here)about the reputation or future of Martin. There was some discussion of the need to "fill out" some of the prior sections to blance the lawsuit paragraph, so this morning I added a list of organizations taken from the subject website. I will now revert those since that may be part of what triggered your concern. But the decision on the notability is up to other editors, including those above as well as others, and not me. Austin3301 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, I do take great exception to your rude, unneccessary and snide comments about the author section. Arcadia Press is an estblished independent press (not a vanity press) and the book is legititmate. It is available on Amazon, Borders, Barnes&Noble on-line as well as in their stores, local museums, etc. It is a valued Austin history book and not "a book of old postcards." Get your facts straight and stop being offensive and rude with your uneducated and biased personal opions. Personal POV and most certainly personal attacks do not have a place here. Austin3301 (talk)

I see that the organizations have already been removed which is fine. I do not agree with Nightmare's slash editing of the opening paragraph which is part of what constitutes notability, and therefore I have reverted it back. What do others think? Austin3301 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The "slash editing" you refer to was intended to improve the article as the opening sentence should lay out the subject in a quick and concise way, without padding. The items you have included in the opening paragraph are repeated ad nauseum in the article, so they are duplicitous and I included that in my reason for editing. A reversion does not make it look encyclopedic, it makes it look like you are trying too hard. My only intent on Wikipedia is to weed out non notables and help to improve bad articles on good subjects so they can be retained. I do not even know this man. But my feeling is that the article is a vanity piece and in no way beneficial to the general reader on Wiki. That is my opinion and I have stated it. There is nothing personal here, even if you took it that way. Why are you taking one editor's opinion as such a personal affront, if I might ask? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

• Comment - Nineteen Nightmares - I would caution you to be very careful before accusing an editor or editors of sockpuppetry. I noted that you have recently starting editing so I would, assuming good faith, believe that you have not taken to the time to read the Talk:Don Martin (public affairs). If you had done so, you would have seen that the main proponent of the article (and the one that probably has a WP:COI) was on one side of an argument on the lawsuit section and both Giftiger & I were on the other side, along with several other editors. I would strongly recommend that you read the talk page before making any other accusations of fishy aromas. As to notability, please check the standards of WP:GNG - there are 28 references listed and several that had been removed in the content dispute reselution process. There is plenty more that hasn't been added to the article to show notability, including a series of articles on Martin's representation during the discussion of a possible sale of Austin's city owned utility company and other controversies. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As the subect of the article (Martin) I am offering an opinion here on the talk page only, where it is alllowed. I have no problem with deletion of the site. What started out as someone entirely unrelated to me starting the original site in a positive manner has turned into a lie-awake-at-night nightmare for me. I'm an Austin-area-only public affairs consultant who, like many such consultants, sometimes take on highly controversial subjects. The prospect (referred to above by GregJackP) of having each and every one drug out through heated battles like was done with the lawsuit is terribly unfortunate, distressing and unnecessarily damaging without the ture story ever being told. (Especially when the cite and "facts" used for such attacks is likely to be a local counter-culture weekly and not a mainstream newspaper) Quite frankly I'm just not that notable. I work city issues, not legislative issues, and I do a heck of a lot of good work in the community, and have many excellent references aong the leaders of the community references. The direction of this site, for reasons I do not understand, is now apparently aimed at permanently damaging my reputation, my livilihood, my friends and clients, and most of all my family. And for no reason other than someone started a simple site deveoted to saying positive -- mostly resume-like -- things about me. Dmartinaus (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong, speedy keep -- Likely created at the behest of the subject matter, but the subject has been vetted, and balancing information has been added and discussed in a vigorous debate over the course of several days. An admin has contributed to the article via proposed draft of lawsuit section. Several non-interested editors, including myself, have participated in editing the article and balancing its content for neutrality. The subject is clearly notable when held against the Wiki criteria for notability. Reliable coverage here: [11] [12] [13][14] etc. -- Minor4th (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GregJack has kindly pointed out to me that I should not have commented on deletion of the page to which I am the subject. I apologize as I thought (obviously incorrectly) that I could add material to the talk page for editors to consider. One must admit that trying to keep up with all the rules here is a daunting task. Thanks (I mean it) to Greg for letting me know. But as you can see above it is a touchy subject for me and I appear to be in for a constant continuing barrage of attacks. Dmartinaus (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don, you are most welcome to comment on the deletion discussion. As the article subject, you're entitled to make a comment here. The Conflict of Interest guideline only advises that article subjects be careful about how they contribute to such discussion, it certainly doesn't prohibit a reasoned comment from the subject. You have been open about who you are and your comments to this page have been very reasonable and are most welcome. Sarah 02:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete on what grounds? While autobiographies are discouraged, it is still possible for the subject of an article or an affiliate to write a neutral article about the subject. Not all articles with a COI should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with C.Fred. "Autobiographical" is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it and certainly not to speedy it. We do accept autobiographies here. We discourage it because most people have great difficulty writing about themselves in a policy compliant manner, but if someone does write a neutral, verifiable and policy-compliant article about themselves or a subject with which they have a COI, we will accept it. I'm also not so sure that this is actually an autobiography. Looking at the article history, it seems that the few edits made by the subject have been completely rewritten by other editors. Sarah 02:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The subject himself has apparently weighed in and is in favor of deletion for personal reasons. That's a fairly good reason for a speedy. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
• Comment - A subject approving or requesting deletion of an article about himself is not reason for a speedy delete, and it is not even reason for deletion, period. Please review WP:CSD, WP:BLP, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, which states:

If you create an autobiography you must have no promotional intent and must be willing to accept it being neutralized if it is not neutral, or even deleted if it comes to that. If you do turn out to be notable, you must expect the article to stay—you cannot just get it deleted because you are not happy with it. Our neutral point of view policy is absoluteand non-negotiable, and all encyclopedic topics are fair game for Wikipedia.

Minor4th (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not correct. We certainly can and do take into account the views of the article subject. We're not obliged to honor them but we do take them under advisement. This is especially the case for non-public figures who are of borderline notability (which would seem to be the case here). This is covered by the deletion policy, specifically: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." Sarah 02:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment -- although I think the article should stay, mostly because I participated in an ongoing discussion that resulted in a consensus, everyone involved in editing should be extra cautious about the content and keep in mind that Don Martin's real life is affected by what is written. Negative info should be presented with extreme sensitivity toward neutrality. To Dmartinaus (talk), I imagine this process is very stressful, but a cold reading of the article about you does not paint you in a negative light or portray you as a bad guy, in the balance. You're a big name in PR, and there is nothing in the article that is not available elsewhere on the internet for anyone to read. It does not reflect poorly on your family, and I see nothing about the article that would damage your clients or your reputation. It is clear you have controversial clients -- why else would they need a PR consultant? Try not to lose sleep because it is not as negative as you perceive. I don't think anyone is trying to harm you. Peace. Minor4th (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate section copied from a user talk page removed. This discussion is for comments directly relevant to the AfD process only. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Bowing Out. It sounds like the decision to keep the article is pretty much decided in that it takes an overriding majority to delete an article (or the decision of an administrator). But in fact an administrtor actually helped write portions of the piece. Even if tagged for speedy delete, any one editor can prevent that.

In addition, I have to admit that I have perhaps been too close to the situtation and subject, and at times too emotional, to have been offering my own opinion so strongly. However, all edits and the article have been throughly vetted (boy is that an understatement!) and re-edited in many cases by others. Certainly no one person got their way in these very difficult debates. It was collaborative (and at times quite heated) procecss. If there is need for any additional cleanup then by all means go ahead.

So with GregJackP retiring, I will take this as my opportunity to bow out as well. I would suggest and politely ask that some other editor now remove both tags, and to archive and organize the lawsuit discussion (Sections 1, 6, 9 and 10 PLUS the separate subpage re the lawsuit language paraagraph - all into one lawsuit archive). And meanwhile I will henceforth cease all editing. Signing off. Austin3301 (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I have some time, I will do just that. I noticed many, many references, but references are supposed to be DIRECTLY about the subject, not about his book, business or anything else that does not primarily focus on HIM as the subject of the article. Any URLs in the list that do not mention him explicitly will be removed. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Re comment above PS -- by "clean up" I did not mean whacking off references. I meant the Wikipedia process of "cleaning up" the article to ensure no indication of bias, personal point of view, or non-neutral tone. Austin3301 (talk)

Leave references as is - Policy dictates a well-referenced article to show notability. Since you are arguing notability issues it would be highly inappropriate for you to remove references. From Notability section "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple sources from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." I recommend no removals without general agreement of the editors already involved. If you have suggestions, Nightmare, then show how the ref does not specifically involve the subject. References on the book, for example, (with the exception of the Amazon link), appear to be articles about the process of writing the book and interviews of him, not reviews of the book itself, therefore they appropriately support the subject of the article. For heaven's sake, Nightmare, how can anyone write about a person and not write about his company, or a book he has written? You have a very strange sense of what references are intended to do. All of these many references appear to me to be well sourced and to the point.4804BT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Policy also dictates that controversial edits be discussed on the talk page. As has been stated repeatedly, this article has had extensive discussions on most areas of the article, primarily due to the WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NPOV issues. GregJackP (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2010

• Move page? - shouldn't this page be moved to Don Martin, Austin Texas instead of Don Martin (public affairs). The latter appears more as an advertisement for his company which I assume was not intended since I see that another editor moved it here. 4804BT (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment that is another area of contention. It started out as public affairs, following a discussion based on the same concerns you mentioned (advert) it was moved to Austin, then the admin who initiated this afd moved it back, citing naming conventions (mos). I have no opinion on that, and it's not all that important in an afd (as compared to notability) GregJackP (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove Afd? There's been a lenghty discussion. Obviously there are several unrelated editors in favor of keeping the aticle. Can the Afd tag be removed now? Agree? 4804BT (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion?[edit]

• Wrap up??? Disclosure: I am the subject of the article. I have also made edits over time (although those edits were mostly reversed and the CIO issue has been thoroughly discussed). My goal at this point is to get a relatively quick resolution of the issues. 1) Whether the page is deleted re Notability or not (I will stay out of this on-going discussion although I lean toward keeping it); and 2) terminating the tag re CIO. It appears to mr that both isues have now been throughly vetted both here and on the article talk page. This discussion has now gone on a considerable length of time. If I may ask, can we please decide one way or another and let's remove the tags, or delete the article entirely. It appears to me that editor Sarah above(no relation to me of any kind) perhaps has the best handle on these issues. Thank you. Dmartinaus (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It usually takes about seven days for the review process to complete and then a supervising editor will make the final determination one way or another. Since it was nommed on June 5 and it is only the 7th, there is still about 5 days before the final tally is made and anything concrete done. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

• Keep, but with reservations. As the subject of the article I have vacillated over this quite a bit. I guess I favor keep but I have reservations still about the added lawsuit section, as you can imagine. I suppose I would like to see some other areas fleshed out for added balance. I'll leave the final decision to others to decide. Dmartinaus (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep On balance, I think the varied aspects make him probably notable. The one that I think is clearest is codeveloper of Legi/Slate, important software about which we ought to have an article. There are some comments above that I do not agree with: first, articles about a person's work or publications are of course relevant to his notability--in almost all cases, it is peoples' work that is what make them notable, not the details of their personal biography, though the sources do have to discuss him in the context of that work. My view of the book is that though it can certainly be mentioned, it is not sufficient for notability as an author. As for BLP considerations, I am not sure I consider him a private figure--as he says above--a PR consultant will necessarily be involved in controversial matters. But the section on the lawsuit must mention that he was removed from the case, which proceeded only against the company-- as written, it gives the exact opposite impression. I'm not sure of the exact wording to use, but I restored a wording used earlier. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --- DGG, I agree that the book itself does not confer notability. But I looked it up (see external link to a book-related site) and it is definitely a legitimate book. It is sold on Amazon for example. It is not self-published or a vanity press book. Apparently it helps fill in an important gap in Austin history and was well received by the reviewers. I mean....how often does anyone write a book? I agree, however, that it does not need any additional mention beyond what is already written in the book section currently. Also, the recent change to list clients in a tabular form is too obtrusive. I am going to revert them back in in-line text or some other more appropriate listing. Jessi0421 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • clarification - vanity press books are generally nominally available on Amazon and through distributors, just as self-issued garage band songs are often available on iTunes; neither is evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are that concerned please see Arcadia Press at [| Arcadia] who publishes a Postcard History series of cities around the United States, among other book series. I was paid an advance and a healthy percentage of sales (as opposed to a vanity press where the author pays to have it printed). The book is available on Amazon, Borders, Books-a-million, Hastings, Barnes&Noble and other on-line sites as well as in their physical stores -- a tremendous rarity for a vanity book. ISBN 9780738570679. $21.99 It is very much a legitimate book and was well received in Austin as noted above by others. You can order one from Arcadia at: [[15]] and I'll sign it for you. Dmartinaus (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Here's a link to newspaper and independent book editor reviews on the Arcadia website: [| Press reviews] Dmartinaus (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Even if we all agree -- which I don't -- that the book does not confer notability wouldn't it still be mentioned as it is a significant activity related to the article subject? And noted with citations? (Don Martin) Dmartinaus (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep . . . . 'nuff said. 4804BT (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, after getting to this from the Nineteen Nightmares unblock situation. It seems to me that Mr. Martin is regionally notable. The sources would be impeccable proof of notability if this were the Austin-area wiki. But it's not.

  Austin may be the Texas state capital, and home to the main campus of its state university, but it's still only the fourth-largest city in the state. Now that might not preclude notability if, say, Mr. Martin was active in state politics, even though he is not nor has ever been an elected official. But ... if he were, I'd expect the Dallas, Houston and San Antonio newspapers, or other news outlets, to have mentioned his name in some non-trivial way, and for those non-trivial mentions to be among the sources cited. As Mr. Martin notes above he has been active in local affairs but not state ones. Therefore I don't believe a state-level threshold of notability has been met. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 12 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 My Little Pony (TV series). T. Canens (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony (pilot episode)[edit]

My Little Pony (pilot episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This My Little Pony episode was originally called "Rescue from Midnight Castle" and was eventually renamed "Firefly's Adventure". Searching separately with these two titles has resulted in the discovery of an insufficient number of sources to demonstrate notability. Neelix (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. As notable as hell. This was (a) before my time (b) something I am no expert or even a fan of and I know better than that.--Spoon Maniac (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I wonder if Spoon Maniac's reaction is predicated on assuming this AfD is nominating "My Little Pony" as a whole. It's not. It's nominating the pilot. Given that "My Little Pony" doesn't have a robust episode-by-episode listing, and there's nothing particularly distinguishable about the pilot that sets it apart as an exemplar of the series, I don't see any reason the material couldn't be merged into the series' entry. WCityMike 00:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. I know this is just the pilot. And my !vote still stands.--Spoon Maniac (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well,given that AfD's not a vote but a exchange of rationales, mind going into further detail as to why the pilot's notable? WCityMike 01:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say vote, I said !vote.--Spoon Maniac (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Its fails notability as wikipedia states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Therefore it should be Deleted or merged like My Little Pony 'n Friends which I feel should suffer a similar fate. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have no trouble finding significant coverage and have cited some. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where? I see the date it aired is sourced, the fact that it was sold on VHS is sourced, and that it is considered the pilot is sourced. None of that is "significant coverage" by definition of WP:NOTE (since NOTE spells out the definition pretty well).
• Merge - Merge all relevant info. Nothing on here screams "I need a separate page". My Little Pony is notable. Now, whether the pilot episode of the animated series is notable is still questionable. Right now, it doesn't show that. I would delete "My Little Pony (pilot episode)" simply because it's the incorrect name for the page per WP:NCTV, as it should just be plain "episode" as a disambiguation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - agree with Bignole (as usual). Eusebeus (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - Shouldn't it be Pilot (My Little Pony)? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Little to ne notability that requires or benefits the reader with an individual article. Off2riorob (talk) 01:42, 13 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) 00:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Nick Nasty[edit]

Mr Nick Nasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject sufficient to establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:ENT. J04n(talk page) 17:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can find no significant coverage in reliable sources or anything that suggests he meets the various notability guidelines.--BelovedFreak 00:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 00:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 03:05, 6 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) 00:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Forehand[edit]

John Forehand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

WP:Not news Marcus Qwertius (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Scum, but not notable scum. Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 10 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 (non-admin closure) Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal velocity[edit]

Vocal velocity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable high school choir, contested PROD Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per A7. Tagged as such. Should have been speedied from the very start. DarkAudit (talk) 21:18, 5 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) 00:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Kibria Khaki[edit]

Ghulam Kibria Khaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable autobiography; declined speedy; contested prod (although I didn't tag as either). Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails wp:N and wp:V. No sources provided, doesn't meet the notability criteria for authors (WP:AUTHOR). Maashatra11 (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 01:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emmeline Hill[edit]

Emmeline Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Only one of many authors of a single peer-reviewed article. Subject has not been covered by external media, only the article has, this subject does not meet WP:GNG. Drdisque (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and not just about this one article, so she meets WP:BIO: Irish Times, Irish Independent, RTE television, ABC radio. Qwfp (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Qwfp, although some explanation in the article on the other parts of her notability would be in order. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per widespread enough coverage. First Light (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:ACADEMIC, has made a significant impact in her field, has widespread coverage in various sources, etc. WP:SNOWBALL. Maashatra11 (talk) 08:23, 10 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 Drip tape. JForget 01:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T-Tape[edit]

T-Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

A how-to guide for a supposed method of foreskin restoration. All foreskin restoration topics are seriously fringe to begin with, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and this article has no reliable sources addressing notability or the correctness of the information presented, though it does have some low-value external links. Prod template was removed by an IP whose other recent edits have not improved the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Drip tape. T-tape (tm) is an agricultural drip tape sold by John Deere, and this what most g-hits say. As for the present-day "content", why should wikipedia promote self-healing-mutilation-andothernonsense? East of Borschov (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of this usage, but it appears legitimate to me. I have no personal objection to such a redirect, provided consensus agrees with you of course. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect per East of Borschov. I could find only two printed sources that even mention the subject. Both of these sources are borderline — the first being a chapter in an anti-circumcision activist publication called "Male and Female Circumcision", and the second being a patent application. I did not evaluate the depth of coverage in these sources, as I regard the small number of sources to be evidence of lack of notability by itself. Jakew (talk) 09:11, 6 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. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movie jamUP[edit]

Movie jamUP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable film that is not on IMDb, contested PROD Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as hoax. Three Google hits, all of them Wikipedia. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 5 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 I reviewed most of the links provided by the people calling for keeping this guy. The links fell into one of two categories. First, most of them dealt with the fact that he was the spokesperson/chairman for various presidential candidates. Being a spokesperson, while high profile, does not make one notable. Second, many of the articles dealt with the fact that he is the grandson of a former VP does not make him notable. Again, this is not grounds for keeping.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Humphrey[edit]

Buck Humphrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. Person does not seem to meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN, and notability is not inherited from his grandfather. Unsuccessful candidacy for a state office and work in state campaigns for presidential candidates aren't sufficient to establish notability. Relevant Google News hits seem to deal with his unsuccessful run for office or with decisions not to run for other offices. Current position seems to be as a communications officer for a federal agency. Deor (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable subject. Nom's arguments appear to be correct. Subject has done nothing of particular note and relation to another more famous individual does not merit the subject's inclusion here. We do not need a list of government employees on Wiki! Wah! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ironholds (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The references and links within the article are enough to meet the minimum requirement of significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. He worked as the election director for Minnesota for both Gore and Mrs. Clinton, and also made his own (failed) attempt to be elected Secretary of State, and references are shown for all of these facts. But what put it over the top for me was this [16] 2007 reliable and independent source that addressed the subject of Buck Humphrey directly and in detail. That meets WP:GNG and thats a keep. Inniverse (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A blog. A city newspaper. Another blog. And the website of his employer, which is about as independent and third party as the republicans are moral. Ironholds (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as sock of Azviz.—Kww(talk) 16:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I spent way too much time looking over this article myself. I would have to say that this particular individual is just at the cusp of what might be considered notable, independent of his namesakes that were also politicians. I think in this case perhaps the article is premature. He may end up somebody of some stature and notability, but isn't there yet. If/when he achieves some notable elected position or appointment to office, it would be useful to keep the article but not until then. BTW, I don't mind that the reference to his father and grandfather are in the article, which is something of note about him that does impact voter perception about him as well. The issue is that by itself that isn't something of note other than as a footnote in articles about his father and grand father. The Skip Humphrey article perhaps could be expanded slightly or re-organized to have a section about his children, and including a reference to Buck Humphrey's political ambitions. That shouldn't be more than a sentence or two at most. --Robert Horning (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of news mention of him. [17] For his failed run for political office, for helping others in their campaigns, and for his DWI arrest. Dream Focus 19:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hubert (Buck) Humphrey IV announces run for secretary of state Minneapolis Star-Tribune - NewsBank - Dec 6, 2001
• GOP makes Buck Humphrey face up to DWI arrests;Star Tribune -Oct 16, 2002
• Minnesota campaign, 30-year-old Buck Humphrey says he's staying … Minneapolis Star-Tribune - NewsBank - Aug 17, 2000
• Bill Clinton's Minnesota fundraising stop canceled Minneapolis Star-Tribune - NewsBank - May 22, 2008 [18] Have to pay for full article, but they quote him as Hillary Clinton's campaign manager in Minnesota on occasion.
• Over 200 results right there to sort through. The ones from the year 2000 onward are from him, you able to easily look through it. All the results require you to pay for the full article, so just read through the title and summaries and you can confirm he has gotten adequate coverage not just for his run for office and things involved in it, but also being campaign manager for Hillary Clinton. Dream Focus 03:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NOTNEWS. Location (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Improve: Not sure how the AfD got this far with no one noticing that the subject was appointed to a high level executive U.S. agency position last fall. But I fixed up and added a few cites, and I see there is more improvement that can be done. Has been the subject of significant coverage on multiple occasions.--Milowent (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting find. If you take into account all the various branches of the US government, there are about a gazillion schedule C appointees. There are quite a few similar level positions with the USCIS: [19]. I'm curious to know how notable his position is if there isn't any discussion about him or the office. Is there precedent for this in other notability discussions? Location (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. I see, as you did, that he is listed among the "leadership" of that large U.S. Government agency, but he is one of a number of people. I see him being quoted as a spokesperson for the agency in the press, so he is likely the lead press relations person for the agency. Perhaps not enough for notability by itself, but its an added plus.--Milowent (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Not sure how the AfD got this far with no one noticing ..."? Did you actually read the nomination, Milowent—the last sentence in particular? Deor (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, guess i missed that. I couldn't imagine someone wouldn't update the article--Milowent (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete currently fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO generally, due to lack of multiple significant WP:RS, etc. Verbal chat
• Delete - Just on the cusp of failing WP:POLITICIAN, but a fail nonetheless. Recreate the article in a year or two if the subject does something which passes WP:POLITICIAN. SnottyWong talk 22:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The press is clearly following his career and he operates in Democratic big leagues even if he as a candidate hasn't held high office. A quick check of the amount of coverage [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] shows far more than required for notability in any field. He is mentioned in press across the country including, but certainly not limited to: USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, The Sacramento Bee, St. Paul Pioneer, Star Tribune, Duluth News Tribune, Toledo Blade, Minnesota Daily, Grand Forks Herald, The Daily Journal. Lineage may be partly the reason but he has some national prominence. Eudemis (talk) 03:47, 11 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. obvious consensus/near unanimous for keeping the article JForget 01:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manatee Palms Youth Services[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Manatee Palms Youth Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Failing to meet WP:N, WP:CORP Joe routt (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, how does it fail WP:CORP? -Regancy42 (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no inherent notability. The facility has been around for years, yet the article was created less than a month ago, apparently with the purpose of cataloging its audits. Joe routt (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. AFD is not cleanup. The article needs works and does have POV issues, but that's not an argument for deletion and there appear to be plenty of references covering a period of years that seem sufficient to meet WP:N. It looks like the Criticism section needs review for WP:UNDUE, tho. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clear notability with multiple reliable sources. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is one other article on a Florida psychiatric hospital (and one on a defunct chain of hospitals). A small hospital in a small city isn't notable no matter how you cut it. 97.67.16.26 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC) — 97.67.16.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• (edit conflict) Keep—to say that "a small hospital in a small city isn't notable no matter how you cut it" is simply untrue. Anyone and anything can be notable if they meet the relevant notability standard, and this page's several references strongly indicate that it does. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The references are to its criticisms, outside of which it is not notable. Criticism alone is not justification for an article. 97.67.16.26 (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC) — 97.67.16.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  So what? As long as there has been "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" – whether critical or overflowing with praise – the page meets WP:CORP. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 16:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article isn't notable outside its criticisms. Its existence seems to serve little more than a (quite POV) soapbox. Joe routt (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment to closing admin—the above comment is from the nominator, so please be sure you don't count their argument twice, since they have chosen to label it "delete" – ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 15:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closing admin—there have been suggestions of sockpuppetry in this discussion. See the SPI page and also this – ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 16:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not a sock. 97.67.16.26 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While most of the sources are useless for establishing notability, I see significant coverage in the Miami Herald article which is far enough away to be non-local, and the state of florida AHCA document (listed as Propublica) which is full of largely useless boilerplate, but still has 6.5 pages of deficiencies/hospital practices so I think that also qualifies. So while the only usable sources are basically about the same thing - the closing of the hospital - I still think that it squeaks by WP:CORP. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This clearly has multiple instances of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. This clearly meets WP:N. cmadler (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This will be my final comment. This article seems to be a case of WP:COAT. (I hadn't previously known about this classification.) I believe that this article exists only as a vehicle for criticism, and that if it does not pass the nomination for deletion (which I respectfully maintain that it should), that it must be significantly trimmed. Joe routt (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I tend to agree that it is a coatrack article. However, as Wikipedia:COAT#What to do about coatracks clearly states, fixing the problem is preferable to deletion. WP:COAT on its own is no reason to delete. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cmadler and others. Many references[31] I've reviewed a number of them and found sustained substantial coverage by regional reliable news sources over a period of time on multiple matters. The fact that most of the events that gave rise to the institution's notability are negative ones is not a criticism as such, it's just a series of negative events. Perhaps that comes with the territory of being a mental hospital, particularly a "troubled" one.[32] Although some of the negative items are probably not worth noting in such a short article there are more recent events (an involuntary closure, new claims of abuse, etc.) that are not yet treated in the article. The article has the potential to be a WP:COATRACK and we need to make sure all of this stuff is presented in neutral, encyclopedic form. That probably means getting rid of the "criticism" section in favor of a chronologically or thematically ordered structure. If the article is imbalanced, we can trim at the edges but rather than getting rid of any key events in the institution's history, it would be better to fill out the other sections with a reasonable account of the institution's founding, management, programs, finances, and so on. (note: I was alerted to this discussion by the AN/I report in question) - Wikidemon (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Normally a small for-profit hospital would not be notable, but this one has been the subject of significant reporting, mainstream and not just local, for some years. I think its current tone is adequately factual, balanced, and neutral. Since most of the reporting is about problems the hospital has had (with state regulators etc.), it's inevitable that the overall effect of the article will be negative. That's not a failure of neutrality; it's the state of nature, based on the sources given. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per cmadler and TreasuryTag. There's obviously significant coverage, and we can improve the article rather than delete it. —fetch·comms 00:24, 12 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 without objections to recreation There are a lot of claims to notability, but not a single reliable source. Looking at the sources provided by the nominator show that this guy did write a popular theme song, but none of the links showed independent notability. None of them were substantial about the subject... well there were a few, but they appear to be wiki-mirrors. If somebody wants to come back and recreate this with viable reliable sources, I would fully support recreation. But without real sources, and those I saw didn't support the claims herein (and letters/interviews with the author are not reliable sources) I have to delete.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Moss[edit]

Peter Moss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This musical composer/performer/director does not seem to meet WP:Notability or WP:NMUSIC. The article's claims to significance center around 3 works. I've included relevent searches here:

• Grange Hill [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]
• Stinkfoot, a Comic Opera [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]
• The Rocky Horror Show [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

No reliable sources found in any of these searches. Sources already in the article are dubious at best.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 14:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject appears to be notable in several ways, some unsourced and unreferenced, but one of the external links actually has some screenshots from a BBC interview with Moss. I'd say a keeper at this point. Appears to require some pretty heavy handed editing and cleanup of references, but should not be deleted unless no improvements are made in a reasonable timeframe. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

  Notability requires verifiable evidence. The external link is not on a reliable source, and we cannot use the existence of an interview to prove notability, which is requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". An interview would not be independent, and thus not usable for establishing notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalFascist (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - none of the claims can be verified by good sources. Peter Moss is also the name of a notable labor lawyer. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Since this person is actually notable, it seems to me a better idea to find good citations rather than just hit the delete button. It after a suitable time the citations are not forthcoming, then reconsider. As a newbie interested in musicals, especially British musicals, I was wondering why wiki itself (as noted by the person who wants to delete this article) aren't credibilty. If wiki hopes to maintain high standards, then surely a subject found in many other wiki articles than one devoted solely to that subject, would be credible. And if not, why not? Hasn't wikipedia reached that distinction? Musicalady (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read the above, WP:NRVE, claiming notability does not establish it.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of notability claimed, though I feel I detect some COI. Definitely in need of referencing, but only if that fails should deletion result. Peridon (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read the above, WP:NRVE, claiming notability does not establish it.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the rest of my post. Peridon (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the post - "Plenty of notability claimed" - this does not satisfy the WP:N guideline, because The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. There is no such evidence in this case, merely claims. "only if [referencing] fails should deletion result" - Referencing has failed, as no one has come forward to reference this article, which has existed for more than 3 years. WP:NTEMP: Notability is also not predictable. ...articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may meet the criteria in the future. As it does not currently meet the criteria, and you have offered no sources that would establish notability, the article is eligible for deletion according to our guidlines.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 22:23, 8 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) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carnalpedia[edit]

Carnalpedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

There is very little indication that the website meets the WP:GNG as the article on "PRWeb" is clearly just a press release for the website, and I have been unable to find a working link to "carnalpedia". Possible hoax or non-notable website. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 'Tis an odd one, this is. There are plenty of articles about the website on Google, even if from debatable sources, see here, here, and here, but the website itself refuses to load in my browser, even if all other pages do, and therefore I am suspicious as to whether it exists at all. Anyone else unable to load it? WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 14:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whois information for the carnalpedia.org domain name confirms that it is registered and seems to suggest that it has been quite active, but it's now listed as inactive. It seems like it may have burned out pretty quickly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, googling "Carnalpedia" reveals some sites claiming that the PR for the website was "premature", and supporting that it didn't make much of a "launch". It also seems that even the google caches of carnalpedia are not working. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Every possible way to check the uptime of a certain website fails — the subject is down, even a simple ping reports a 100% packet loss. — Zhernovoi (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom and [[User:Zhernovoi|— Zhernovoi]. Codf1977 (talk) 11:47, 7 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) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Scerri[edit]

Jason Scerri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 29th April 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can find no independent sources that show he's notable. Even his Australian Muay Thai title isn't independently sourced. Even if it was, it wouldn't show he passes WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Basically a nearly unsourced article that fails to show notability. I couldn't find evidence or sources to support a claim of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 17:19, 8 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) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tinkernut[edit]

Tinkernut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable. Deleted multiple times via A7. delete and salt UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another blogger? I don't see notability and the article reads like a homespun resume rather than a Wiki article. Needs lots of cleanup, both in references and content, to change to a keeper. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
• Delete I see nothing to suggest that this particular blogger is that notable. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Not seeing reliable sources with significant coverage. I can't even tell if it's supposed to be about the person or the website or the video series. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question are viral videos notable? How many views does it take for a video to qualify as viral (or notable)? This particular person has at least one video with over 2 million views plus some awards. The reason I didn't delete this article outright a month or two ago was the significant number of views. That and I'm not sure the coverage isn't significant. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  A viral video is only notable if reliable sources cover it, a certain number of views is a measure of popularity, but not necessarily notability. Obviously what amounts to significant coverage is subject to interpretation. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The article lists coverage, is that not significant? Rklawton (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  At least as I see it, almost all of the links from the article are either not independent sources (being the youtube site or the blog) or just links to the videos (unless I'm missing something), they don't actually talk about the blog/person/videos (as I said above, I can't tell which the article is supposed to be focusing on, but none of them really talk about any of them). The artician.com source has some actual coverage, but it's short and shallow, not what I would call significant coverage. If I am overlooking more coverage, please let me know. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• So why do you have to delete it? Can't we work together and try to improve the article and make it look and sound like a real Encyclopedia article. The article is a bit misunderstandable, but what exactly is it that is understood about it? Is it the misinterpretation of the Website and Blog? If it is I'll try and fix it up.Zaz986 (talk) 00:07, 8 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) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LiveGraph[edit]

LiveGraph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Qwfp (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Have checked Google News, Books & Scholar, but can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Some academic papers mention they've used it, but that's not significant coverage. Qwfp (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage from independent sources on Google, the only results appear to be download websites offering the program. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 14:42, 5 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, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 16:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Detachment Kit[edit]

The Detachment Kit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of this band. Their only releases are either self-released or on minor labels. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I would say that these qualify as significant coverage: Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, PioneerLocal, PopMatters, PopMatters, University Wire, Daily Herald, PopMatters, CMJ New Music Monthly, CMJ New Music Monthly, CMJ New Music Report, Allmusic bio, Allmusic review, Allmusic review. Further brief mentions: CMJ New Music Monthly, SPIN. SpinART isn't what I'd call a minor label - not a major but big enough to be noticed. The article needs a lot of work, but the sources are there to allow it be knocked into shape.--Michig (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Frenchkiss Records also seems to be too notable to be described as a minor label.--Michig (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Michig. Joe Chill (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nom per Michig, I should have seen those sources, feel free to close this Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:31, 6 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) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Arnautović[edit]

Daniel Arnautović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Daniel Arnautović is not notable as he never played in a fully-professional league. Matthew_hk tc 10:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 05:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 06:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article asserts its own non-notabilty. Only notability is through his brother Marko, but thats far from enought to merrit a seperate article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per above, article asserts non-notability clearly stating failure to make professional grade. No other claim to notability or significant coverage.--ClubOranje^T 07:12, 10 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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fluidic Energy[edit]

Fluidic Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article was prodded with reason WP:SOURCES. I think that for broader discussion we need AfD procedure instead. There could be also problems with notability. Beagel (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article - I am simply beside myself on this article, and I suppose that I should be putting a little bit more effort into gathering sources, but this is simply getting insane here. I came across this company in a couple of articles about energy production and noticed that there wasn't anything on Wikipedia about the company.... so in the spirit of "anybody can edit" I write up an article about that company and do a quick Google search to get some additional sources and information. The very first thing that happens is that the article gets nominated for speedy deletion when I write the first paragraph.

Seriously, this is simply getting insane and to me is a symptom of how awful and desperate the deletionist have become on this project. As for sources, look up Talk:Fluidic Energy and at least read the articles that are about this company.

What does it take, seriously, to write an article on this wiki anymore? Is the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia that a company must be in the Fortune 500 for notability? If there is a problem with the article.... fix it. I admit, "anybody can edit", but it is much harder to write something than it is to be a critic and assert nothing can be fixed. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a footnote here, see also WP:COMPANY for notability criteria for companies. This article does have more than one source, including "international" scope of attention including articles in both French and Russian that I've been able to dig up (mostly rehashing other information in article written in English, so they aren't by themselves useful for inclusion into the article). The depth of coverage in the sources is not merely promotion, but actually gets into the meat of what the company does and is notable because of the novelty of the research activity. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Zinc-air battery, keeping the reliable sources there appear to be 3 decent articles on the company, and the grant is real. however, that doesnt mean the company is necessarily notable yet, as it hasnt produced any goods. I would welcome more sources, and more opinions on whether this deserves its own article. This is only my opinion, however well thought out i may think it is. i added a reference myself. I do hope, of course, that others who feel this is not notable will do the proper research. I think the article probably says too much at this time, which makes it a target for deletion as pure promotion (which it isnt). needless to say, no prejudice against recreating as soon as a notable product emerges. I think Cody Friesen may qualify for an article at this time. google scholar has a bit, but im not clear on notability for academics, and i think the standards tend to be a little high and narrow here for inclusion. creating a startup must help with notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps adding content from this research by Dr. Friesen would be in order, and adding some of the references about this company into that article too.... still, I don't understand why it can't stand as a separate article at the moment.

Where I'm really confused here is over the standards for notability for businesses and how that applies in this particular case. I admit that this is a new start-up company and that information about the company is rather sparse at the moment.... which is true for all relatively new start-up companies. As you pointed out, there are several extensive articles explicitly about this company, from independent and reliable sources that seemed to be doing some real journalism and going beyond the basic press release. It at least passes a basic Google test, and is legitimate.

I guess the basic question is if receiving a multi-million dollar grant from the U.S. government qualify for notability, together with bona fide original research at a major university (this article isn't original research, it is about that original research) combined count as sufficient for notability or if perhaps more is needed. I admit that the company is new... in fact on Recovery.gov it lists just six employees and notes that the research really just started in January of this year. I, too, would like to be able to find something else about the company beyond the flurry of articles that were created when the grant was announced.

I just wish there was some compromise between full deletion or sending the content of the article into oblivion with a merger. This article isn't about the battery, but rather about the company. I just don't see a merger really being a legitimate merger and that the sources can really add only a sentence or two to the suggested article.... hardly something that can be called a merger.

As a possible compromise, if this really genuinely doesn't fit notability standards at the moment (I'd like more opinions on that subject.... please!) I'd be willing to move this to a sub-page of my user page as an "article in development" for some time in the future when perhaps some more information about this company becomes a part of the public record and something new happens to the company. I believe that more will happen to this company, and I don't want to go through the effort of having to re-create the article again when that happens. Of course such belief is not grounds for notability and I know that.... which is why I'm offering this sort of compromise at the moment.

BTW, I agree with you that an article on Dr. Friesen would be a good idea, as I've found some additional references to him that go beyond even this company and the research related to this battery concept. I should also note that I have no connection to this company, I don't even live in Arizona, and I'm certainly not trying to make this a promotion piece at all. All I'm trying to do here is to is write an encyclopedia article about something which I find to be novel and interesting. I didn't know that was a crime on this project. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if you write an article on dr friesen, with refs for his scholarly works, etc. i think it would stand. then the material on this new company would be part of it, until or unless the company makes it big. similar issues with an obscure african scientist (Daniel Annerose) who started a company, should it be the business or the person. in that case i thought it should be the business, but now i think it should be the person (i think its hard to get this right, and i dont want to be to OCD about it). many authors are notable, where their books are worth mentioning without separate articles. I still want to hear from other people.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a notable topic here and the article in Technology Review seems adequate to demonstrate this. Whether this is best covered in articles about the technology, the company or its staff is irrelevant to our purpose here. There is no case for deletion as there are good alternatives. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —Robert Horning (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Robert Horning (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The second link listed on the talk page back in May proves the thing is notable. It says the company received "a $5.13 million research grant from the US Department of Energy to further develop the "breakthrough" technology." I don't believe the government gives out millions of dollars to something unless they believe it to be notable. Clicking on Google news shows results, but I believe the article already has enough references to prove notability beyond any possible doubt. Dream Focus 20:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be a notable company based on DARPA verifiably having giving them money for tech R&D.- Wolfkeeper 00:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 2.5 million of funding, including DARPA, and well sourced in the trade press? Nominating this is nearly as unfathomable as merging an article on a company to an article on a technology (after WP:UNDUE had its way, what would be left?). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 11 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) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discography of Giorgos Alkaios[edit]

Discography of Giorgos Alkaios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

A new user has created this article without first checking Giorgos Alkaios. I had nominated the article for speedy deletion. The nom was contested by the author and almost immediately, the speedy del tag was removed by another new account. This continues to be the only edit made by that account till date. I strongly suspect that this is a sock-puppet of the same author.
This article should be deleted as there already is a Giorgos Alkaios article with a complete discography in it. A separate article is not required at this time given the size of the main biographical article. ^Nilotpal42 09:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this adds nothing that is not already in the main article, which is not large enough to require a fork. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. All this information is in Giorgos Alkaios, and that's not a massive article so doesn't warrant a split. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 14:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All information in main article, this presentation adds nothing of note and is incompetent in use of the table. Carrite (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 5 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) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Bates Trophy[edit]

Ted Bates Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is a pre-season friendly tournament involving Southampton FC and one invited opponent. It has no general notability Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable comp. GiantSnowman 05:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - absolutley no general notabilty. Looks like a clear cut deletion to me. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:53, 6 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) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Alpha-SEO"[edit]

"Alpha-SEO" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not entirely sure that this meets CSD:A7, but the article is incomprehensible for it's tech jargon. There are, however, several results returned on a Google search. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 08:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if a SEO cannot make it into Google, it is a total failure, but more telling, is that there is are no news articles. And as there are no importance claims, this is close to an A7 candidate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Fails WP:CORP as few if any veriable reliable sources can be found. Most are circular to the company website. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as unnotable, borderline spam. . . Rcawsey (talk) 13:47, 10 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) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MXit User Levels[edit]

MXit User Levels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non notable subject that fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NOT as a user guide. Nuttah (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:HOWTO. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 11:12, 5 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 - Non admin close by nominator. Thanks in particular to The Anome - plenty of sources. Springnuts (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical network frequency analysis[edit]

Electrical network frequency analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No Reliable Sources. The sources given are The Register and a non-Peer Reviewed self published paper by the technique's inventor ... hosted by the company who will sell you the software for $1499. There are few google hits, and these normally refer back to the Register article. Springnuts (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've now replaced the original Grigorias cite with one from a peer-reviewed journal, to try to remove any possible concerns about source independence. -- The Anome (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than being a hoax; it does seem to me that this is a genuine stub on a perfectly valid subject - although it clearly needs a lot of work and fleshing out with information from reliable sources - or perhaps merged as a section on forensic applications in the utility frequency article.

Following through on the clues from the article in The Register (one of the only two sources cited), there is certainly a Dr Alan Cooper who works in the field of digital forensics with the Metropolitan Police in London and who not only submitted a PhD Thesis on the subject of Detection of Copies of Digital Audio Recordings for Forensic Purposes, but was also awarded a PhD for that in August 2006.

Dr Cooper's PhD on the subject is certainly from a credible university and his thesis is linked to from the university's website.

The Royal Holloway also lists Alan Cooper as an MSc graduate in Information Security (2002-2003) and lists him as being in the employ of the Metropolitan Police Service .. as does the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society's reporting on the 33rd AES Conference, in 2008 (J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 56, No. 9, 2008 September) which lists him as part of a specialist panel on How to run an audio forensics laboratory and also very specifically mentions a paper he presented on his work on automatic extraction and matching of Electrical Network Frequency and Authentication (ENF) data (the very subject of the article in question here):

"Alan Cooper of the London Metropolitan Police presented his work on automatic extraction and matching of ENF data ..........."

The J. Audio Eng. Soc. article also mentions papers on ENF presented by two other people.

Google searches would also seem to indicate that there is also seem to be a Dr Catalin Grigoras working with the Romanian Ministry of Justice's National Institute of Forensic Expertise.

There also seems to be plenty of Google hits if you modify the search term slightly:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) navlebeskuelse (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would regard the Reg as a reliable source in this particular context: most of their coverage is serious journalism, albeit mixed in with (generally clearly signalled) joke stories and provocations. This does not seem to be either of the latter. [On later review, after discovering the new cites found above: I think this is now a speedy keep, given the cites from multiple verifiable reliable sources. At least four academic papers from independent research groups, the public involement of a major police force, and mainstream tech media coverage, what else is needed?] -- The Anome (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I did a search too and there is some activity in the journals. Search for "ENF Criterion". East of Borschov (talk) 21:42, 5 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) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International tax standard[edit]

International tax standard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Totally unsourced unencyclopedic essay/guide, fails WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR. Contested PROD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't forget WP:NOTESSAY. Delete. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is complete BS. The few substantive statements made are mostly incorrect.Oldtaxguy (talk) 02:21, 10 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 (A9) by Graeme Bartlett. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curry F.O.B.[edit]

Curry F.O.B. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Supposed upcoming album from a group that doesn't even have an article on here (well, they did, but it was speedily deleted). Violates WP:CRYSTAL and possibly WP:HOAX, as I can no information for an album of this title being in the making, let alone any of the info listed in the article. (P.S. Both articles appear to have been created by a single-purpose account). Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete A9, tagged as such. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:27, 5 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 Logitech. JForget 01:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech MOMO Force steering wheel[edit]

Logitech MOMO Force steering wheel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Absolutely no notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Logitech. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—this piece of equipment doesn't seem to be remotely notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 11:09, 5 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. The issue of merging can be discussed if and when the 2 suggested merge targets are created. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reign of Terror (demo)[edit]

Reign of Terror (demo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Even if Death's demos at large were influential in terms of the death metal subgenre, this one isn't. That citation can be in the band's article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Death's three independently released works Reign of Terror, Infernal Death and especially Mutilation were widely distributed internationally as part of the heavy metal tape trading whirlwind of the early/mid-80s. Not only written about in the metal press of that period, it has been referenced in published works on the metal genre. It was also included on the Zero Tolerance album, and is being reissued yet again in the upcoming year by Relapse Records. It would be a shame to obliterate the article and I would hope at the least to Userfy to give more time for the addition of references from the hard copies of period metal mags. Best, A Sniper (talk)
• Extremely weak keep—while WP:NALBUMS is very clear that unreleased demos are generally non-notable, the page does seem to list a couple of moderately reliable sources. I think we can give this one a little more time. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 11:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Alternate proposal Merge any information into List of Death demos, since the sources only establish the notability of the demos at large, not any particular one. Barring that, simply merge into the artist's article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Additional Suggestion - The last suggestion by Justin is a good one and I'd like to add another possibility. ASniper and others are doing a lot of work on the historical impact of Death's recordings, only to have many of the articles endangered by deletionists. (Who, I might add, have valid arguments but they are not the ONLY arguments.) Note that there is not currently a full Death discography of the type that has been created for many other acts. Currently there is just a list embedded in the band's article. A discography article would be a good place for extra historical information for each release when the separate articles don't survive. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies for pointers. I have personally created a few discography articles and it's a fair amount of work, but for Death I think there is enough community interest. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - Personally, I think a discography article for the band would be a welcome addition (it's pretty standard fare for any notable band). The absence of one is a gap in our coverage. Demos with some sourcing (but too little for a stand alone) would fit there. A List of Death Demos is a bit more problematic from my standpoint. While the sources being added here and elsewhere mention specific demos, they don't seem to indicate that Death's demos are, in and of themselves, notable. Death's discography is clearly notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Do not merge or start a list of Death demo's. That type of list would be trivial at best. A lot of Death demo's exist, but only a few are deemed notable. This one, as was proven before, should be one of them. Enough sources exist, as pointed above, to warrant the existence of this article. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mutilation (demo)[edit]

Mutilation (demo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. This one provides a few sources, but they only establish the most tenuous notability--this is more polished than their other (non-notable) demos and it secured them a record contract (which is true of many demos and basically the point of their existence). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Beyond a mere demo, this recording had a life of its own, as it was a heavily traded metal release covered in the metal press of the era, enough to be noted in published books on the subject. In addition, the tracks were released on the Zero Tolerance album, and are being reissued by Relapse Records (distributed by Sony) in the upcoming year, according to their May 2010 press releases. I would go so far as to claim that this isn't really a demo at all, but an independent release put out by the act, receiving enough notoriety to be remembered in publications still in print. At the very least it should be Userfied to give more time to seek out hard copies of the mags of that period. Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely weak keep—while WP:NALBUMS is very clear that unreleased demos are generally non-notable, the page does seem to list a couple of moderately reliable sources. I think we can give this one a little more time. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 11:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All content on this demo has been re-released by notable labels. I see that the Relapse Records re-issue has already been brought up. This album may not have all the sources liked, but it has the amount needed. Also, it's not a good idea to nominate an article for deletion twice in one month. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:59, 8 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) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashgate Retail Park[edit]

Ashgate Retail Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No sources to establish notability, seems to be a very small and failing retail centre. Few (local) sources found are a long way from establishing notability. Rehevkor ✉ 03:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Uninformative and not apt to be of use to WP visitors. Carrite (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nowhere near the coverage required to establish why this is notable. Nuttah (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "There have been many rumours about shops taking on units at the park." ZOMG. Delete as trashy, non-notable speculative advertising. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 11:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At most warrants a mention in Hucknall, and even then only looks notable for being one of the gloomier recession-fuelled failures. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:42, 5 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 on the issue of delete/no-delete. No consensus on the issue of redirecting. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cellular life[edit]

Cellular life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Can be regarded as a needless category or a trivial content fork --donnyton (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep considering that there is acellular/non-cellular life, and many people classify viruses as alive, that does not appear correct. Further, content fork of what? The development of cellular life from pre-cellular life is an active region of research for the origins of life, and the research into non-cellular life is alive in astrobiology. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why is this being translcuded from two different AfD dates? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 5 ?? 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is rated as high importance by WP:MCB, and mid importance by WP:Microbiology, clearly showing it is not needless. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep—the nomination statement isn't very clear, and given that I'm not an expert, I've no idea what this is supposedly a content-fork from. However, the page appears to be adequately referenced and reasonably written, so deletion would not seem to be justified. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 11:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• merge and redirect to cell (biology). - UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments. Wikipedia seems to be of two minds with respect to the idea of Non-cellular life. The Life article implies that having "cellular form" is a feature common to all living organisms then it links to both Non-cellular life and Cellular life. In my experience, most biologists find it convenient to include cellular structure as part of the definition of living organisms, as is done in this textbook. There are interesting questions about the boundary between life and non-life, particularly with respect to viruses. The virus article says, "Opinions differ on whether viruses are a form of life". Maybe we should use Non-cellular life as a page for citation of those publications favoring the existence of "non-cellular life" and (as suggested by UtherSRG) make the Cellular life page a redirect to Cell (biology), a page that takes the position of cells being "the smallest unit of life that is classified as a living thing". --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to cell (biology), per UtherSRG, the two pages are redundant. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:01, 7 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.