< 18 May	20 May >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's been snowing here since day 1. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Generation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

If this page isn't a neologism I don't know what is. To quote policy, "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles."

Repeated attempts, and requests (since 2007, when this article was last nominated for deletion) for reliable sources have failed to unearth a single reliable discussion of this term. I say it's time to drop this article until such time that sources can be found. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nearly 30 years after MTV started, it's not such a neologism anymore, but as coined words go, it's part of the vernacular [1] and further discussion can be found in many places. Mandsford 00:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote? I quote again, "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Just because people use the term does not mean it is ready for treatment in wikipedia. Please address my criticisms.Peregrine981 (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the article is a piece of crap, dating from Wikipedia's silly days when every article had to include a moronic reference to The Simpsons (I recall having to remove such nonsense from our article about Kaiser Wilhelm II). However, your statement was that the article should be removed until reliable sources could be found to discuss what is referred to as the "MTV Generation", and I think that it's an easy task. I agree that it's frustrating when an article is kept based on promises of improvement that are never carried out. Several of us in the discussion, including my friends DGG and S Marshall, are pretty good at bringing articles up to code. Thanks for bringing it to the community's attention, since I believe it would have been overlooked had there not been a nomination. Mandsford 15:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I'm sorry that it had to come to this nomination to finally get some real content into the article, but I thank you very much for doing what many of us have been unable to do for quite some time. As it stands I no longer support deletion as it seems there is some factual basis for keeping the article. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can probably be expanded beyond the dicdef. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what people said at the AFD in 2007.... and yet here we are. The fact is that this is not a coherent term. We have yet to see any serious secondary source treatments of this concept as a real term.

Keep as having potential for expansion (even if it's taking some time)—for example this book has a subchapter about the concept. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious to know what the author actually says about the MTV Generation. I have yet to find a book that actualy gives a coherent definition.Peregrine981 (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks promising—a general US history book, a subchapter titled "The MTV Generation" within a chapter called "The Triumph of Consumerism, 1980–1992"—however, I just checked my library and unfortunately it does not have the book. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reliable sources in article and elsewhere. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? People keep saying this, but somehow they never seem to make their way into the article. It's been years. Peregrine981 (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'sources' in the article demonstrate the neologism in use, they don't provide significant detailed coverage as required by WP:N. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article doesn't need to be deleted. It does need serious expansion as the subject has had a huge effect in the content of the television industry for decades.Trackinfo (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about MTV. This is an article about "The MTV Generation." Big difference. Peregrine981 (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although my reasoning differs from those above. My position is that because there's a wiktionary article (wikt:MTV generation), deletion could never be appropriate. If we decided that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article with this title, then we should have a soft redirect to Wiktionary instead--so no matter what, this title shouldn't be a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 08:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to wiktionary strikes me as completely reasonable until serious encyclopedic content can be found.Peregrine981 (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Incidentally, it really isn't necessary to reply to every single "keep".—S Marshall T/C 11:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to engage with the arguments of proponents. So far they are mostly repeating the same arguments made 3 years ago, cleanup, expand, etc... But it has proven impossible to do so in the intervening time. When do we draw the line and say that we get rid of this unencyclopedic article? Right now it is a fairly useless article, that is frankly an embarassment to wikipedia. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly impossible. It's just that there are 6,815,524 articles to edit, only 2886 of which are featured as yet. You asked when we get rid of it, and, we don't. Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that'll never be finished. :)—S Marshall T/C 18:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is an oft-used neologism that used to be a buzzword when MTV was still hot. What's next, deleting MTV?.. I can't believe Peregrine is still fixated on deleting this article, it's just odd. In fact, I may restore my old additions to the text sometime. I'm sorry, Peregrine981. Gregorik (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've just admitted it is an oft-used neologism, which wiki policy specifically says is not suitable for an article! In order to keep the article you should try to prove that it is NOT a neologism. MTV is a real company, and there's plenty of secondary literature. The comparison is absurd. As I've said before wikipedia should not be used to peddle pet theories, hearsay, and rumour. Presently all we have is just that, and that is not going to change any time soon. Proponents have been given, literally years to find suitable sources, and they failed. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to MTV, as its relevant to the MTV article but isn't notabe enough for an article of its own. The length of time this article has survived in this same state is evidence of that fact. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we deleted it we'd need to replace it with a dab page that directed readers to Generation X and Generation Y and mentioned MTV and linked to the definition on Wiktionary, but in the process we'd have lost the content on its origins and use (which aren't what dictionaries do). So deletion would be a very suboptimal way to deal with this content. So what if it's a permastub? It's sourced and reads OK, and the topic has been mentioned in 7000+ news articles, 4000+ books and 1000+ scholarly articles, so I'm pretty sure it's notable... there are sources out there that discuss this in depth, e.g. [2][3], and we can mention that Bret Easton Ellis was known as the "voice of the MTV Generation".[4] Peregrine981 could look for sources and use them instead of expecting others to do the work. Fences&Windows 00:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm glad that she did nominate it, and she is under no obligation to look for sources, particularly when even the people who wanted it kept were also the type that "expected others to do the work". I'm just as guilty of that-- I see that I was one of the many people in the 2007 debate who had that same "Someone-- not I-- will fix it" attitude. But it's not 2007 anymore, and idiocy like "Lisa replies 'meh'" is no longer accepted. Does anyone believe that the article would have been improved had it not been for the nomination? I don't. And for those who raise the tired old "AfD is not cleanup" homily-- meh. In 2010, AfD is the most effective way to get the community to work together on improving Wikipedia. Mandsford 02:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination statement that "I say it's time to drop this article until such time that sources can be found" means "it is someone else's problem to look for sources." She doesn't want the article cleaned up, she wants to "purify" Wikipedia of what she thinks is a trivial subject. We should not tolerate or applaud this sort of ~~lazy deletionism~~[deletion nomination]. Fences&Windows 22:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Edited. Fences&Windows 22:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to lazy, I much prefer lazy deletionism to lazy inclusionism. Mandsford 01:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup!. If you don't like how the article is, fix it yourself, or leave cleanup templates on it. AFD is solely to determine whether an article meets our deletion criteria. Being poorly written and sourced is not a deletion criteria. Failing to meet wp:V or wp:Notability are. This type of nomination is why we have to split AFD up by day and still have over 100 articles listed on each day page. Buddy431 (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had honestly tried to find serious discussions of MTV Generation, but could not find them. I am not a professional researcher. I had made many good faith efforts to try to find them, as well as encourage others to find them to no avail for a LONG time. Meanwhile all I got was assurances that Strauss and Howe had somewhere written about this, despite the fact that the only proof of this seemed to be wiki mirror sites, which continued to perpetuate the lazy, unsourced drivel that was originally included in this article. As you can see, the nomination has resulted in a much better article that finally adds something to the internet, rather than detracting. I make no apologies for the nomination, but thank everyone for help. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should learn to search better. Your inability to find sources shouldn't land others with the task. Fences&Windows 11:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps every editor who has ever edited this article should, ~~and perhaps you should stop being such a pompous prick.~~ This is a collaborative task, not an ego stroking competition. ~~Thanks for the constructive attitude.~~ Peregrine981 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This neologism has sufficient coverage in secondary sources to invalidate the nominator's reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I thank Fences and Windows and others for adding even more in there-- well done. Mandsford 19:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But ultimately, my friends, recognize the "AfD is not cleanup" nonsense for what it is by looking at where it came from. It is nothing more than one of the many graffiti on that wall called Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, with the addition of a cute little navigational beacon (WP:CLEANUP) to make it sound official. "AfD is not cleanup" actually needs to be listed among the arguments to avoid once the discussion has started. Mandsford 13:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to berate inclusionists who chant "keep" without looking for or providing sources just as much as I will berate deletionists who chant "delete" without doing the same, but ultimately we should keep and improve articles on notable topics, or at least merge them, rather deleting them according to someone's personal perfectionist deadline: "The best is the enemy of the good." Other people not improving an article is not an excuse for not doing it yourself. The aim of this project is to cover every WP:NOTABLE topic, and we'll only get there by improving the poor stubs we have littering the place, not by deleting them all. As a new essay points out, deletion is a good short-term tactic for improving the quality of Wikipedia, but it can be a poor strategy for building one. Fences&Windows 17:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And with that, I think we can close the debate early as a WP:SNOW. I'll buy the first round of beer when we get together again. Mandsford 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Home Loyalty Program[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this loyalty program. Joe Chill (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself is almost content free. From looking for sources, all I can figure out is that this was / is a program operated by a company called MemberWorks. I found a couple of press releases but no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alley Cat Rescue. Shimeru (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Holton[edit]

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

Non-notable. Could not find any reliable sources. Lawlar (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that it's a copyright violation of [5]. Lawlar (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I doubt that it is copied from that site. The blog entry timestamp is October 22, 2008, and this article was created September 10, 2007. A quick check of some other bio listed in the blog show they have also been copied from Wikipedia without attribution. -- Whpq (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I overlooked that. Lawlar (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge verifiable information to Alley Cat Rescue, the organisation she founded. I'm not finding a lot written about her. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge, all right, but merge the small amount of information found at Alley Cat Rescue into this article. I think she is more notable than the organization. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What I saw when googling around was mostly realted to Alleycat Rescue, but I have no objection to merging Alleycat Rescue to Louise Holton. -- Whpq (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alley Cat Rescue - the search box will bring users to that article, and this article fails WP:N. Racepacket (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alley Cat Rescue per above. Google searches indicate the organization is more notable.--Pink Bull 01:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur and TNO pronunciation[edit]

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

I feel that this pronunciation guide is obsolete as all of the articles in this guide have IPA pronunciations in their respective articles. People are not going to go to a guide to find the pronunciation of a certain asteroid when the pronunciation is right there. Tavix | Talk 22:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this is redundant content. Deor (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the creator of the article. There were a few that hadn't been transferred yet, but I took care of them. — kwami (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this could probably be speedy deleted per CSD G6 and CSD G7. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - any reason not to speedy this since the author !votes delete? - UtherSRG (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chad H Webb[edit]

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

There is no indication that this individual is notable. The two LDS refs are not independent of the subject. A bishop, in this context, is "a part-time lay minister". A search for wider coverage revealed nothing. I42 (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Note from user johnhiltoniii--I have not adequately explained in Wikipedia what Chad Webb does as administrators of Seminaries and insitutes. This is a worldwide program with 800,000 students. What should I do to help show how he as a person (or really, the position of administrator) merits an entry on Wikipedia? Note that his peers within the church educational system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Educational_System) Kim Clark and Cecil Samuelson both have Wikipedia pages. Johnhiltoniii (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:johnhiltoniii is the author of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - from the info provided this person is simply a bishop/administrator, not unlike any other church official. sources are not sufficient to establish notability. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable administrator, fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Clark and Cecil O. Samuelson, Jr. have entries because they are both notable for being leaders of a university. An administrator post in a church program alone is not sufficient on its own to establish notability. That said, delete the Chad Webb article. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to the article to reflect the above feedback. I noticed that seminaries and institutes is mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Educational_System#Seminaries_and_Institutes_of_Religion. Perhaps a separate entry on Chad Webb is not needed. My affiliation with the church educational system obviously biases me. I leave it for you to determine. Thank you. Johnhiltoniii (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that's not going to be enough. What is needed are sources that talk about him and his contributions. – ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically he is a church bureaucrat. Even though he administers a large department, that's not enough to make him notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it, let's look into the notability of John Hilton III, an article apparently describing User:Johnhiltoniii. The article calls him a "religion professor" at BYU, but also a doctoral candidate there - so it's unlikely that "professor" is the right job description for this subject. The BYU staff directory [6] seems to list him as director of a youth program, with an off-campus work address. --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll express no opinion about this article, but I agree that someone should probably PROD the Hilton article, at least. I'll note, btw, that he said elsewhere on wiki that he completed his Ph.D. since the article about him was created, this year, in fact. It's my strong impression, btw, that Hilton seems to me to be very candid, and also quite respectful of the rules that he's familiar with. Like most new users, though, he doesn't yet understand notability. – Ohiostandard (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG by not having received significant coverage in reliable sources. As an aside I would suggest that John Hilton III may well be notable as he actually has been covered in reliable sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy Catholic School (Washington, Pennsylvania)[edit]

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

Non-notable K-8 school MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The general outcome of such nominations has been deletion. This is a small parish elementary school. There is no allegation of notability, such as notable alumni or sports teams. My standards are also quite high for schools. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a stub. No sources. Racepacket (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Caciocavallo. Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roomy cheese[edit]

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

No indication that this cheese is notable, couldn't find many sources on Google. —fetch ·comms 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to "Romy cheese'. See here and here. I suspect it's a simple spelling mistake. --Haruth (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Zero hits in the archive of newspapers, [7], one (possibly) in books [8]. Romy cheese gets two hits in the books [9],one of which suggests that this is more commonly called Caciocavallo. I don't think "roomy cheese" is even enough for a redirect. Mandsford 00:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Agree. Appears to be Egyptian version of Caciocavallo. The Caciocavallo article actually includes "Roomi Cheese" under the In other languages section! Roomi cheese as redirect? --Haruth (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Caciocavallo s a plausible misspelling for Roomi cheese. -- Whpq (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case Roomi cheese should be made into a redirect as well. Buddy431 (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One possible spelling will be enough, whatever it is. Otherwise, we would be making redirects for Roomy cheese and Roomi cheese and Rumey cheese and Roomey cheese and Romy cheese. I imagine that the word has been heard on television and that it sounds like it rhymes with "gloomy" instead of "foamy", in which case people won't think to search under "romy". I'd rather go with Roomi, since roomy is an adjective that refers to "having a lot of room". Mandsford 13:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a redirect per the above logic. —fetch ·comms 01:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and perhaps other plausible spellings) to Caciocavallo per above. --Pink Bull 01:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double-size VGA[edit]

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

Propose to redirect to Digital Variable Gain Amplifier

Article uses two sources, one of them a rumor site (WP:V), both do not even mention the article title (OR). Only used in regards to an unannounced product (CRYSTAL). HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the product were generally available, the term wouldn't warrant more than an entry in List of common resolutions. As it is, with apparently no commercially available products available yet, it doesn't even warrant that. JulesH (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby require this nomination for deletion to be called off on the following basis:

nominator intentionally misleads community to think that the term is "Only used in regards to an unannounced product", while he/she knew the opposite [10] before making this nomination.
HVGA (and other similar pages) does not cite sources using the term itself either, and on First-In-First-Out (FIFO) basis, as well as on Wikipedia's uniformity principle, that article, as well as others, should be nominated for deletion first. Nominator willingly ignored uniformity principle.
"rumor site" phrase refers to site's name, while the information cited it not related to rumours and verifiable (by anyone with iPhone); not just opinion cited, but visual/photographic evidence. Wikipedia prohibits only use of such sources in relation to a living person.
Last, but not least, the article got updated with references to actual use of term DVGA, as well as DigiTimes article source which states the resolution -- perfect source by any means. Thus DVGA article is currently much better fits to Wikipedia principles that HVGA article, for example.

It does not principal at all whether DVGA will have standalone worded description or not; there may be forwarding link to List of common resolutions instead of text about resolution and ratio itself. However, nothing warrants deletion of this page, because readers, by entering "DVGA" in Wikipedia, should see that this term may refer to an electric amplifier and video resolution. DVGA page formerly only had automating forwarding link to a digital amplifier. DenisRS (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I mistakenly considered that the page we discuss here is renamed page which formerly called "DVGA", while the page is actually a renamed "DVGA_(disambiguation)" page. Someone moved "disambiguation" essence of the latter page to DVGA page, while renaming "DVGA_(disambiguation)" to "Double-size VGA" and making its content solely focused on term DVGA as graphic resolution, which is of questionable worthiness. After such significant shift of concept, I will take time time to move information to DVGA page. Then Double-size VGA will be empty and nomination for deletion of such excessive page could be resubmitted on perfectly fine basis. DenisRS (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I placed information with updated links of actual use of term as well as with perfectly fit source for resolution to DVGA page. I did not delete the content of Double-size VGA page, though, because it was not my work to put that information there the way it was done before my latest editions. I think that the nomination should be resubmitted (the points I listed above still accurate) to only concern to Double-size VGA, not DVGA, and cite appropriate basis (for example, notability (not enough of), redundancy, excessiveness). DenisRS (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply to DenisRS's points in order. As full disclosure, we discussed the article on his talk page and failed to make any progress.

The fourth iPhone is "unannounced"; its manufacturer (Apple) does not sell, display, or even confirm its existence. All sources are based off of two leaked prototypes. This information is inherently speculative, no matter who reports it.
Two wrongs do not create a right. Compare googling HVGA, which at least shows that the term exists in relation to screen size, and DVGA, which does not. Wikipedia is not bound by FIFO (Wikipedia:FIFO) or some Wikipedia:Uniformity principle. How can I "willingly ignore" something that does not exist?
This information cannot be verified by anyone with an iPhone since it relates only to two leaked prototypes of the unannounced fourth version, which are not available for the public to purchase or examine. The part about living people is simply not true; see WP:SPS, part of the verifiability policy.
Stop comparing it to other articles. We are not talking about the quality of the the article; we are talking (or should be talking) about the subject of the article, DVGA, which cannot even be proven to exist. No source mentions both the terms "DVGA" and "iPhone"; thus connecting them is original research.

Two sources mention it in passing, in tables or lists of other resolutions, as a mathematical extrapolation of VGA, without citing any devices to use it. The three other sources do not mention the term DVGA, and are based on speculation, two prototypes, and "sources from Taiwan-based component makers". While these are sufficient to mention the screen size in passing in the iPhone article, they are not sufficient for a standalone article. In summary, we have violations of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOTABLE, and WP:ORIGINAL. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DenisRS can userfy the article until products that use this standard are released or the ISO officially adopts this as a standard., Racepacket (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity authors[edit]

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

This list can never be complete; it suffers from systematic bias; and it contains an unrelated discussion of the suitability of celebrity authors' books for children. Vectro (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Wikipedia accepts incomplete lists; Wikipedia itself also suffers from systematic bias. Unrelated discussions can be removed via normal editing. Polarpanda (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs some inclusion criteria and a different title, although it's not a bad idea for a topic. What the author appears to be aiming at is persons who are famous for being something other than authors, and who have works of fiction to their credit. Many celebrated actors, athletes and politicians have lent their names to non-fiction books (autobiographies for instance). Although the discriminating information is greatly appreciated, I don't see how a long list of authors can have a paragraph for each entry. I'd like to see this work out, don't know if it can. Mandsford 00:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what would need to change to allow it to stay. a better title might be "List of novels by people from other fields". (hmm, this hard). I also am not sure we can come up with a way to make this work as a list. I really dont like the word "celebrities" in article names or as a criteria. its like using "notable" which of course is redundant here, but has an implicit meaning of someone being glamorous, or fashionable, or famous for being famous. too vague and subjective to me.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What constitutes a "celebrity"? The authors appear to be mostly U.S. entertainers. The common ground argument is too slender to support this article. Joal Beal (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As inclusion into this list is biased as people have different opinions on what constitutes a "celebrity". It could be argued that every author is a celebrity, even if it is minor, local celebrity status. If it includes everyone that has a Wikipedia article, it still has bias as not every author has "celebrity" status of sorts. Possible OR is invoved as well. Tavix | Talk 14:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Criteria for inclusion is too vague. --Pink Bull 01:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Loskutov[edit]

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

Per this OTRS request, the subject of the article wishes for it to be deleted. NW (Talk) 18:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's not a BLP violation nor unsourced (assuming good faith on Russian sources), I see no reason to delete unless it's policy now to deleted at the subject's request. – ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can somebody with OTRS access summarize the reasons the subject specifies for requesting deletion? Is the article claimed to be inaccurate? JulesH (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a courtesy to the requester. It's not vital to the encyclopaedia that we keep this article if it's making its subject unhappy. Basically my view is that if his name wouldn't appear in a paper encyclopaedia then the subject's wish for deletion should prevail.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with S Marshall. if they want it gone, lets delete it. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability and notability, so there's no need to worry about the controversial issue of whether the subject's wishes should be followed. None of the web pages referenced in the article even mentions the subject - the first is a dead link, the second is about somebody else entirely and the last two are just links to the home pages of sites rather than to specific articles. I would also note that they would not qualify as independent sources even if they mentioned the subject, as they are the sites of organisations for which he has worked. I've tried looking for sources in both the Roman and Cyrillic alphabets but haven't been able to find anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per subject's request and Phil Bridger's summary showing that is not notable enough to ignore the request (or even notable at all, really)/ Fails WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:BLP -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester Lees[edit]

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

Article makes almost no argument for notability. Being the superintendant of a railway is not notable. Angryapathy (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable - reads like it's taken from someone's genealogy research -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable. Joal Beal (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the Gates Bootleg in Manchester[edit]

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

Bootlegs are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bootlegs have a very high barrier per WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VideoWhisper[edit]

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

I can find absolutely no third-party sources about this product. Google hits include a number of places to download the product, but that's about it. So this nomination, in short, is for the lack of notability and third-party sources about this topic. — Timneu22 · talk 18:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birlik, Kazakhstan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NRVE. There is no verifiable objective evidence that the subject has "received significant attention to support a claim of notability." Claritas (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a Kazakh speaker? Do you read Cyrillic script? Were you able to confirm while doing a search of this topic name in Kazakh, Бiрлiк, that none of these 1.1 million hits contain significant coverage?--Oakshade (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy closure per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abay, Almaty just days ago. It was decided that all of these met guidelines but needed improving/sourcing. Extremely pathetic that it is the same nominator who obviously loves to waste his life when he was told during the last nomination that we don't delete articles on populated settlements. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do indeed close this debate, I will make a report on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. I've realised since that debate that there is no policy on "inherent" notability of settlements, and that it should be decided on a case by case basis, which I'm doing now. You're welcome to contribute to the discussion, but you just make yourself look unpleasant by insulting me. Claritas (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is just pointless when we all have work to do Claritas and this doesn't stand a snowball in hells chance of being deleted. Zoom in here, the terrain and landscape would look very similar to this.. Its not even as if it is a tiny hamlet in the middle of nowhere. Its a small industrial town with factories and is attracting an Indian firm to produce beer. When are you going to get into your head that verifiable places are notable? Very disappointed in you Claritas that you didn't learn last time. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I find it even more pathetic when someone goes through the alphabet to create stubs [11] like this one, which essentially has nothing to say about Birlik. Interestingly enough, there seem to be lots of places in Kazakhstan with that name, according to FallingRain.com. ~~However, our policy says that population centers, for lack of a better word, are inherently notable, so I must give a Reluctant Keep.~~ I favor the policy in that it allows any Wikipedia contributor, no matter where in the world they may hail from, to write about a city or village in which they live or have lived, so that we may learn whatever they wish to tell us about the geography, history and culture of their corner of the world, without fear of deletion because a place isn't "notable enough". There is no value in an article that says little more than "______ is a town in ________". Mandsford 18:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not as pathetic as somebody who thinks wikipedia is a monotonous almanac for reeling off college football results from 100 years ago like 1912 college football season.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford, there is no policy which says that population centres are inherently notable, and there never has been. Claritas (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, Claritas. Wikipedia:Notability (geography) is what is usually referred to, although it is essentially an essay that describes the common outcome in debates, rather than a notability guideline. So, I'll strike through the nonsense about "our policy says". I'd note that common outcome is usually followed, for better or for worse, and deletions are (generally) limited to a place turning out to not actually being considered its own town, village, etc. I appreciate that you've nominated the article, regardless of how the debate turns out, because we should always be ready to discuss whether the status quo should be changed. Common outcome, of course, is shaped by what people say in the deletion debates, and the outcomes have changed over the years. Overall, I like the idea that someone from, say, a little village in Nigeria can tell us more about the place, without having to wade through the shallow pool of notability to defend it, and I hope that that continues. In this case, to have a different view based on the circumstances of the article's creation would be, for me WP:IDONTLIKEIT, though it's true, I don't like it. Mandsford 20:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the individual from the little village in Nigeria added content, it would most likely breach WP:OR. Sorry to be pedantic. Claritas (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's true. Check out the editing history of Sangla Hill and other Pakistani towns and villages for proof of that. Things often degrade!! When a proficient editor from a country though gets on the case this is much better, such as a few Albanian wikipedians dramatically improving content of late.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, all you're [Blofeld] saying is it exists, and it's existence can be verified. That's not a great argument for notability. Can we please be civil about this ? I haven't really wasted more than about half an hour of my time on this - I might want to suggest per WP:100K that it would be better if editors spent more time improving existing articles as opposed to creating stubs on non-notable or borderline-notable topics. Claritas (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know nothing Claritas. Try reading User:Dr. Blofeld/DYK and consider that actually people are doing their best to improve what they can with the time they have on here, but wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Tengboche a much small village than Birlik was expanded fully the other day. That doesn't mean it is a settlement way more notable but it happens to be well covered because it is a stopping point for treks. Birlik being in Kazakhstan unfortuantely lacks the web sources in abundance which can be used to do the same., over time I expect this to change it is gradually changing in some parts of Arica as info being available on the Internet. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much of your work on Wikipedia has been excellent, and I commend you for it. However, if there are no sources available to establish notability, the article should be deleted. Tengboche is a completely different matter, because it contains the Tengboche Monastery, and there is significant coverage in reliable sources on it. And stop insulting me, it's rude. It's pretty clear I know Wikipedia policy well enough. Claritas (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Blofeld, if you're sceptical of my ability as a constructive editor, look at my contributions or what I've done recently to William H. Prescott. Claritas (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that Birlik is not mentioned in many reports and documents within Kazakhstan? Have you been to Almaty and researched the information and looked through Kazakh government papers and engineering projects and not found anything on Birlik which undoubtedly exists but hasn't been put onto the internet yet? Might you not be fully understanding the differences in development in different parts of the world and that a town of several thousand in central Asia or Africa might have very few sources available online but a British village of 100 people might have several thousand? You have a very biased way of looking at the world. "Significant coverage" in your view implies that it must have many sources in English. Well, Kazakhstan is off the Anglo radar in terms of "significant coverage". In fact many cities in Kazakhsstan like Taldykorgan have very little coverage either in what we would consider solid english publications and has 118,000. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. You can't keep an article because you speculate that there might be sources somewhere. If nothing significant turns up on the internet at all, it's unlikely that there are non-trivial mentions even in Kazakhstani sources. There's no sense of "fairness" here - we include notable topics, which have received significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Claritas (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I searched for sources in Russian as well. Claritas (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per, as cliché as it sounds, common outcomes. If I were in Kazakhstan, I'd visit a local museum and a library and dig a book or two about the local history of the district, which would undoubtedly have a page or two about Birlik as well. Such books were printed in in every corner of the former USSR, albeit in limited quantities. Understandingly, it is not very easy for Western editors to lay hands on them. So, why jump to uneducated conclusions when no attempt was even made to contact someone who might have access to such information?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 19, 2010; 20:51 (UTC)
Keep per 1) the google maps view shows it is a town of some size - surely there are newspapers and such discussing this place, somewhere; and 2) google searching turns up a huge number of potential sources in kazakh (not google-translatable, sadly) and russian. Try searches for Бирлик site:almaty.kz (almaty.kz is the provincial website - 841 hits), Бирлик "Алматинская область" (with russian name of province - 12,400 hits), or Бирлик "Алматы облысы" (with kazakh name of province - 376 hits). It seems that somewhere among these thousands of hits, there must be good info. I don't speak russian or kazakh so I can't comment, but unless someone is willing to do a thorough search I think we should give the article the benefit of the doubt. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those results also only consider the Russian spelling of the town name. A search for Бiрлiк (the Kazakh name) as well will turn up even more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Calliopejen's rationale. I can't speak Russian or Kazakh, either, so I'm of scant help, but I'm sure it can be expanded. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Calliopejen1. The town definitely exists, and there are surely some sources out there about it. This nom smells of policy wonkery. --Lord Pistachio ^talk 06:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. Furthermore, the burden to find evidence is on those who add or propose to keep content - if no-one here can find sources, then it should be deleted. If there's no objective evidence of significant coverage, the article should be deleted. Claritas (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize there is no written policy that says populated places are inherently notable, but it is the generally accepted practice to treat them as such. Wikipedia policy is determined by practice, not the other way around. --Lord Pistachio ^talk 06:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the generally accepted practise to delete articles which fail WP:N. I don't really understand this. Claritas (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is this: While you are correct a strict application of WP:N would result in this article being deleted, that would also represent of reversal of a long-established practice of treating cities and towns as notable, and I don't think there is consensus for such a reversal. I was referring to WP:BURO. --Lord Pistachio ^talk 07:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be kept even under WP:N. My searches have shown that there is almost surely significant coverage out there. Yes, it's possible that all 20,000 or whatever sources are trivial or irrelevant, but that's highly unlikely. If similar searches on an American town came up with this many hits, constructing an article would be a piece of cake. (And if there's this much info online, think about how much there is offline!) We just need a motivated native speaker to make sense of all the potential sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a very strong consensus that all such towns are notable, policy or not; there's tons of these AfDs that closed as Keep for towns worldwide, but try finding an AfD of one of these that closed as Delete. Besides, there's already several sources to support the notability of this place, especially for a settlement in a country like Kazakhstan where online resources are hard to come by. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dr. Blofeld has done an excellent job of adding sourced content to the article, so I hope this will close soon as a WP:SNOW. Mandsford 00:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've never seen seen a town of this size in an English speaking country go up for AfD. However occasionally somebody puts foreign towns in a country with a language that doesn't have a strong internet presence, therefore much harder to find sources on the net for. I'm a pretty good researcher, but right now I wouldnt' even know where to look for sources on this town in Kazakh. Is this a case of systemic bias?--Oakshade (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. Before you start suggesting bias in the nomination, it's not a bad idea to look at the state of the article at the time that it was nominated [12] rather than how it looks after information has been added, including information about such things as population. It's easy, afterwards, to say "why would anybody try to delete an article about a town of this size?" but it's kind of like walking past a freshly painted wall and wondering why anyone thought it needed painting. Regarding the bias card, I've seen the same concerns raised about articles regarding locations in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. The concern over whether an article about a place is entitled to inherent notability usually turns upon whether it's been established as a populated place of its own, rather than as a part of another municipality. Mandsford 13:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the purpose of AFD is not to clean up bad articles. To be deleted, a nominator must show that the subject isn't notable, not that the current article isn't up to our standards. Maybe occasionally there's truly a case where someone comes up with a source that shows notability when the nominator could have reasonably thought that no such source existed. In this case, it's self evident that sources sufficient to establish notability are going to exist (a town this size not having reliable, independent coverage isn't going to happen). Buddy431 (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got observations on that subject too. Everyone has their opinions about how Articles for Deletion "ought to" work, and-- luckily-- nobody pays attention to those opinions, they just particpate. No doubt it was written somewhere that "AfD is not for cleanup" and the collective response has been "Yeah, whatever, but here we are, we'll talk about it anyway", and things actually get accomplished here. Likewise, I'm sure that someone has written a beautiful essay about whose burden of proof it is to establish notability, but the reality is that a deletion comes down to whether the nominator has persuaded others that the article should be deleted. In many cases, however, people who might have initially agreed with the nominator (sometimes even the original nominator) turn from opposing the article to supporting the changes to the article. In this case, I have a great deal of respect for how Dr. Blofeld handled this, and this is why-- the article would probably have been kept, based on the common outcome for places, but he made it a better article anyway. Mandsford 17:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly I came across Novoalekseyevka. It was started by a young lad living in Almaty. He obviously knows of the place and thought it was notable...He probably lacks good english though to write a fuller article. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep By long-standing consensus, real places are inherently notable. Article is well sourced and more sources clealry exits. Edward321 (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand it... You were saying the other day settlements like this are not notable but you started Mulla, Afghanistan! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Kane[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO, I don't think the depth of the coverage isn't substantial enough to warrant notability. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 17:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ATHLETE states that a person is considered sufficiently notable if he or she has competed at the fuly professional level of his or her sport. Kane has obviously done this, as ECW was a major wrestling promotion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Athlete shouldn't apply as this more falls down the road of Entertainment rather than sports. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 23:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pages like Shane Hagadorn have been deleted numerous times since 2006 and he's been associated with ROH since 06 and thats considered along the same level of ECW and it still doesn't support notability, I don't see why someone with such a short stint in ECW is more notable than Hagadorn. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 01:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countless articles about people with similar (or smaller) claims to notability have also been kept numerous times since 2006. What's your point? GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ROH and ECW on the same level? Do you really wanna run with that arguement? --Endlessdan and his problem 13:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I see an article on Kane here [13]; it's currently listed under Further reading, but looks usable as a reference to me. So there is at least some coverage of him, though I'd feel better about keeping this if there was another reliable source to go with this one. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ridiculous nom. There are independent sources. Deleting his article won't help the project. --Endlessdan and his problem 13:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely a notable wrestler should be kept.--Curtis23's Us al ions 18:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - UtherSRG (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheung Effect[edit]

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

Author removed speedy tag, so here we go: zero google hits, no third-party sources, and this is a "term created in 2008". This seems like a hoax, or WP:OR, but the lack of any reference or source for this article is grounds enough to have it dismissed. — Timneu22 · talk 17:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete pure vandalism. Minima c (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can someone check both of the sources provided to see if the claims are supported, please? --86.22.197.120 (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text "cheung effect" does not appear on either page. — Timneu22 · talk 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - neither the "Cheung Effect" nor the UCD academic it is supposedly named after have any existence outside this article. Thparkth (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QuuxPlayer[edit]

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

Has been twice deleted per A7 speedy and PROD, now recreated again. Unsourced stub that fails WP:N; a Google search shows no clear notability of this software. Sandstein 17:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Sandstein 17:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A CSD tag under A7 has been applied to the article being discussed here - assuming the deletion is successfully completed, I will be making an application to have the article salted to prevent its subsequent recreation here in the future. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 20:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the A7 tag, since this is a piece of software and not "a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content", which are the only things subject to A7 speedy deletion. Sandstein 21:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow. Technically not A7. Still, no notability ascertained. — Hellknowz ▎talk 22:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the so called "reviews" that I can find are product descriptions. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball and Salt per H3llkn0wz. FWIW, I had multiple WP editors, including an admin, 2nd opinion me on the deletion via a CSD A7/Web on Wikipedia's IRC channel @ Freenode, but I still say dump it. No use to man or beast! BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 01:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per reasons given by others. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:SK ground 1: nomination withdrawn with no arguments for deletion. NAC—S Marshall T/C 17:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Politicide[edit]

This article is essentially a dictionary definition for a wp:neologism. It covers three different definitions which are unrelated, except for their relation to the root word "political".

Destroying a political system
Homicide directed at members of a political group
An action which ends one's own political career

It appears in template:Homicide even though only one of the definitions fits. I believe this is the reason for the large number of "what links here". Thundermaker (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, the "this article's entry" part of the deletion tag rushes over to a 2006 debate on Policide, which is something else entirely. Mandsford 19:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The article is currently poor, but with appropriate references and expansion could develop in an interesting direction, and provide a useful focus to cross link articles which outline examples of politically motivated genocides. --Haruth (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. It's never appropriate to delete an article about a word that has a wiktionary entry.
There are only two possibilities here:- (1) We should have an article, or (2) We shouldn't. If we shouldn't, then we could have a soft redirect to the wiktionary entry on "politicide" instead. So whichever way this AfD goes, there's an alternative to deletion. WP:BEFORE says that where there's an alternative to deletion, we ought to use it. Therefore this nomination fails WP:BEFORE and needs to be speedily closed. Discussion about whether to replace the article with a soft redirect to wiktionary belongs on the article's talk page.—S Marshall T/C 23:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect sounds reasonable to me. I might be the only participant in the redirect discussion (my DAB-or-delete thread there got 0 responses), but that's OK. An admin is required to close this AfD, I think. Thundermaker (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll agree to withdraw the nomination, then I'll close the AfD and perform the soft redirect.—S Marshall T/C 15:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, consider the AfD nomination withdrawn. Thundermaker (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Editor has done sufficient work. — Timneu22 · talk 17:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VPLEX[edit]

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

Editor has twice removed CSD tag. So here's the AFD: product has no indication of notability, as it started in May 2010. Further, there's a clear conflict of interest here, and the article reads like an advertisement. There are absolutely no third-party references provided in the article. — Timneu22 · talk 15:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First article I've put on Wiki, will leave CSD tag going forward. There are several other articles for similar products on Wiki. I can provide 3rd party links to publications as necessary. Are all company products to be removed from Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtstore (talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article isn't overly promotional -- it closely follows (I'd say "clones") the format of the IBM SAN Volume Controller article in presenting the features and architecture of the device. COI exists and the author should be so warned. If anything, I'd worry about the notability of such a new product, but this, this, this, etc, indicate that the computer press thinks a new virtual storage technology from a major player such as EMC Corporation is probably pretty notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable within subject area. Thparkth (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Foster[edit]

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

Contested prod. Concern was "Never played professionally, so fails WP:ATHLETE, doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG either" and does not appear to have been addressed Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODder. The player seems to have had a brief trial (try-out, for our US readers) with Crystal Palace two years ago, which came to nothing, and seems to have disappeared without trace since -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet WP:GNG, and he is not entitled to the inherent notability listed in WP:ATHLETE, which is limited to "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport". He may have been employed by the team, and may even have been on the bench during a game, but, unfortunately, he did not compete at the fully professional level. Generally, athletes who haven't taken the field do not make it into the player register in any sport. Mandsford 19:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This guy doesn't seem to have ever made an appearance for a fully professional team in a senior competition. – Pee Jay 19:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if deleted, page should be redirected to Ben Foster. JulesH (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just in case anyone does a Google News search on "Ben Foster"+"football" or similar, I should point out that this is not the same guy as Ben Foster (footballer) who is in the news at the moment and very notable indeed...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elim Bible Institute[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable, unaccredited, non-degree granting college. Of the twelve sources listed, two third party, and it only contains a passing mention of the school in question. 2 says you, says two 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently its a repost. 2 says you, says two 15:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason this shouldn't be speedied? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I already tagged it for G4. 2 says you, says two 19:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete For schools of higher education, accreditation would seem to be a necessary but not sufficinety compenent for notability. Having a notable allumni, Randall Terry, doesn't make the school notable. Had the school won some major award, then a case for notability could be made. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Accreditation is really irrelevant here; schools can be schools whether or not they're accredited. Would you suggest deleting Pensacola Christian College because they're unaccredited? I see at least three reliable sources on this article; they don't provide much information, but there's just enough to justify having an article. By the way, this is completely different from the deleted version; consequently, I've declined the speedy. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Colleges and Universities that are accredited and grant degrees are assumed notable even without direct evidence of such in reliable sources, institutions that are not accredited must show coverage in non-trivial secondary sources, and the standard is even higher if the institution is for-profit. Comparing Elm to Pensacola Christian College is apples and oranges. Yes, PCC is unaccredited, but they have significant coverage in secondary sources, and have a large number of alumni/ae who have gone on to be notable. Neither of those statements are true for Elm, and from what I gathered from the original AfD argument, not a whole lot has changed this time around when eight out of twelve sources listed are the school's website, one is a group connected to the school, one is an alumni's biography, and two are trivial mentions. 2 says you, says two 15:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My PCC example was a response to the idea that "accreditation would seem to be a necessary but not sufficinety compenent for notability". I agree that PCC, with its multitude of reliable references, is clearly notable. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep partly due to the Randall Terry connection; need more/better sourcing. Not a true G4, in my opinion. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a small school and it's not accredited, but it is clear that it exists, it has existed for 86 years, it has many alumni, it promotes itself to prospective students around the world, it has some importance in religious circles, and it occupies an historic campus. The comments I wrote on the article talk page, under the heading "Reasons for creating this page" in June 2007 are still valid:

An earlier version of Elim Bible Institute was deleted after an AfD discussion that concluded "RS problems verifying the notability of this diploma mill." I looked into the institution, starting out with no knowledge, and quickly concluded that it is "notable" and has an interesting story. Furthermore, it is NOT a diploma mill. I think it is notable for at least 3 attributes: its apparent influential role in 20th-century American evangelical Christianity (including the Latter Rain Movement, about which I know nothing), the history of its campus, and at least one notable alumnus (Randall Terry).

Additionally, I now understand that the school is strongly associated with a Christian denomination (Elim Fellowship) and there is now a linked article about the two campus buildings that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Furthermore, I still know essentially nothing about Latter Rain, but I have added text to the article (third-party sourced) about its role in Latter Rain. (Perhaps someone with knowledge of Pentecostalism will add some context and details on this topic.)

If, on the other hand, you believe that this institution is nonnotable and that the article must be deleted, then I suppose that logically it should follow that the defunct institutions that formerly occupied its campus and the historic campus buildings are even less notable and their articles also should be deleted. (Not to mention the stub I created about the school's founder.) --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well-stated by Orlady, it is notable (in both the Wikipedia and real-world senses of the word) for multiple reasons, which are documented in reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the information in the present article, which shows notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. In the absence of accreditation or degree-granting status, notability must be shown by independent reliable sources. NONE of the listed references qualifies. The only mainstream source is a Time Magazine article about Randall Terry, which mentions in passing that he attended Elim. There is literally nothing about the institution itself, despite its age and its presence in a historic location. --MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoosh -- I was away for a couple of weeks, but it's hard to imagine that Wikipedia policies changed this radically while I was away. Please enlighten me about the changes I've apparently missed. I'm not aware of a Wikipedia policy or guideline that says "In the absence of accreditation or degree-granting status, notability must be shown by independent reliable sources". Where did you find this? Also, I am not aware of a policy that says that only broad-circulation mainstream media like Time magazine can be considered when evaluating general notability. In addition to Time magazine and various Elim Bible Institute websites and websites belonging to the Elim Fellowship denomination, the article cites the State of New York, a couple of published books[14][15], a local history website, a local church's website, and another news outlet, as well as sources that aren't actually about Elim Bible Institute. What are the objections to these sources? --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says it right here: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." That is the general notability guideline, and it is the guideline that this institute fails to meet. (If an institution of higher education grants degrees, it is considered as automatically notable; if it doesn't, it must meet the general notability guideline which I just quoted and which has been WP policy for a long time.) "Independent secondary sources" excludes things like the institute's own website. "Reliable" coverage does not include most websites, such as a local church or even a denomination. "Significant" coverage is not provided by the Newsblaze and Time stories, which are about Randall Terry and mention Elim only in passing. Sorry, I can see [16] that you have worked hard on this article, but the Institute itself is simply not notable per Wikipedia guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newsblaze doesn't look like any kind of reliable source to me, Orlady. It appears to be some kind of "we accept anybody's content" accumulator, plus a news search function. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Newsblaze is cited only because Randall Terry submitted his biographical sketch to them, and they published it. The other sources that mention Terry's attendance at Elim generally have less detail. --Orlady (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book Spirit of the Last Days, cited in the article, is a piece of serious scholarship, published by a notable academic publisher, T&T Clark, an imprint of Continuum International Publishing Group. This book describes the significance of the school in connection with the Latter Rain Movement. In addition, a Google Books search yields more than 250 other hits for this school. Only snippet views, or no views, are available for such hits as Profiles in belief: the religious bodies of the United States (Harper & Row, 1979) [17] and The encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions (Prometheus Books, 1978)[18] and many more, but it is evident that the coverage does exist, and that the school is historically notable in Pentecostalism. It is difficult for me to see how deletion of this article improves the encyclopedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've cited several additional sources and found two more notable alumni (Paul and Rob Schenck), as well as a source indicating that Randall Terry and Schenck were motivated to form Operation Rescue by teachings they were exposed to at Elim. --Orlady (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A school that has been around for 86 years is notable enough. Google news returns 191 results. Google book search shows some promising results, it listed in an encyclopedia that appears on the first page of the results. Dream Focus 09:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quran Anniversary[edit]

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

Promotion for a non notable event. International Quran Revelation Anniversary returns 2 GHits, Quran Anniversary manages 28. Both totals include Wikipedia and not a single reliable sources Nuttah (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination has it pretty much correct. TN X Man 17:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So massively unsourced that I wondered if it might be a hoax. They are planning this enormous worldwide celebration in August 2010, yet it has no presence at all on the web, even though it is only two months off? The only related thing I found was by looking under Koran Anniversary - which said the anniversary was celebrated in Dar es Salaam LAST year. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. hoax--I too can find no proof of existence DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antoni Blusiewicz Haftka[edit]

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

No sources can be found to verify that the person described in the article exists. Google search for name leads to a Facebook page. Hoax tag removed by IP, contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 15:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax and possible ((g10)). An interesting thing: in the very first edit Tamtampam (talk · contribs) added Blusiewicz-Haftka's name to the list of participants of Polish Round Table Agreement, held in 1988. In his next edit the same editor claims that Blusiewicz-Haftka died in 1977. No sources, no communication on the part of the article's creator. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a hoax. --Lord Pistachio ^talk 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy D. Per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a hoax--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a hoax. GregJackP (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob's your uncle[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOT#DICT. I can't think of a way that this will grow into more than a dictionary piece. I have been unable to find significant credible etymological debate about this phrase. I do not think that a discussion of unsubstantiated folk-etymology is enough to support the existence of the article. The material has already been copied to Wiktionary, and so loss of information is not an issue here. The fact that Wikipedia is the better known project does not justify it encroaching on Wiktionary's subject matter. Howfar (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Nnngh... subject has potential, I believe it to be an encyclopedic subject but not as it is. What is sourced reliably (?) seems to be simply a re-phrased version of the text in the source. Trivia should go regardless. Rehevkor ✉ 18:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe it to be potentially encyclopaedic, could you please help me understand how? If it can be improved to make it encyclopaedic, the article should stay. I just don't see how this could happen. Howfar (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm no expert on the subject, but WP:NOT#DICT specifies "a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject", this could well be one of those phrases, just not in its current form. Rehevkor ✉ 19:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that it hypothetically could be, I just don't think that it is. :) But it's not my decision in the end. Howfar (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - very well-known phrase. I would have been very upset if Lipstick on a pig was deleted by the nominator's logic. There are very many political catch phrases that I think have a place on Wikipedia, and don't know that our current rules would allow them in, under the nominator's logic. OK - tell me about "otherstuff." Smallbones (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the similarity with "lipstick on a pig". "Bob's your uncle" is not a political catchphrase, and does not have political significance. The "political" side of this is really just an interesting folk-etymology. The past and current use of "lipstick on a pig" in a political context gives it encyclopaedic content that "Bob's your uncle" lacks. Howfar (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its an informative article that finally explains this common phrase to a yank who has heard it but didn't previously understand it. The point being, its not a trash article, its knowledge and has no business being deleted except . . . oh, I'm going to lose faith again . . . find another hobby.Trackinfo (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that you are familiar with WP:Assume good faith and WP:Be Kind. I would prefer it if you kept your comments polite and on-topic, as imputing bad-faith to me does not seem terribly productive. Thank-you. It probably includes some knowledge yes, but as we both know, an encyclopaedia is not a dictionary, as Wikipedia policy explicitly states. Definitions and etymologies of words or phrases should not be the sole content of an article. Inclusion of knowledge does not necessarily improve an encyclopaedia. Wiktionary is the proper place for this content, and we don't improve either project by blurring the line between them. Howfar (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-known phrase with an interesting history. I'm not buying the deletion arguments, sorry. Joal Beal (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why not? Can you make clear why you believe this phrase belongs in an encyclopaedia rather that a dictionary? I am willing to be convinced of the rationale, but no-one yet seems to be interested in explaining it. Cheers. Howfar (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, the citations need to be properly moved to Wiktionary (eg the Worldwidewords.org link). Then move the disambig page to this location. (It contains the wiktionary template box.)
Note: Our last paragraph ("A more probable theory...") is a blatant copyright violation of the content from Worldwidewords.org (with minor corrections and changes). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There's nothing here that couldn't/shouldn't be in Wiktionary. Simply rewriting a dictionary article in text form leaves it still a dictionary article.- Wolfkeeper 20:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook dictionary article. Definition, usage, and etymology all belong in dictionaries. Powers ^T 20:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable eponym. Please see From Aristotelian to Reaganomics, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Skinfill[edit]

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

Constested BLPPROD. Provided refs are basically self-published. Article creator has WP:COI - photo provided is listed as "own work Skinfill Enterprises" and posted by creator. Fails WP:NOTABILITY - GHits are all self-published or social networking type sites. No (as in zero) GNews/Books/Scholar hits. Fails WP:ENT. Promotional, failing WP:SPAM. GregJackP (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - more information is at my talk page at the Jazz Magazine section. GregJackP (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional with no indication of notability that I can see. Out of the four refs, I can only access one as I refuse to download the latest version of Flash merely to please web designers who insist on being flashy... That one is DreamCymbals, and I cannot find 'Carlos Skinfill' on the page cited (or in the list of artists). "one of the finest drummers in contemporary jazz and worship style,skilled clinician, producer,composer and arranger" is quite a claim - especially with no backup for it. Looking for ghits, I find FaceBook, twitter and the usual suspects. I did find another link to DreamCymbals, but following it got me rebuffed thus "You are not authorised to view this resource. You need to login.". Perhaps someone else can get some better refs and more info. As it stands, it fails the policies cited above. Peridon (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will acknowledge him to be probably a better drummer than me - but I've not sat behind a kit for about eight years now. Peridon (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the majority of the article was copied directly from the flash site you mentioned, it has now been trimmed down to a single-sentence non-infringing stub. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. None of the external links listed under the heading "references" is an independent source, and none except Carlos Skinfill's own website gives more than trivial coverage either. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no proof of notability. I imagine the only reason this didn't get speedied is because of the back and forth copyvio issues. OlYeller^Talktome 21:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zacks Investment Research[edit]

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

No indication why this company is notable. The entire article consists of a) we're a firm from 1978 and b) here's our web address. CSD tag removed by author, so AFD. — Timneu22 · talk 14:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Pure advertising. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saadi Kingdom of Fez[edit]

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

Original research, the author has been unable to provide any reliable source Omar-Toons (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Although it seems that the last years of the Saadi Kingdom in Morocco saw the emergence of rival family factions, able to keep control of some parts of the country, no sources have been provided about the existence in historiography of this name. Same applies to the Saadi Kingdom of Marrakech. Besides, it does not add any information beyond what Saadi Kingdom already contains. On the other hand, Bokpasa is a user that has been permanently blocked because of POV-pushing and disruptive edition in both the Spanish and French wikipedias. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search says that whilst there were two capitals no evidacne for existance of this name, looks very OR.Slatersteven (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saadi Kingdom of Marrakech[edit]

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

Original research, the author has been unable to provide any reliable sources Omar-Toons (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Although it seems that the last years of the Saadi Kingdom in Morocco saw the emergence of rival family factions, able to keep control of some parts of the country, no sources have been provided about the existence in historiography of this name. Same applies to the Saadi Kingdom of Fez. Besides, it does not add any information beyond what Saadi Kingdom already contains. On the other hand, Bokpasa is a user that has been permanently blocked because of POV-pushing and disruptive edition in both the Spanish and French wikipedias. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search says that whilst there were two capitals no evidacne for existance of this name, looks very OR.Slatersteven (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crom Alternative Currency[edit]

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

I'm declining speedy as I don't think it fits G11 as it is tagged. It seems rather unique. Certainly needs some work, including finding references, if it is real. Otherwise I can speedy it as a hoax. UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crom Alternative Currency was officially launched on September 27, 2009. The Crom Alternative Currency is available as a single multinational alternative currency, an alternative currency to that which is issued by the world's central banks. Google News knoweth it not. Sounds like somebody's made-up scheme for monetary reform, with no notability even as a fringe position. And besides, Crom doesn't listen. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any RS to establish notability, seems made up.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if there is some sort of page on "crackpot currency schemes," otherwise delete as an ad. Here is the creator's MySpace page, by the way. http://www.myspace.com/cromalternativemoney Carrite (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. (Who cares what Balkan pop/rock/punk musicians think about the scheme). Conflict of interest with regard to original contributor. Looks like both an ad and some sort of nationalist protest against other monetary systems.--Dmol (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I presume they care because Crom Alternative Currency buys ale, wenches, and black lotus. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References showing evidence of notability have been added. For further notability, the association is officially registered under the Registrar of Associations in the Republic of Croatia. Further, it is not a scheme, rather a real system from which the n o n p r o f i t association doesn't profit. -Cukunbaba (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete unless notability via reliable sources is supplied (which seems unlikely). I originally didn't speedy this but urged (on the talkpage, given their ((hangon))) the article's creator (Cromalter) to find reliable references and, given their username, to study WP:COI. No RS has appeared; the "references" supplied by Cukunbaba are with two exceptions taken from cromalternativemoney.org. The two exceptions are a PDF in a language which is possibly Croatian (and may serve as a reference on the hr WP, but not on the en one) and something off YouTube. Probably not a hoax, probably NN and possibly POV. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest the hr WP has an article which appears to have a bunch of "this article has problems" headers. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several edits and larger comments have been moved to the talk page of the article. This is not the place for discussion outside of the basic Keep or Delete issues.--Dmol (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete. Merge is an option that may be discussed on the talk page. Shimeru (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Theatre[edit]

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

Like McKenna Theatre, I can find no significant coverage of this small, college theatre building. Any gNews hits are unrelated or event listings. As with McKenna, the article also doesn't attempt to assert any notability, but no speedy criteria seems to quite fit for a building. » scoops “5x5„ 14:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Needs a whole bunch of quality tags: a coherent lead, wikification, and so on. Give broad leeway to public buildings, chances are the information will be useful to someone eventually. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So wp:ITSUSEFUL because? Just saying it might be useful in the future isn't a constructive argument. » scoops “5x5„ 17:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — under a google search for parker theatre new paltz there are 21,500 results for this locationDemetri Music™ 16:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzim78 (talk • contribs)

The number of wp:GHITS alone is not a good indication of notability. As I mentioned in my nomination, deeper searches at gNews and gBooks turn up no wp:RELIABLE sources. » scoops “5x5„ 17:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage that I can see. Rehevkor ✉ 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to State University of New York at New Paltz as a separate chapter. ----DanTD (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep [19] provides a bit of detail. The primary sources provide plenty. Eh, I really really suspect someone has written a book about the school and a theater that sees as much use (and has the history this one does) likely has enough coverage. But I can't find it. Hobit (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I object to the proposer of the AfD debating the comments about the proposal which are not to his liking. Make your nomination, state your case, and let the chips fall where they may, please. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 State University of New York at New Paltz. Looks as if a merge is agreeable. Shimeru (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McKenna Theatre[edit]

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

A small, non-notable theatre on a college campus. No gNews hits aside from event listings, no gBooks hits. The article doesn't even make an assertion of notability, but I can't see a CSD criteria that directly applies to buildings. » scoops “5x5„ 14:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzim78 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mckenna would qualify under historical reasons, unique theaters proscenium theater, and Wikipedia laws for Location of an event.

Namely this site is used each semester for event's provided for the local Hudson valley community. the events are advertised in the local papers.

Times Herald Record[20]Demetri Music™ 15:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment I do not see McKenna Theater in that reference, but it is a directory and would not count much toward notability. Edison (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ — try goggling it under new paltz mckenna theatre' for that search there are 222,000 results--i think that qualifies under location of an event Demetri Music™ 16:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.140.2.97 (talk • contribs)

Comment I see 39 distinct results, such as directory listings, passing references, Facebook, YouTube, and blogs. Not much indication of notability. Edison (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to User:Tzim78, Demetri Music is him. » scoops “5x5„ 17:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tzim78, I have struck through your second "keep". Although this is not a count of votes, and you can comment as often as you like, you only get to say "Keep" or "Delete" once. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. Could be mentioned in the article about the college. Edison (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage that I can see. Rehevkor ✉ 18:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to State University of New York at New Paltz as a separate chapter. Thanks for the idea, Edison.----DanTD (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bihari lal[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports). There is only "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources" (a passing reference in a paper as a third spot winner). Winner of some regional competitions. The the only international competition participated in a searched for a " Be(i)jing common games". I searched for "Bejing common games in 2008", which seem non-notable or is a hoax. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Created as BIHARI LAL BODYBUILDER (now a redirect) originally. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Joal Beal (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joan, the awards don't appear to be significant/major enough, nor can I find much coverage on Google for him. —fetch ·comms 02:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. -Reconsider ! 09:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Verity[edit]

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

This article does not explain the title's notability. It frequently says the person is "well known", but there's no third-party source to back it up. There are some google hits, but the relevance of those hits does not seem significant. Maybe this person is the best architect in the world, but the google results and the article's content do not indicate any importance or notability. — Timneu22 · talk 13:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only refs I could find were for an oceanographer of the same name at the Univ of Georgia. GregJackP (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per Knepflerle, this does not seem to actually exist as a defined administrative region, so OR does appear to apply. (And perhaps WP:V as well.) Shimeru (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silesian metropolitan region[edit]

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

Completing nomination from IP user per WT:AFD request. I am neutral. From talkpage..

Resources given in this article don't mention "Silesian metropolitan region" and are not describing anything similar apart from considering relations between Katowice and Kraków area (and don't name it "Silesian metropolitan region" or anything similar in polish language). The only reliable information included in this article is already included in other articles like Silesian metropolitan area, Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia, Upper Silesian Industrial Region and Katowice urban area. This article clearly violates WP:NOR policy so my proposal is to delete this article. --83.242.88.168 (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Sources that are cited do not support the definition proposed by this article. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Silesian metropolitan area. There is no need for two separate articles. One can always mention this topic as an extension of the metropolitan area concept that already has an article. --Polaron | Talk 14:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only if there are reliable sources to support that mention. Otherwise, original research should be deleted, not merged into existing articles. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Significant content, but duplication. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It makes no sense to integrate everything. In addition, the article will be (for some time) expanded. LUCPOL (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is almost entirely a WP:OR synthesis of information. Expanding the article will not ameliorate matters as it's an unsound concept for an article altogether. The region as defined in the article doesn't correspond to any governmental or administrative region. The main source used to "define" the region doesn't even use the term used as the title, and the area is "defined" as a convenient hypothetical construct for this one particular paper, which itself does not seem particularly notable. Knepflerle (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Ramasamy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review/22nd_April_2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.

WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced BLP and the article doesn't show he passes WP:MANOTE. A quick Google search didn't find any independent sources that show him to be notable. Astudent0 (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would be prepared to change my opinion if contributors with Aikido expertise think this article should remain (I seem to remember this name from somewhere before), but a search for reliable sources just now did not reveal much to support notability. Janggeom (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find reliable sources that show me he passes WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Although we did not create the entry, the Kenshinkai Yoshinkan Aikido Organisation (UK) http://www.kenshinkai.org.uk verifies that the information contained in this article is accurate. In addition Shihan Francis Ramasamy was the instructor of Sensei David Eayrs who was the second person to bring Yoshinkan Aikido into the UK. Therefore this article should NOT be deleted. http://www.kenshinkai.org.uk/HistoryYoshinkanUK.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.95.142 (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that teaching the second person to bring a particular style to the UK qualifies as notable. I'm not even sure that being the second person qualifies, much less being that person's teacher. Notability is not inherited. Astudent0 (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the information in the aticle is true, and there are no sources that verify that, I don't see how the subject passes the notability test. The above organization never mentions him on their web page. Papaursa (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Master in Management Compass (MiM Compass)[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable website. I'm iffy on ((db-web)) so I'm going with AFD. This article has many problems including lack of notability, not written like an encyclopedic topic, and advertising (Finding the right study program with the Master in Management Compass). — Timneu22 · talk 12:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; promotional article for a website that cites no reliable sources, and I can't find any myself. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized additive model for location, scale, and shape[edit]

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

This page appears to be pure WP:OR and it is written like an essay paper. There are no speedy deletion criteria for essays, so AFD it is. While the title gets some google hits, I'm not sure this is being written from a third-party, neutral, encyclopedic standpoint; as such, I'm nominating on the grounds of pure WP:OR and slight WP:ADVERT and/or WP:NEO. — Timneu22 · talk 12:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response from original author: Dear Timneu22, Although I respect your concerns I must point out that they are in error. GAMLSS is an original methodology in statistics that is based on numerous published econometric papers (see notes on relevant page for references). In the same spirit many articles would have to be removed, e.g. Generalized additive model, Generalized linear model. I recommend that an impartial third party with knowledge of statistics and/or econometrics be consulted. Thank you for your time. UPDATE: I have taken a closer look at the article and I understand why you feel the way you do. I have changed the language in order to accommodate (as possible) your concerns. telemax 19 May 2010

Much of it is still written in the second person, and there are links to "our manual" and such. Still appears to be a forum for advertising. — Timneu22 · talk 13:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just needs a lot of editing, but it appears it will be generally useful. Melcombe (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some major editing to the file. In particular, it is now clearly not WP:OR since it refers to two specific original published sources (one of which is a published read paper to the U.K. Royal Statistical Society).telemax 19 May 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The "advertising" objection was the only one that had any merit and that has been remedied by subsequent editing. The "essay" criterion is the most thoughtlessly applied of all criteria for deletion or for anything else within Wikipedia, and this seems typical of that trend. As for "OR", this cites refereed journal publications; it's not something appearing for the first time here. Michael Hardy (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar says the 2005 paper in JRSSB has been cited 119 times, and gives 175 hits for "Generalized additive model for location, scale, and shape" OR GAMLSS so this is clearly notable and clearly not WP:original research. Article has now been edited to remove any resemblance to an WP:advert or WP:essay. Qwfp (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the Google result above. The article's sourcing should be improved; at present the article seems to be based only on publications by the technique's originators, so it could at first glance be seen as mere self-promotion. Coverage in third-party sources should be referenced, and the Google result suggests this shouldn't be difficult to do. --Avenue (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dorkie[edit]

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

Not a real breed of dog. Opening up pages for every portmanteau name for mixed breed dogs could number in the thousands. In short, this is just a made-up name and isn't substantive. JoKing (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is real, considering that there are two photos of dorkies, as well as a number of references.Sithman VIII !! 21:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This absolutely should be deleted. The references are nothing to do with "Dorkies", just to general small dog stuff. This not a breed of dog. Are we going to have pages for every fad designer dog cross? How about Poogles and Loxers and Jack-shitz and Laborterrs? Rootsie (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The material in the article is covered at Dog hybrid, and there is also a List of dog hybrids. Every possible combination does not need an individual article. --Lord Pistachio ^talk 07:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orchard Towers[edit]

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

Was deleted out of process via CSD A7. There's no CSD for buildings, so restored and elevated to AFD until there's a CSD for buildings. UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NRVE and WP:NOTSCANDAL. A search on Google yields results of mainly netizen opinion and gossip, thus fails WP:WEB. Weak WP:SNOW. Optakeover ^(Talk) 12:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Noticed that latest edits by contributor includes proper sources which proves notability, and scandalous text removed. Optakeover ^(Talk) 12:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Orchard Towers is, far and away, Singapore's most notorious nightspot and there are oodles of references for this. Start here: [21] [22] [23] [24] Quoting the first (Contours of culture: space and social difference in Singapore, Robbie B. H. Goh, Hong Kong Univ. Press): "The best known of these is probably Orchard Towers ... which at night becomes a notorious den of vice. Orchard Towers thus becomes a landmark for foreigners..." The article admittedly needs work, but I'm putting a little elbow grease into it as we speak. Jpatokal (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough sources presented that meet multiple/significance threshold as required by WP:GNG. A passing mention in a book is only evidence that the subject should be mentioned in a relevant article, not that it deserves its own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are now references for articles exclusively or primarily about Orchard Towers in the Straits Times, Channel NewsAsia, Lonely Planet and TimeOut Singapore. How many more sources would you like? Jpatokal (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The LonelyPlanet mention is all of two sentences. The Straits Times piece is about the prostitutes, not the building itself (it has all of two or maybe three sentences about it in the article.) To call these significant mentions is disingenuous. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry, what Straits Times piece might you be referring to? And oh, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" (WP:GNG), and the articles discussing prostitutes are very specific about Orchard Towers being the centre of the action -- that's precisely what it's (in)famous for, after all. Jpatokal (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Straits Times article referenced as evidence of notability. The article is about prostitution, and the mention that there are hookers in the building is trivial. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:GNG's definition of "trivial" is "a one sentence mention." The coverage in the Straits Times piece is well beyond a "once sentence mention." Even if that source is primarily about prostitution, WP:GNG does not discount sources that aren't primarily about a given topic as long as the coverage of the topic in that source is significant.--Oakshade (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is satisfied by the multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage which are now included as references in the article. Edison (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It does appear to pass WP:GNG as the coverage of this topic is significant. --Oakshade (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is written as per Wikipedia standards and is well sourced. This article has more information then just the building information. --Shorty23sin (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kodhiyar, and Delete Samari. Shimeru (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kodhiyar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unverifiable place, arguably notable (as a village) but there's no any references to prove it is indeed a village.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Maashatra11 (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: When you say "there's no any references", do you mean "As far as I can tell, no reliable source has ever written about this place (in any language, in any form of media [including publications that are not available through your Favorite Web Search Engine], in any place in the world)", or do you mean "No Wikipedia editor has yet taken the time to cite specific sources in this article"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a possibility to answer "yes" to both? I can't see how they may contradict each other. However, I'm not sure about the first one, I take into account the possibility that a reliable source about those places might exist, though I'm doubtful. Cheers, --Maashatra11 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is to be deleted, it should only be because it fails WP:Verifiablity. Abductive (reasoning) 22:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you; IMHO I don't see the point in leaving any article unsourced (and thus, unverifiable) and with a state like the current state of these articles. Basically they have no content (except for the district they belong to). If someone can find sources, then so be it, I agree that it's a good pretext. But for the article to stay a long time with nobody adding a reference means it cannot be verified now. For me it's a typical case of original research that has no place in an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Maashatra11

Do you understand the difference between something that is verifiable (the policy) and something that is already verified (not the policy)? If suitable sources exist (any language, online or offline, anywhere in the world), then we should keep the article, even if nobody has (yet) bothered to name the sources in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phil Bridger has already put considerable effort into digging and looking for suitable sources, and he actually found several for other villages in the same district. The fact that Kodhiyar and Samari haven't been found on the Panchayat Directory site indicates that they don't exist, until someone proves me wrong. I hope you get the point. And also, check this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places : "Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source" -It says "verified", not "verifiable". --Maashatra11 (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OUTCOMES is generally badly written, partly outdated, and often hotly disputed. I recommend against reading too much into its word choice.

The fact that an editor has made a considerable effort without finding anything, however, is important. Could there be alternate spellings? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I extracted for you a report of the census villages in the Sitamarhi district. (see link) Nothing seems to be cognate with "Kodhiyar" and "Samari". There are many other reports in the Panchayat directory site [25] so maybe you'll be able to find something that I didn't, though I already made a fairly thorough search.--Maashatra11 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find either in this list of about 46,000 villages. Abductive (reasoning) 20:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it does not appear in this hand-drawn map. Or any of the other maps on http://sitamarhi.bih.nic.in/. Abductive (reasoning) 20:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found listings of "Khodiyar" (not "Kodhiyar" as the page title suggests) and "Samari" in your 46,000-villages list, the only problem is, those villages just aren't situated in the Sitamarhi district. Maybe we should start articles for them as well ? :-) --Maashatra11 (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, if one has the correct name of the village, its latitude and longitude, and how many people live there. Abductive (reasoning) 23:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the first nomination, there was no need for such information about the villages' articles in order to keep them. The policy says once there's sources, it becomes "inherently notable".--Maashatra11 (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, reliable sources. Q. What defines a populated place? A. Placement and population. An article without a location or a source for the population is useless for the gazetteer function. Abductive (reasoning) 01:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The National Panchayat Directory (via Google cache) indicates that Kodhiyar exists. This page provides census statistics for Samari, which indicate that Samari also exists. Both places are therefore verifiable, and given the consensus on keeping verifiable settlements, should be kept. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That Kodhiyar is in Uttar Pradesh. The Kodhiyar being discussed here is alleged to be in Bihar. The coordinates given for Samari show it to be in Chhattisgarh. The Samari being discussed here is alleged to be in Bihar. Abductive (reasoning) 05:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further searching, and based on the sources listed above, there don't appear to be any references for communities with this name in Sitamarhi District of Bihar. It could be a case where the original author got the district name wrong, but without any sources to verify their existence, ~~the two articles should be Deleted.~~ Articles about the other communities by these names can be written since we now have sources for them, but that isn't relevant to the two communities at hand. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there now appears to be a source for it, I will change my !vote again to keep for Kodhiyar. My !vote stays as delete for Samari until someone finds a source for it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you of the opinion that all the villages in the map of the Sitamarhi district deserve their own article? As you can see, their existence is proven. Maashatra11 (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An editor has added a reference for Kodhiyar from the Sitamarhi district website. It is a pdf file in the Hindi language, so I couldn't verify it (I cannot read Hindi). I tried to convert it into a .doc file and inserting it to some transliteration software, but in vain (the .pdf Hindi fonts format isn't compatible with Word). I have no idea how that source my be taken into account, but I guess that for Hindi speakers it's reliable. --Maashatra11 (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to use transliteration to find the word Kodhiyar in that pdf file as it is written in English; just do a 'word search', you will find it. Salih (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't know which "word" to look for. Can you write down Kodhiyar in Hindi (preferrably also in the article so other users can do a word search as well).~~ --Maashatra11 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Kodhiyar" is written in ENGLISH. Please see page #67 of the pdf document. Salih (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, but I still don't understand the context.Maashatra11 (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pdf file is a document released by "Sitamarhi District Administration", and is connected to village-wise BPL Family List. It clearly shows that Kodhiyar is a village in Sitamarhi District. Salih (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prone to believe you, but the problem is that for non-Hindi readers (like myself) it's unreadable and thus unverifiable. I agree that it should be considered a source nevertheless. Maashatra11 (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONENG. Salih (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From there: "..the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors".
I see that in the 3 instances that Kodhiyar appears, it is shown below "Akhta North", making me think that maybe it is a neighborhood of Akhta North. On the other hand, "Kodhiya Rai" appears many more times (a big village?). Furthermore in the Sitamarhi district article "Kodhiya" is in the list of villages. Can I request you to translate the Hindi portion in the pdf file denoting that "Kodhiyar" is a village and not a neighborhood? I hope it's not too much to ask. -Maashatra11 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. In page 67, the Hindi word that appears on the left side of "Kodhiyar" could be transliterated as "Gram". It is the Hindi word for village.[26] Salih (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akhta North is a sub-sub-?-district? drawn on this hand-drawn map (west is up on the map) I linked to above. Inside Akhta North appears "Kothiar" which could be Kodhiyar except it appear on the wrong side of the river from the article's description and the tag on Wikimapia (also by Arun Kumar Singh, the article's creator). Searching by Kothiar Sitamarhi reveals a lot more sourcing. Abductive (reasoning) 20:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very confusing. Is it Kodhiyar, Kodhiya Rai, Kothiar, Kodhiya or maybe even Khodiyar? If you count the actual number of villages in the Sitamarhi district, you could reach thousands. But less than a percent of them is written down in Wikipedia. That ultimately gives undue weight and bias to villages' articles that were created by a single resident, and which would have never been expanded further anyway.--Maashatra11 (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this : map including virtually all the villages in the Sitamarhi district. Does each of them deserve its own article? Feels like a 5000-piece puzzle. According to sources mentioned above, Kothiar is apparently a variation of "Kodhiyar". Maashatra11 (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why "there's a lot of them" is a good reason for not having articles on verifiable villages. There's 36,000 communes in France and we have articles on all of them. There's tons of small, unincorporated communities in the United States and they are almost always considered notable. There's no reason why Indian villages should be an exception to our general policy on settlements, even if there's a lot of them. (On a different note, are any of the villages on that map variant spellings of Samari?) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet searched for Samari in this map, and also don't want to, because I already have an headache. I checked the Panchayat directory site ([27]), and found that indeed there is a village called "Kothiar" in Admin Block "Suppi" in Gram Panchayat "AKHTA UTTAR", just like expected (I suppose Uttar means "North"?). In reports there seems to be 871 villages in total in the Sitamhari district and as for now, only 5 have an article in the Wiki. For some odd reason, none of those 871 villages bear the name "Samari" or a variant spelling.
What I don't understand is, how articles like that are being constantly kept. As said before by User:Abductive : An article without a location (its latitude and longitude) or a source for the population is useless for the gazetteer function.
Taking your example, ALL of the 36,000 French communes include sourced coordinates, and often other information. I don't like the idea of millions of articles containing "X is a village in Y district, enough said." Maashatra11 (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that's really bugging me is that there is no sign of Dheng in the Sitamarhi websites, but it appears twice in Google maps.

Dheng appears in this link(the one supplied by Salih for Kodhiyar), under district "Maniyari". Maniyari district and its villages are listed in the Panchayat directory but with no mention of "Dheng". After some searching I have been informed that Dheng is quite a small village, having a P.O., a railway and a bridge, and serves mainly as a connection between "Sitamarhi-Bairgania road link". The other notable feature of this village is "the north-most village of India on the border with Nepal", but it's unverified. --Maashatra11 (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the existence of a village is verifiable, its location and thus its coordinates should eventually be verifiable. Unless it's a ghost town, it's somewhat ridiculous to say that a village can be proven to exist, but its exact location is unknown. We already have a map showing the location of the village, so the coordinates should be out there. As for the population estimates, these are hard to find for a lot of communities because their existence and availability depends entirely on how certain countries conduct their censuses. Even in the United States most unincorporated communities aren't counted separately in the census, but those are still considered notable. Poorer countries and countries that don't speak English are less likely to post census figures in English online as well, making census figures incredibly hard to find even if they're out there. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say that coords SHOULD be verifiable, but in practice almost none of the Indian small villages with articles in Wikipedia have them. I suggest to make a request to Wikiproject India to add basic verifiable information about all unsourced Indian locations. Maashatra11 (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid request if you want to make it, but it doesn't mean we should be deleting verifiable places just because they have no coordinates yet; Wikipedia is a work in progress, after all. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say we should delete any location article that doesn't give coordinates or at least describe the location. This is part of WP:V, a policy that overrides that essay. Abductive (reasoning) 22:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What prevents you from voting here, then ? :-) --Maashatra11 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Samari, India as completely unverified despite the best efforts of many editors. Failing WP:V should always result in delete, as it is the most basic principle governing content on Wikipedia. The other I am unsure about, but am leaning delete. Abductive (reasoning) 11:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kodihiyar: As its existence has been verified. I also added another cite to the article from Indian census materials that confirms that Kothiar is located in the Suppi subdistrict.--Milowent (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion about Samari, India? I also nominated it for deletion Maashatra11 (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Samari: I can't find it. Based on first version of that article, I would expect this village to be in the Bokhra subdistrict, but I can't find it. There is a "Siari" but no way to tell if its the same place, not that there is any content to lose at this point.--Milowent (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at this map (which seems to have been tagged by the creator of the Wikipedia article), Samari could be a misspelling of Simari (a village in the Dumra block shown in the map). Anglicization of Hindi words is somewhat complex in nature, and (assuming good faith) it is possible that the creator of the article felt that the spelling "Samari" is more reflective of the pronunciation of the village's name in Hindi. Such examples are quite common - for example, Jhumri Tilaiya is often anglicized as Jhumri Taliya or Jhumri Teliya. There's another village called Simari in the Riga block (but this seems to be inconsistent with the location shown in the map). A very remote possibility is that Samari could be a local short name for the Samarmahisautha village. In any case, it's just a one line article - it can be recreated easily with the proper spelling. utcursch | talk 09:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Task Force[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence that the organization actually exists outside of the website.

Delete; it's been three years since the last AFD, and since then, no sourcing has been added to the article; all the sources are either from the "organization"'s own website, or are articles about the terrorist who runs the "organization" (and make no reference to the "organization" at all.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how it surivied the last AfD, but if anything, it seems to be bootstrapped to Victor Vancier. I do not see any independent sources that discuss this group, and hence fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of secondary sources; I couldn't even find it on the Google news link above. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Why exactly is this article being considered for deletion? Jewish Task Force search on Google receives 390,000 results. There is proof that this organization exists. The article could be sourced a little better but i don't see why it should be deleted. It seems notable enough to deserve its own article. --Werblum54 (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Werblum, could you provide a diff? When I typed in "Jewish Task Force", I got over 802,000 hits[28], all to generic Jewish task forces, not this specific organization. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. A search of a large news aggregator reveals a few mentions in passing but no significant information. The WP article as it stands is clearly just an advertisement for the organization and its web page. I can only see a see sentences from third-party sources. Zero^talk 11:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Prescott[edit]

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

Declining speedy. Unsure if this passes WP:ATHLETE. UtherSRG (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A "up-and-coming" fighter with only two "professional" fights. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. ttonyb (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even the creator admits that he is non-notable - "up-and-coming". Joe Chill (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely fails WP:ATHLETE. --Lord Pistachio ^talk 07:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be notable someday, but not yet. Astudent0 (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patty Crash[edit]

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

Originally tagged as db-person, possibly notable under WP:MUSICBIO. Elevating here for discussion. No opinion. UtherSRG (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not sure how this would fall under WP:MUSICBIO.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubate. Consensus suggests the current contents aren't acceptable as a focus on this particualr organization, but that the content will be useful for a generalized article on Papulankutja Aboriginal artists. I will move this to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Papulankutja Aboriginal artists and do my best to trim some of the obvious problems. — Scientizzle 19:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Papulankutja[edit]

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

nn corp, declined speedy. delete UtherSRG (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep WP:NTMP, [29] [30], [31], [32][33]Qwerty8ytrewq (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NTMP? That doesn't exist. I'll leave it for others to determine if the sources are or are not WP:V and WP:RS to show notability for WP:CORP. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided do not seem to establish notability, even when they mention the subject at all - several seem to be just database entries of some kind. Rehevkor ✉
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Papulankutja Aboriginal artists or some similar generic title about the Aboriginal artists in the region, as sources verify that as a topic. The co-operative can be mentioned in it (unless more sources are provided that specifically address or highlight the co-operative itself). Ty 23:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V WP:RS notability-> WP:CORP [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], I agree with proposed move to Papulankutja Aboriginal artists Qwerty8ytrewq (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur with the idea of creating an article about indigenous artists in the region, the content in this article could be used as a core to build that article around. As a standalone entity I'm not convinced of the cooperative's notability though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Incubate in order to allow rebuilding as an article about artists rather than the location. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max and Nadia Shepard Recital Hall[edit]

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

nn music hall. We probably need a CSD for buildings and streets... delete UtherSRG (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I nominate this page for non-deletion because it meets the criteria of location of an event as prescribed Notability (streets, roads, and highways) in the rules of Wikipedia. I added a map of the facility on the external links and i can probably get the gps location off of my iphone 3gs. The building which the Hall resides is the oldest hall on the campus of the state university of New York and is consider a landmark. Piano Summer is a local event established in 1995 by world renowned pianist Vladimir Feltsman a portion of the competition is held in the Max and Nadia Shepard Recital Hall. The location is also the facility which a enormous amount of exhibitions are held throughout the year and publicized in local news papers and television media. one example includes the times herald record article [41] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzim78 (talk • contribs) 09:09, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Sources in the article merely confirm that wp:ITEXISTS (except for the first source, which doesn't actually mention the music hall), but do not show independent notability. No gNews hits or gBooks hits, at all, do not inspire any confidence in notability. The arguments by Tzim78 are irrelevant to the subject or for inheriting notability from something or someone else. This music hall is not a "street, road or highway", so that criteria does not apply. The building the music hall is in is old and/or a landmark, not the music hall itself. A notable event founded by a notable person is partly held in the hall. The example of local coverage is merely a listing of arts events in the area, it does not discuss the hall or even remotely attempt to assert any significance for the hall. » scoops “5x5„ 13:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure to satisfy WP:N and per Scoops. Edison (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have redirected to this the identical article Nadia and Max Shepard Recital Hall. It appears from this link that "Max and Nadia" is the official version, though both seem to be used. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual university buildings are not often notable: this is not even a building, it is a recital hall within a building. All the references I can find are about events held there, I find no indication the the room itself is notable. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to State University of New York at New Paltz as a separate chapter, as I've suggested with Parker Theatre and McKenna Theatre. It occurs to me that maybe there should be one chapter on college theaters on SUNY at New Paltz, and this and the other two should all be sub-chapters. ----DanTD (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heidelberg West Football Club[edit]

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

Mostly copyvio from http://www.heidelbergwestfc.com/history.html but I'm very hesitant to delete the whole article, as I believe it is inherently salvageable. UtherSRG (talk) 09:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you think it's salvageable, why even nominate it? AFL-Cool 11:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually, I'd vote for deletion on notability grounds. I don't think suburban clubs are generally notable, and notability certainly hasn't been established in the article. St Anselm (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that it has ever been a professional club.--Grahame (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the history section as being a complete and unambiguous copyright violation. If the article is kept it will need to be rewritten from scratch. I am not watching this AfD or the article, so if you have any questions for me please use my talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:SK ground 1. See also WP:BEFORE. You don't need to open an AfD if the outcome you seek is merge and redirect. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Henry VIII the Musician[edit]

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

Originally tagged with db-same. This article expands upon Henry VIII's musical contributions. merge and redirect to Henry VIII of England. UtherSRG (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is bad article, that reads more like an essay, but the nomination gives no real reason why it can not be improved and be linked from a small section of the main article on his musical activities. I am neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palasia[edit]

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

No meaningful article, advertising done, no citations & reference provided Abu Torsam 19:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs drastic editing...the subject matter is legitimate and the names listed seem to be areas/streets not adverts as guessed at (above) but it needs editing and expansion to be of encyclopedaeic quality. Invite author to do a spell check, and try using terms such as "upper-class" or "gentrified" rather than "posh". Could usefully include a history of the area and its buildings.--Stephencdickson (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stephen. While we have sometimes merged instead, there appears to be enough notability and material to make a good start. Real cities and other places are usually per se notable. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NRVE. I can't find any significant coverage, only enough to confirm that it exists. Any verifiable content should be merged with Indore. Claritas (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources have been writing about this place in English since at least 1827.[42] Phil Bridger (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Torture memos. Shimeru (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. sections 2340-2340A[edit]

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

~~Synthesis of a government document. Not encylopedic, people can just read the document. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)~~Unnecessary synthesis of a government memo, any relevant information should be included at the "Torture Memos" page.[reply]

Jeffrey Street Kirribilli[edit]

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

nn-place. delete UtherSRG (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original author has asked me, as the nom, to re-examine the article in light of the flurry of work that has been done on it in the past few days. The original author is also quite taken aback by how much effort other people have been willing to devote to improving this article. This, my friends, is AFD at its finest: a place where a mere stub showing no ounce of notability can be transformed through a collaborative effort. This is how I remember AfD, not as Articles for Deletion, but as Articles for Discussion. Even better would be to call it something else, for more the deletion and discussion goes on here. AfI (improvement)? AfR (review)? Anyway, on to the review...

Since there are no specific policies covering streets (although there is one in the works at WP:STREETS), I'm forced to use WP:GNG to review. GNG states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

Unfortunately the GNG is very tough as a guideline. I don't find a single reference supports passing this via GNG. I'm afraid my delete !vote must stand.

Even if STREETS passed as it is now, the article would have to pass GNG first. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely rewritten since.AWHS (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from being one block away from the north end of Sydney Harbor Bridge, I don't see how this street is notable. Plus, a mention of an "enclosed map" (in this section) leads me to strongly suspect a copyvio. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 08:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for a suitable period of time. The article was only created 20 minutes ago, so you haven't left much time for the original author to get it into an acceptable state. It appears to be an article about a geographic location, which is normally acceptable on Wikipedia without further evidence of notability. I too noticed the copyvio indication, but lets give the original author enough time to sort it out first. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Keep. The article has improved substantially since its nomination. There is strong consensus on Wikipedia for allowing articles about places of local interest such as individual streets, providing they clearly assert their notability/importance to the local context, and providing they are well referenced (for verification purposes). This article fulfils both of those requirements. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD gives it one week. That is a suitable period of time. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amended as suggested but more edits to come. Thank you for your comments. This is a first draft only copied from an article written for another publication by me. Thank you also for providing time to improve this article. Have removed reference to local maps which have not yet been loaded. Unlikely to be copyright violation in any event but will investigate over coming weeks with the NSW Govenment Library on my next visit. Copyright laws in Australia are understood not to apply for material in the public domain (such as a map which is more than 100 years old). The article is about a geographic location which is frequently featured or mentioned in the Australian press (eg leading newspaper today www.smh.com.au) and also appears daily on television. The street also contains a large number of significant heritage items. The immediate area has tourism, travel, education, and some minor geotechnical / engineering interest. This article should therefore be acceptable on Wikipedia without further evidence of notability.AWHS (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This street, which I have been to many times so am well aware of its prominent location, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The coverage is key - without it the article consists of fatal original research. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are just the person to help rescue this article from deletion. A Barnstar award to you if you can. The over-zealous efforts to delete articles makes this a challenge. It was my intention to research this at the State Library of NSW over an extended period of time, this however cannot occur in the next few weeks. There is quite a lot of material available in the historical archives but very little of it has been published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majormax (talk • contribs) 23:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest not letting the deletion of the article get in the way of your research. If the article gets deleted, and you later create a new article with lots of reliable sources, the new article will survive. Really the only way to avoid AfD is to do the research before writing the article.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No copyright violation Confirmed with NSW Government State Records that copyright for maps expires 50 years after date of first publication. ^[1]AWHS (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has now been substantially edited and altered, effectively rewritten to address many of the initial concerns.AWHS (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably needs to be renamed - "Jeffrey Street" is unique as yet on WP, and if it needs disambiguation it needs a comma or brackets. PamD (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do that?AWHS (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits, the article is now much improved.AWHS (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.208.4 (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why this article should be deleted The article is factual and certainly seems to be accurate. The inclusion of a map that is no longer covered by copyright should not be a reason to remove the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.208.4 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.208.4 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guthrieb1960 (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Why does the street need to be notable? Surely more accurate information about any street is of benefit?[reply]

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guthrieb1960 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Guthrieb1960 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Keep" This is a very interesting bit of Aussie history and should stay in Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mes227 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Mes227 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep What a wonderful little piece of history. Should be encouraged. Sandgroper1966 (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Sandgroper1966 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Lacks references about the street needed to establish notability. The sock/meat puppetry above is pretty obvious. Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you to everyone who has assisted in the rewrite over the past 48 hours. The article is now only a little over 2 days old and in that time it has been almost completely rewritten with references added throughout.
Photograph added - One of the most instantly recognisable views in the world... AWHS (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That photograph warrants an article on Sydney Harbour Bridge, not on Jeffrey Street. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite with new emphasis The article, in particular the introduction and first section has been rewritten to include notable mentions in the press and change the emphasis away from the heritage and history to the view/ vantage and tourist destination that the Mayor called "one of the most important locations in Sydney". AWHS (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability as a viewpoint seems well established in refs. PamD (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the fence for now, but I question how many of the references are actually about Jeffrey Street and include a non-trivial mention of the topic. Also, the history section does not seem to me to actually be about Jeffrey Street but more about Kirribilli, New South Wales. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response re the history section and the connection with broader Kirribilli. The history of the area of Jeffrey Street versus the rest of Kirribilli is complex. The article endeavours to focus on only those aspects that directly apply to Jeffrey Street or the immediate area generally as shown on the map. This area is perhaps 10% of Kirribilli. The suburb originally formed around Jeffrey Street on which this article focusses, thus some history is common and for a brief period virtually the whole peninsula was part of a single grant. Therefore the history of all sites will have some elements in common, closely related but differentiated pages are as follows:
  - Admiralty House, Sydney covers largely different history
  - Sydney Harbour Bridge immediately to the west
  - Milsons Point a couple of hundred metres away
  - Luna Park also only a short distance away.
  - Kirribilli House differentiated from Admiralty House, Sydney which is adjacent
  - Royal Sydney Yacht Squadron at the NE end of the peninsula
- The railway station, schools and theatre also have separate pages.
- A future page might cover the area of Milson Park at the northern end of the suburb. This area also has a rich history and has historical importance from incidents with early contact with aborigines in the area. This could be a stub.AWHS (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm happy for this article to be kept - notability seems established within the referenced comment in the opening paragraph of There are 19 heritage listed properties in the street, one of the highest concentrations of heritage listed properties in Australia - and then perhaps in the comment within the maps sub-section which notates, the location of graves which are believed to have been dug very close to the line of the modern Jeffrey(s) Street. From this evidence, it is deduced that Jeffrey(s) Street was the site of the first European burials on Sydney's North Shore. Whilst I do not like the word deduced because it seems to refer to some original thinking by the responsible editor - that word can be changed and if the comment is factual it does add historical importance to the location of the street.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 02:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your detailed comments I have edited the text re the graves to more accurately reflect a Heritage report held by North Sydney Council (I have a soft copy). The report categorically states that the graves are located in Jeffrey Street, but did not state where in the street. I have provided the reference. With the benefit of hindsight, the scaling of the map to determine where in the street was my original work so I have deleted that comment. I am still learning the rules of wikipedia. Any reader could compare this map to a modern day map and draw their own conclusions.AWHS (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per what VirtualSteve has stated above, the article does need to be cleaned up and a rewrite on some of the content in the article. Bidgee (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With more than 50 sources and several screenfulls of information derived from these sources, this is obviously a notable topic. Dew Kane (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

most of the references are about Kirribilli, New South Wales not Jeffrey St. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to comment below about differentiation from neighbouring suburbs. AWHS (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any useful content to Kirribilli, New South Wales. the article attempts to elevate Jeffrey St when most of the references are about the suburb Kirribilli and not Jeffrey st. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tried to write the article in such a way that this is not a logical conclusion by avoiding the general history of Kirribilli and limiting the history to the area of the street alone. Excluding maps (which cover the whole area) and walking tour guides (which also cover the whole area) a majority of the references are now very specific to Jeffrey Street. One of the issues with elevating is that the area is not clearly part of Kirribilli. The area was originally called North Sydney, the early map circa 1890 refers. On some maps the area is referred to as Milsons Point (refer to the train station and also the harbour bridge for examples). A quaint tradition St Aloysius College which is located in the street is that they still use the address Milsons Point on the school website even though Jeffrey Street has technically been just inside the suburb boundary for Kirribilli for over 50 years. The area is frequently referred to in the press (eg the fireworks on New Years Eve) simply as Jeffrey Street or Jeffrey Street Wharf. Admittedly the area is also often referred to as either Milsons Point, North Sydney or Kirribilli but the term Jeffrey Street is in very widespread usage. This confusion often arises because in the early 1800's virtually the entire penninsula was part of a single land owning, thus for this brief period of history there is one element of common history with at least 10 other pages on WP. AWHS (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Heritage photographs added of Jeffrey Street, in particular old cottages and the wharf and also the block diagram from the 1890's. I have also been referred to photographs in the State Library of NSW and have added a 1940's photo of the row of terraces. The wharf was notable earlier in the century as the main vehicle ferry wharf prior to the harbour bridge. Thank you everyone for the comments, the article is now vastly improved. AWHS (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found the online citations for the SMH references. These are available online in the archives of the SMH but are not indexed by search engines.AWHS (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reference re Milson being a friend of Campbell is WP but also found a number of other sources which I will add. The map shows that Milson's Orchard was in exactly the same area as the modern Jeffrey Street, so this is directly notable for the street rather than the broader suburb. AWHS (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to whoever added the category Category:Streets in Sydney. It is appropriate in this context and in good company. AWHS (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lovely article - Even if it is about quite a specific place, it's certainly quite an amazing location, and more importantly its notability is verified by non-trivial mentions in secondary sources. This principle would hold even if it were a less iconic location. If someone is prepared to do the research to create an article about a very specific place, then that should be strongly encouraged - It most certainly IS what Wikipedia is all about. My only concern would echo what other editors have said - duplicated history from the Kirribili page should be avoided. Only include what is a necessary backstory to the specific history. It seems that this has been or is being addressed in the article. If the problem is too much information, rather than not enough, fix it rather than delete the whole article.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 (corp) UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Healthleap[edit]

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

Speedy contested by an apparent SPA. While the contester asserts that the problem this company intends to solve is an important one, the article makes no claim of importance for the company itself, that is, no assertion that the company itself has already been the subject of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Delete, ~~but perhaps start an article on the problem which makes no mention whatsoever of the proposed solution.~~ already covered in Health economics. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 07:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons given by nom. No assertion of notability. Notability of a company or its products cannot be inherited from the notability of the market their products are trying to fill. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no hint of notability. . . Flint McRae (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Biggin Hill Airport Mid-air collision[edit]

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

Mid-air collisions between light aircraft, while obviously dreadful for those involved, are fairly frequent and not inherently notable; and there is nothing about this one to indicate that it is notable. YSSYguy (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, fails WP:AIRCRASH. Crum375 (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be demonstrated that any Wikinotable people were involved, as in the 2008 Farnborough plane crash. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:AIRCRASH, non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:AIRCRASH. Nsk92 (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, the one-line description at London Biggin Hill Airport#Incidents and accidents is sufficient. - 82.1.62.101 (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, content is poorly constructed and devoid of specific details which are available elsewhere. Images shown are representative whereas actual images are available. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.9.69 (talk)

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

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

The result was Since the redirect has already been performed, we're done here.. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Fitzpatrick[edit]

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

Yet another article on a recently-introduced Shortland Street character which is written entirely in-universe (nothing but plot summary) and does not even attempt to meet the guidelines for articles on soap-opera characters. dramatic (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Addition of such minor characters seems more promotional than encyclopedic. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Shortland Street. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article's creator has redirected to List of Shortland Street characters [43] with a note stating "I as the creator of this page have decided to redirect to stop possible arguments." Support this Redirect as a possible search term. No idea if the character is too minor for inclusion in the list due to the lack of details on whether it is a permanent one or a short termer.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn as redirection is a suitable outcome. dramatic (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology wiki[edit]

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

Non-notable wiki. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - only 174 ghits, many of them irrelevant. andy (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Clearly written as an advertisement. Optakeover ^(Talk) 16:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Introduce Prophet Mohammed Day[edit]

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

A non-notable advertising campaign. At the time of nominating this there is nothing on the linked site, http://mohammedday.com/, except for information on Joomla A search for this turns up nothing in the way of reliable sources. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable advertising campaign and "internet phenomenon". —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This campaign start just a day back. You can now check the website http://mohammedday.com/ and Facebook page http://facebook.com/Mohammed.Day Khan.found (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make it notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. In fact, the fact that it only started a day back makes it most definitely not notable. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. The title doesn't bring up a single news article on a search of Google News. Maybe it will be notable in the future but it isn't now. I think it's essentially an oversight by the WP:CSD policy that this doesn't qualify for A7. OlYeller^Talktome 16:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The absence of any coverage in reliable sources suggests this concept is not notable. EuroPride (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of coverage in reliable sources Hedonologist (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly original research and no coverage in reliable sources has been produced to document notability. __meco (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry to pile on, but WP:RS and WP:GNG. Joal Beal (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note that this day has already passed - it was May 20 - and it generated absolutely no notice outside of facebook and youtube and, oh yes, this Wikipedia article. So it was not just non-notable - it was pretty much non-existent. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Natural[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE as neither WLW and Shimmer are considered the top level of the sport. Also fails WP:GNG. See precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Eagles (2nd nomination). Nikki♥311 04:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 04:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nikki and it seems that even though she's won 2 titles (5 and 3 times respectively) none of the titles are notable and it is also just a plain stub that would be hard to expand because this person is not notable.--Curtis23's Us al ions 18:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone wants the text to created the discussed article about Earthquakes in New Mexico as a general subject, just ask. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 New Mexico earthquake[edit]

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

This article should be deleted. I don't think it passes Wikipedia Notability requirements. If every little earthquake had its own article there would be millions of them. I could see maybe an article called: "Earthquakes in New Mexico". And this one listed on that page, as well as the top earthquakes in NM history, but I can't see a separate article, it is a waste. Besides, what if there was a really big one later, this is also not a good way to name an article before 2010 has ended. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are dozens of magnitude 4.x earthquakes a day worldwide. Would only be notable in extreme circumstances, e.g. if it caused disproportionate damage or number of deaths. dramatic (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When you can't find a source other than USGS about an individual earthquake, it just doesn't warrant coverage in Wikipedia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 07:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is basically a minor event compared to such happenings as the Haiti earthquake, and seems rather WP:INDISCRIMINATE worthy because of its lack of notability and the frequency of occurrence of 4.0 earthquakes. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of "things that happened." Appears to fail WP:N. Did it kill people or destroy buildings? Did it get continuing press coverage of the recovery efforts and refugee camps? Did it lead to new building codes? Were books written about it? A news article said it was "a relatively small earthquake" in "a remote area" with "no reports of injuries or damage" and that it was "not extraordinary by any stretch." Edison (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of many new earthquake articles created by the same person [44] in March. With the exception of the 2010 Chile earthquake that killed more than 500 people and is hidden under "1st Biobío (Chile)" in the template, I don't think that any other quake that month was important. Mandsford 19:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the article's creator. Earthquakes, especially ones of magnitude 4 or greater, are rare in New Mexico, so this is fairly significant. CNN also had some coverage of this earthquake.Av9 (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a general article about earthquakes in the area-- I think that we had recent deletions on quakes in Texas and Oklahoma, and I'm not sure how close the epicenters of those three events would be to the common point that they share in the Rita Blanca National Grassland. Even the info on the deleted pages could be resurrected. I'm hoping that the persons most familiar with quakes will be able to identify the world's various zones in order to organize a useful method of tracking these events. Mandsford 16:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Notability not established. WP:NOTNEWS. Aditya Ex Machina 15:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. AlexHOUSE (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS... it's also snowing. 2 says you, says two 18:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I certainly agree with most here, that an earthquake this minor is not worthy of an article, no matter where it occurs. However, I recently lost that argument at this AFD discussion, where an earthquake of only 2.7 (yes, 2.7!) was kept. We have got to get some standards set up for earthquakes or the place will be flooded with articles about totally unimportant quakes. The recent flood of stories about earthquakes is being discussed here: WikiProject Earthquakes. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will re-AfD that article once the new set of Earthquake guidelines gain consensus. Aditya Ex Machina 07:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As Arxiloxos says, this College used to be able to grant degrees ('Although the college is approved by the state to issue bachelor's degrees, it has not been fully accredited because most of its teachers are ministers from the community who do not hold graduate degrees that college rating organizations require.') - the consensus here is also in favour of keeping the article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland Baptist Bible College[edit]

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

Unaccredited non-degree granting college. Nothing to indicate notability, no coverage in non-trivial, third party sources. 2 says you, says two 04:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. —Crimsonedge34 (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability inline with WP:N. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A significant fundamentalist bible college, coverage in both scholarly and news sources. Some of this coverage is under the school's former name, Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College. I've added some info and sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If high schools are de facto notable, I see no reason why this school is not. The RS references check out. It's never going to be Harvard, but it is verifiable as a real college. Jclemens (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unaccredited colleges, especially non-degree granting institutions are not automatically assumed notable, they must fulfill WP:ORG as if they were any other group. 2 says you, says two 17:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources added recently are more than sufficient to establish notability. ElKevbo (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unaccredited school which cannot grant academic degrees. Refs do not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article easily passes WP:RS. Joal Beal (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having enough reliable sources is a prerequisite for satisfying WP:N but by itself it doesn't mean anything. There are definitely enough sources to prove that the school exists, but very few of the sources listed are actually about the school, many only mention it in passing, this doens't satisfy the significant coverage requirement for WP:N. 2 says you, says two 18:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unaccredited school which cannot grant academic degrees. It is not a high school. SnottyWong talk 01:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. For those who think this detail matters, please note that this school did award degrees when it was located in California.[45] Also that the controversy regarding RadioShack CEO David Edmondson arose because he falsely claimed he'd received degrees from this school.[46]--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The diplomas are like "degrees" to the students there, for the credentials are used only within the Independent Baptist or related denominations. The school does not desire accreditation by a state, probably consider such accreditation counter to religious independence. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add: The word "unaccredited" means nothing to students at this school. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Whether or not the school desires accreditation, whether the students at the school care that the school is accredited, whether the school provides diplomas that are valid in Baptist churches, etc. is all completely irrelevant to the discussion regarding the notability of this particular school. What we're looking for are multiple, reliable, independent, verifiable sources that show notability. SnottyWong talk 05:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've briefly looked over the sources that were added since I last looked, and I still don't think they constitute significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a school is not accredited does not make it non-notable, and there are multiple third-party sources here to establish notability. (NB: Your child might someday be assigned a public school teacher who trained at an unaccredited Christian school -- when that happens, wouldn't you want Wikipedia to have an article about it?) --Orlady (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Arxiloxos. If it granted degrees at some point in its history, then it probably satisfies automatic notability, and regardless, it sounds like it has a few reliable sources in addition. --Zarel (talk⋅c) 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of breath mints[edit]

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

Devoid of any content apart from a list of brands, and by definition always going to be a straight forward list. Wikipedia is not a directory. This would be far better served by a category, if it is even necessary at all. Viridae ^Talk 03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Viridae ^Talk 03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes a category would be better. I was surprised to see some many articles on them. Borock (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess that the worst insult that I can make for a list is that it's "no better than a category", and that would apply here. If all I want is an alphabetized list of articles about a particular subject, that's what categories are good for. I can't say "keep", because this is actually less useful than Category: Breath mints. I'll hold off on saying "delete", however, because it's possible that someone could write an intelligent article about the breath mint (currently a redirect to Mint (candy), as opposed to a place that manufactures coins and such), with sourcing, history, description of ingredients, etc. and, if someone wants to add a list to that article, information such as who the manufacturer is. If someone wants to be a lifesaver, to add something extra, to try to excel, to do more than take things in stride, to freshen this article, I think that it can be done. Mandsford (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list contains more information than a category, because of the red links. The red links would not show up in a category. This provides the fact of the existance of the named product, even there is not article yet. This is also useful in alerting editors that an article needs to be written. Also, per Mandsford, the article could be expanded to include date of introduction, manufacturer, and other pertinent information. That could not be done with a category. Breath mints is a multimillion dollar industry, this list has existed since 2004, and it should be kept. Herostratus (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. I must have added this to my watchlist back in February to see what happened to it, apparently it fell into an abyss. It would be nice if someone volunteered to do what Mandsford is suggesting, and having a listing of notable breath mints as part of such an article would be fine I think.--Milowent (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not touching this article because Mandsford's blackmail is unethical — if he wants someone to improve the article, he should do it himself - AFD is not an article improvement service. Suffice it to say that the topic is notable, being covered in works such as the Encyclopedia of Consumer Brands and WP:CLS tells us that categories are irrelevant when considering the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep' on the general approach that for things, and people, and the like , if we have enough wikipedia articles, we should have both a category & a list as well. They are complementary. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The issue here is about whether the sources provided meet the criteria required by Wikipedia's guidelines. Although a close call, I find that the arguments that the coverage is local and/or minor is a major factor in showing that the consensus just indicates that the shop does not meet the coverage requirements of WP:CORP. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muir Skate Longboard Shop[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating per deletion review of a previous AfD that was tainted by canvassing; the DRV closed as relist. Procedural nomination only, I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete unconvinced by the sources quoted in first AfD, that this shop is notable in wider context for WP article. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find the coverage to meet WP:N and WP:ORG and there's no reason why this article would warrant an exception from these guidelines. Them From Space 05:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into UCSD as before. Not enough coverage for WP:CORP.--Savonneux (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Am I missing something? Four sources, all reliable and independent and all covering the topic in detail. So I can't see why it should fail WP:GNG - but clearly everyone else can, and I'd love to know why. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (again). Still doesn't pass WP:CORP, and no evidence things have changed in the ~2 weeks since the last discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it fail WP:CORP? The requirement is "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". This article has significant coverage in four independent reliable sources, so it passes. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per clear consensus at the previous AfD and at the DRV. Reyk _YO! 12:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CORP states that "attention solely from local media…is not an indication of notability", which in my understanding means that for purposes of establishing notability UCSD Guardian is not a independent source. That leaves two independent reliable sources: Transworld Business and Concrete Wave Magazine. Concrete Wave Magazine devotes a little over a third of a page to the store and covers a variety of different aspects of the store. This, in my opinion, qualifies as significant coverage. Transworld Business, however, is only two paragraphs, and discusses "bright orange swivel chairs" and what brands of products are offered. This, in my opinion, reads more as routine coverage of a store and does not qualify as significant coverage. So lacking any further sources turning up, I feel that a single instance of significant coverage is insufficient to establish notability. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that attention cannot be solely from local media, but it isn't as we have a non-local source. So a local one can be used as a second piece of coverage to establish notability without breaching WP:CORP. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have your interpretation of the guideline and I have mine. I don't see that it's firmly established either way. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up point, PÆon has said that "the article in Transworld Business is not available as a whole, from the looks of the text available and the fact that it was published a year after the store's opening, it was most likely not a short mention" (emphasis removed). If true, this may amount to significant coverage which could convince me to change my mind; I, however, have been unable to find any confirmation that the linked article at Transworld Business is only a portion of a whole, let alone an actual longer article. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per VernoWhitney's reason. Optakeover ^(Talk) 13:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The UCSD Guardian is an independent source with a circulation of 10,000. Read their Wikipedia page. It's not just a campus newspaper, as it's funded solely by advertisements and is not formally tied to any academic program. It is a local source, so those three articles, the national article, and the international article meet WP:CORP. PÆon (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's going a bit far. PÆon (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since they have yet to be listed on this page, here are the five independent sources; three local, one national, and one international (page 31). [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] PÆon (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep, and improve article: I understand that many consider this to be a marginal article, and it probably is, but it does have sufficient sourcing (in my opinion) that makes it worthwhile to keep, and I see the benefit of inclusion of this article in the project as outweighing any hypothetical harm (of which I cannot identify any). VernoWhitney has a good rundown of the current sourcing, but for me that ends up in a keep.

This case is not much different than Two Brothers Brewing (Chicago area brewpub, which was kept 3 times in 3 AfDs), or the infamous Mzoli's (See [52]). (Any who wish to cite WP:OTHERSTUFF without comment regarding those other discussions should remember that citing similar past experiences on the project "can be a strong argument that should not be discounted"). I don't see a valid slippery slope argument that the existence of this article will cause the creation of articles on every surf shop. Such articles are necessarily confined to those with sufficient coverage, which is a limited number.--Milowent (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about that, it does need a lot of work. Luckily, there are enough sources to create a much larger article, so it won't be very hard to work on. PÆon (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I said to endorse at the Deletion Review, on the basis that the first AfD was an example of technical compliance with GNG trumping common sense, and the closer cannot be faulted for doing that. But here the guidelines applied literally give a result that seems most of us think unreasonable. All guidelines inherently permit of exceptions; with respect to notability, the interested part of the community can decide on exemptions in either direction. (The alternative way to get reasonable results is to quibble on what sources account as adequate. The ones here are of borderline reliability and discrimination, and I can see how to argue whether or not they are sufficient in either direction. I could pick the result I want to achieve, and argue for that, for I do not think it's actually notable. But I think it's essentially advertising and would not belong in the encyclopedia even if it is notable. I do not think we should make decisions according to who can argue technicalities the more skillfully. In topics where I was the most skillful, those topics would go the way I wanted; in topics where someone else were the more skillful, the decisions would follow them. that would make a pretty strange encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This "are local sources sufficient?" and "is one source enough?" questions can be answered by applying GNG for what it is: a guideline and not a rule; and a guideline that creates a presumption not a guarantee of notability. When seen in that way it allows us to bring common sense into the process rather than applying formulaic approaches that are unsuitable for subject matter like this. This article is about a shop. Shops aren't usually notable. Nothing sets this shop apart. End of story. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about it's cultural influence? It was the first longboard shop on a continental US campus and brought skateboarding to many UCSD students. Now, it hosts large events like the Gravity Slidefest. [53] Muir Skate is not just some shop, it's a large part of the longboarding community. PÆon (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the reliable sources to verify this cultural influence. In any case "bringing skateboarding to many UCSD students" doesn't sound particularly significant to me. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Muir Skate offered free skate lessons to students. That increased the amount of skateboarders at UCSD. How much has the Harvard bookstore done for their campus' culture? Plus, what about the events they host? PÆon (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you have it out for Harvard Book Store, just put it up for AfD and we'll see if the community thinks it meets the notability guidelines. I'll also note that you didn't reply to the (implied) request for reliable sources supporting your assertion of cultural influence. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go, but there's an article that's probably somewhere in here [54] about an event they had. They brought out a bunch of boards and taught students how to skate. If it's not there, I'll be able to look for it tonight at 9:00. PÆon (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment generally individual shops are not notable enough for WP article. if they have really special or unique features it would be reflected in significant coverage which this shop fails to get. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG, so no reason to delete. The comment of Mkativerata explains what is wrong with the delete !votes: Shops aren't usually notable. Nothing sets this shop apart. - Wrong: the fact that it is covered by several RS sets it apart. Shops aren't usually notable, but this one is. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think it's a bit strong to describe those as "RS", Cyclopia? They're hardly peer-reviewed journals. Other editors call those "independent sources", which is nearer the mark. They're better than usenet postings or blogs, and I wouldn't go so far as to say they're un-reliable, but RS has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. Personally I'm in total agreement with DGG:- I endorsed King of Hearts' close at the DRV, for much the same reasons he did, and I think this has to be deleted, for the same reasons DGG gives.—S Marshall T/C 18:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Guardian only has a circulation of 10,000, it's reliable. As for the other sources, Concrete Wave and Transworld Business are very big magazines. Do you even know what Transworld is? They are THE board sports magazine company and are owned by the huge Bonnier Group. Concrete Wave, although not as giant as Transworld Business, is the Time or Newsweek of longboarding magazines. You need to do your research before making a decision. PÆon (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be the judge of what I need to do, PÆon.
You say the Guardian is reliable, but I don't see any evidence that this is so. As far as I can tell it's a local, student magazine. That doesn't make it un-reliable, but it also doesn't indicate the kind of editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking that's inherent in Wikipedia's definition of a RS. The same applies to Concrete Wave and Transworld: they're glossy special-interest magazines with a high proportion of their pagecount devoted to photographs and advertisements. Again, this doesn't make them un-reliable, but it doesn't put them in the same category as, say, the academic press. In short, I think there's more to RS than a simplistic, binary state of reliable or unreliable; I think there are shades of grey and degrees of reliability. On that continuum, Concrete Wave would be more reliable than a blog, but not as reliable as the BBC.
What we're looking for here is the enduring significance of the subject, and, I'm deeply unconvinced of the enduring significance of the Muir Skate Longboard Shop.—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need the BBC being the standard of RS. In fact, such a high bar is present in no guideline. Nor we need to judge "enduring significance"; we need to document sourced knowledge, and that's what this article does. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do need to discriminate between different levels of reliability in sources, and such a high bar is mentioned in WP:RS. The phrase "enduring significance" is a paraphrase of WP:IINFO (which actually mentions "enduring notability").
But, I do recognise that you and PÆon have an arguable case in terms of guidelines. I disagree with you rather on a matter of editorial judgment.—S Marshall T/C 12:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe that the sources demonstrate that this shop has "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject", and thus meets our General Notability Guideline. Others may interpret the GNG more strictly (is the coverage given really significant? It's certainly debatable, but I think that it is), but to me, this article clearly, if only barely, meets our notability criteria. Buddy431 (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Insufficient non-local WP:RS to allow it to pass. Also there is nothing special about this store that would allow for it's inclusion in Wikipedia on those notability grounds either. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when we need RS to be "non-local"? --Cyclopia ^talk 01:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the rationale Wikipedia:CORP#Primary_criteria "on the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three local, one national, and one international... That is definitely not "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest." PÆon (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RP459, thanks for pointing that out: that section of WP:CORP is in contradiction with WP:GNG (and itself, see first paragraph). I'll look into amending it. --Cyclopia ^talk 08:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did "look[ing] into amending" a guideline involve unilaterally changing it without even trying discussion? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when WP:BRD exists. Of course the "RD" part is more than welcome. For the record: I am not using my edit to WP:CORP to argue in this deletion debate -for me it is enough that the topic meets WP:GNG ; that there is a separate problem with WP:CORP consistency is another problem. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue This article has multiple sources: three local, one national, and one international. It meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP and for this reason, it is deserving of a rescue. PÆon (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PÆon (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again As I said last time, Google news search for its original name Muir Surf & Sport gives one result [55] Plus the coverage in the Concrete Wave Magazine counts, and other sources in the article as well. Dream Focus 01:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. The coverage I'm seeing is not very significant. "Concrete Wave"? Yeah, so? Notabilty just because it was on a campus? I'm sure there is a maintainence shed near the athletic fields too, but I doubt it's notable either....If this looks like the same thing I said the last time, it is. My opinion hasn't changed. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Save for the users who have already participated in this AfD, I have notified the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 12#Muir Skate Longboard Shop about this AfD. Cunard (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not exceptionally adamant about it since there are only four sources in right now and this might be not be enough depending on your wikiphilosophy. In response to a few of the things above:

GNG does not specify that local coverage + international coverage is not sufficient. If someone is changing that they shouldn't be. WP:CORP also does not since it is easily interpreted as coverage being only local would point to it not being notable.
Transworld is obviously only a snippet since it reads "He was introduced to the right people within the UC system, and it wasn"(emphasis mine). I am actually surprised someone disputed that.
The Concrete Wave write up is fantastic for our purposes. It provides details that are more than trivial and assist in the article being created without any original research.

Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Still fails WP:CORP. This quote is from that page, and it sums this up very nicely:

A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.
— Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria

Basically, no significant coverage in secondary sources can be found. I also cannot find anything when I do a Google news search on "Muir Skate Longboard Shop". —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the problem is basically this. If I was to open my town's first Widget Shop next week, I'm pretty sure I could guarantee some coverage in the two local papers, and probably even the one that covers the city near my town. I'm also pretty sure I could get some coverage in the online presence of Widget Buyers Monthly, and perhaps even in a few business-oriented sources - let's face it, mine is the first Widget Shop in the area. Is that coverage in reliable sources? Certainly is. But is it significant coverage. No, it's just another few space-filling stories about another Widget Shop which is no different from all the others in the country. The important part of WP:CORP is this - "Neither do the publication of routine communiqués (count as substantial coverage) announcing such matters as ... facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest.". Black Kite (t) (c) 10:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG gives us a guideline or framework to keep in mind as we consider the issue of notability. It's not a formula. If people are trying really really hard to split hairs to make it appear that the guideline is met, it doesn't meet it. GNG also says that "multiple sources from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability," so please consider the three UCSD articles as one source. This means there are three sources... hardly notable. Maybe in six months or a year there will have been more coverage, but it's just not there right now. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 10:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources is more than enough for WP:GNG. There is no 3-sources threshold anywhere. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of sources is irrelevant. You can have significant coverage from a single source, but equally you could have twenty other sources that added together don't constitute significant coverage. I would argue that the only source that's even approaching significant here is the Concrete Wave one, a half-page interview in a niche market magazine with, according to its article only a circulation of 20,000. Local papers have larger circulations than that. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The circulation of most scientific technical journals is way below 20.000, yet nobody denies they are extremly good RS. Specialized coverage is still good, third-party coverage. We don't need the BBC being the threshold. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't need the BBC, but relying on a single low-circulation niche publication doesn't say "significant coverage in reliable publications (plural)" to me. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more clear. Yes, sometimes few sources, depending on the source and the content, are enough to establish notability. Based on these three sources and their content, it's my opinion that notability has not been demonstrated. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if to you, "it's just a stupid skate shop." You need to be unbiased when you look at it, along with other articles. For this reason, Harvard Book Store hasn't had a problem, but a skate shop is getting trouble. It was groundbreaking, a skate shop on a U.S. campus. UCSD is a large research school, so a skate shop being opened due to public demand is an incredible thing. Now that they're off campus, they're one of the largest retailers of longboards on the internet and host the biggest longboarding events in the country. PÆon (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, bordering on spam. - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up with proper references. Stifle(talk) 14:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice essay, which contradicts deletion policy. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a pretty bad idea. All that will do is get someone to put work into an article that might be deleted. As soon as this AfD is over, if the article is still standing, I'm going to use the 5 reliable sources to create a much larger article. There's a lot of information in those sources, so I don't think I'll have much of a problem cleaning it up and expanding it. PÆon (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important A business needs to meet one or more of three requirements to establish notability:

  1. WP:CORP alternate criteria
  2. WP:CORP primary criteria
  3. WP:GNG

Many of the "Delete" voters mentioned WP:CORP only. However, if the article only meets one of these requirements, it is indeed notable.

Comment WP:GNG states that "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." All five sources are reliable, secondary sources. Even if there were five local sources, not three, this article would meet WP:GNG. Therefor, although I believe it meets WP:CORP, it does not need to. To anyone who thinks it doesn't meet WP:CORP, ask yourself if it meets WP:GNG. Remember, according to WP:GNG, local sources are considered reliable, independent sources. Because Muir Skate meets WP:GNG, it would be against the rules of Wikipedia to delete it. PÆon (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just also remember the GNG does not guarantee notability, it only presumes it. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it guarantees notability (otherwise it wouldn't be the GNG!). What is not guaranteed is that the topic is suitable for a standalone article, since we can judge it is best merged somewhere else, or that it clashes with WP:NOT for some other reason. But this doesn't seem the case. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below..." Yes it is a guideline - that's why it doesn't guarantee anything because guidelines are not black letter law. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just looked up the only citation that might have given credibility to this article, Citation #3: Muir Surf & Skate". Concrete Wave Magazine: p. 29. Winter 2009. http://www.concretewavemagazine.com/magazine/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=129&Itemid=139. Retrieved May 9, 2010. ~~Unfortunately, it appears to be a hoax.~~ The winter 2009 edition of this magazine (correctly cited as Volume 7, No. 4) has a full-page advertisement for retroskateboards.com on it. No mention of this hokey little shop. The other 3 references are a student newspaper and a blog. Not a snowball's chance in hell of passing WP:CORP. Toddst1 (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax, they just mis-titled it, it should be Vol. 6, No. 4, Winter 2008. On page 29, bottom of the middle and all of the right column are about Muir Surf & Skate. In the viewer it's page 31 since it doesn't correspond with the page numbers of the actual magazine. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still wrong. I tracked it down and it's Holidays 2008. After reading the portion of the article that mentions this shop, I wouldn't say that is significant coverage. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability, so my delete still stands. Toddst1 (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on with this? It says "Winter 2007 CONCRETE WAVE 29" at the bottom of the article. Is there a second write up in another issue?[56] Cptnono (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the link again. It says Holidays 2007 at the bottom of the page. Toddst1 (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I've seen, I think it's just a sloppy editorial staff at the magazine. When I look at it the cover says "Winter 2008" and the bottom of the page says "Holidays 2007". <shrug> Either way, the magazine is still just one source. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about the editorial sloppiness. Given that, I think that pretty much rules this Concrete Wave Magazine out as any sort of WP:RS. If they can't even get the date of their issue straight, what can they be relied upon to get right? Toddst1 (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you know the definition of a reliable source, Todd. A good website is not indicative of the reliability of an international magazine. It's circulation of 20,000 speaks for itself. PÆon (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Read the link again." D'oh! Anyways, there isn't another one is there?Cptnono (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it is still RS just because we are getting thrown off by the date. Tagging it seems a little manipulative. It may not assert enough notability but it looks like perfectly fine magazine with an editorial vetting process and some decent circulation.Cptnono (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: couldn't find sources for this... probably self promotion... Arskwad (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Five sources have been supplied. Have you even read them? The three local sources are secondary, so along with the national (snippet) and international source, there's no denying that it meets WP:CORP. Before anyone says local sources aren't secondary, please look it up first. The type of source has nothing to due with a publication's size. There is enough information in those five sources to create a much larger article, and it deserves a chance to become something much better. Yes, "other stuff exists," but if this store was an Ivy bookstore, five sources wouldn't be a problem. This whole AfD seems like discrimination against skateboarders. PÆon (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nakisa Inc. (Software)[edit]

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

WP:NN company. Only notability is PR pieces or Partner (promotional) publications. Sorry, but being in SAP's ecosystem doesn't satisfy WP:CORP Toddst1 (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runaway (Wishbone Ash album)[edit]

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

Bootlegs are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable; little to no coverage that I can see and it's unlikely for a bootleg such as this to achieve anything resembling the significant coverage required to support an article. Rehevkor ✉ 18:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since the other articles were never tagged, their status is not affected by this discussion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal (Doctor Who audio)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Also an unreferenced audio drama that doesn't come out until 2011 and per WP:CRYSTAL and the corollary of WP:NFF. Not necessarily opposed to creation after the release date, provided that notability can be established. Joint nom with The Architects of History, Thin Ice (Doctor Who audio, Crime Of The Century (Doctor Who audio), and Earth Aid, all of which are unreleased Doctor Who audio dramas, and none of which have references or significant coverage. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 23:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, I don't understand. "Animal" is exactly the same as all the previous pages. It contains a link to the official site proving all the information provided. As do "Crime" & "Earth Aid". When more information is available, I will add more. And you have the wrong link for "Thin Ice". And "Architects" came out last month. Why are you doing this? These pages I make are used often and always factual. Why delete something that's going to be used just because you don't think it's relevant yet? So you take it down and then I put it back up at a closer release date? You're just making more work for both of us. And depriving everyone else of information. I don't go around deleting other people's pages just because I don't like them. Play nice. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumbersnatch (talk • contribs) 21:52, May 4, 2010
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to: Big_Finish_Productions#Doctor_Who - BalthCat (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Animal (Doctor Who audio) - Sorry, I love the Big Finish audios to death, but (a) this fails WP:CRYSTAL, (b) the article is currently a plot-only description of a fictional work, and (c) there's no evidence of independent notability. Much in the same way as every episode of a notable TV series isn't automatically entitled to an article, neither should these be, with the obvious exception of particularly notable audios like The Sirens of Time, Jubilee, etc. I'd vastly prefer to see Rob Shearman's work on Jubilee done justice by having that article fixed up than see you waste your time defending speculative articles about future releases. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on other nominations - The joint nomination has not been performed correctly, appears to be based on inaccurate information, and raises different questions of policy to Animal (Doctor Who audio), so I decline to comment on the other articles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As DustFormsWords, I don't see why every Dr Who audio should be notable when most of the articles clearly fail WP:GNG. One that doesn't even exist yet... I see no justification for keeping this. Bondegezou (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The issue here is not the coverage, but whether it is significant enough to warrant the organisation having an article on Wikipedia. The consensus seems to be that the coverage of Horasis is not significant enough to meet WP:ORG, and so the consensus is to delete. Should significant coverage at reliable sources be forthcoming in the future, the article can be recreated, but the coverage is not there at the moment -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horasis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horasis however G4 deletion of the current incarnation was declined on the grounds that the article is substantially different. Whilst it is true that some of the text is new I do not believe that the issues of raised in the last AFD have been satisfactorily addressed and cannot see any that any element of WP:ORG is satisifed. The majority of the sources cited are primary and those that are secondary mention Horasis only in passing, usually just being namechecked as a sponsor of the events. Taking the first five non-primary sources cited in the article:

"Interview with Frank Jurgen Richter and Pamela C. M. Mar" Horasis not mentioned at all (it is an article on a book written by one of their employees)
"Enthusiasm, Tempered With Concern, About Business in India" The New York Times, July 8, 2009 - Horasis mentioned once "...sponsored by Horasis"
"Germans fear backlash as China ties cool Financial Times, November 21, 2007 article behind paywall
"Meeting aims to boost EU-China business" USA Today, November 5, 2007 - Horasis mentioned once as the employer of a person giving a quote "...said Frank-Juergen Richter, president of Horasis, a Geneva, Switzerland-based group that is organizing the gathering"
"Global Bailout" Newsweek, November 9, 2007 Horasis mentioned once as the venue for the interview "...he spoke with NEWSWEEK's George Wehrfritz at the Horasis China Europe Business Meeting in Frankfurt"

Indeed I could find no non-trivial mentions in all the sources supplied so it is no surprise that a Google news search draws a complete blank as well. It is possible that some of the individual Global Summits have standalone notability but I am convinced that there is none for the sponsoring body. Nancy ^talk 15:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That Google News search is only for the last 30 days. Try clicking on the "news" link spoon-fed at the top of this discussion for a proper search, which finds 81 news articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phil, my error although in the 81 I am struggling to find anything non-trivial. Nancy ^talk 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – According to the last AFD this article is completely new and not only some of the text. So the decline of G4 deletion was correct.

Cited sources are not trivial or incidental coverage according to WP:ORG. They reflect the notice which Horasis has attracted with its work. Here the evaluation of the criticized sources according to their content and their citation in the article:

"Interview with Frank Jurgen Richter and Pamela C. M. Mar" – cited as source for the fact mentioned that the founder of Horasis was a former Director at the World Economic Forum
"Enthusiasm, Tempered With Concern, About Business in India" The New York Times, July 8, 2009 – here the full quote: At the opening reception last week of the Global India Business Meeting, a two-day conference sponsored by Horasis, a kind of junior league World Economic Forum for the emerging market set; the entire NYT-article is about the Horasis Global India Business Meeting, which was organized by Horasis
"Germans fear backlash as China ties cool Financial Times, November 21, 2007 – this article is not behind a paywall, but you have to register at FT.com to read it for free
"Meeting aims to boost EU-China business" USA Today, November 5, 2007 – as the title states: the article is entirely about the Horasis Global China Business Meeting 2007 and its’ results, Horasis is mentioned as the organizer of it
"Global Bailout" Newsweek, November 9, 2007 – cited as source for the then upcoming financial crises which influenced the meeting

So the sources cited are not just passing or namechecking Horasis but significant coverage according to WP:N. For NYT, Financial Times or USA Today no one can doubt the reliability and independence of Horasis. In addition to the cited sources here the [Google news search] – obviously not blank.

One aspect of notability hasn’t been considered yet at all: the participants at the Horasis events. There are Prime Ministers, the Secretary-General of UCTAD, and many Ministers, influential politicians and CEO´s of major global corporations who Horasis gathers at its events. So according to WP:N Horasis has been receiving significant attention in the political and economic sphere globally for many years, an unmistakable sign for notability according to WP:ORG.

[

As you find on the Horasis talk page many of these arguments had already been given there without any reply. The request for it was answered with this AFD.Dewritech (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC) — Dewritech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of the sources you articles you refer to above amount to more than trivial or incidental coverage. As I said in the nom, it may be the case that some of the individual Global Forums may have independent notability but Horasis itself does not. Nancy ^talk 08:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you can not separate the Summits from Horasis – these meetings are the results of their work. So if you consider these meetings have notability (e.g. because of the participants) then it’s the work of Horasis which obtains notability, without them no such meetings.Dewritech (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Dewritech. The current article on Horasis should not be deleted as it portays an organisation that brings together some of the decision makers at the global level. Many of the sessions at such events take place behind closed doors and it would not be easy the the regular media to report on them. In fact that is one of the strengths of Horasis events- to provide a platform where decision makers can speak their mind.Candyisdandy (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)— Candyisdandy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I can absolutely understand why you admire the work of the organisation but can you show any grounds in Wikipedia policy for keeping the article? Nancy ^talk 08:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy does say that smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. Candyisdandy (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC) — Candyisdandy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

True, but they still need to meet WP:ORG Nancy ^talk 17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from the talk page)Hi everyone, I am the Deputy Editor-in-chief of the Spanish Magazine Global Asia "Global Asia". I know Horasis since several years, it is a notable organization hosting peer-to-peer events for CEOs. We carried several articles (in Spanish language) about meetings held by Horasis. I myself have written articles on the "Global China Business Meeting 2009, Lisbon: Globalizing Chinese Companies (Spanish)" and I have interviewed several of the participants. We find these Meetings very attractive as we can interview top CEOs from around the world, but specially from emerging economies such as China, Brazil, Russia, etc. In our currently issue, there is an article written by the Director General of the Spanish Asia House (Casa Asia) on "The 2010 Global India Business Meeting will be held in Madrid". I strongly believe that the current article on Horasis should not be deleted, Horasis is a first-class organization which gathers top CEOS, decision and policy makers as well as global media leaders. Thanks to Horasis I have met several editors and journalists from leading business and economic magazines.Mbolekia (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC) — Mbolekia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
(copied from the talk page) Hi all I don't often comment. But an entirely different search shows Wiki pages for Chatham House, OCDE, Fabian Society (etc) are indeed similar to that of Horasis - without looking into the 'depths' of Wiki definitions. As noted above, and in the further discussions, Horasis simply 'gets people [top people] together for discussions about the future'. TV commercials in the UK says of "Ronseal" - it does what it says on the tin - - This may seem a trivial comment to make - but Horasis is a mechanism for meetings creation at very senior international level that address global issues: it does what it says on the tin ie just what it says in the Wiki entry. I vote for it to stay, yet be updated as new facts are found, such as new meetings announced, and old meetings sumarised. Bye - John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbkidd (talk • contribs) 10:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewritech (talk • contribs) — Dewritech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Whilst being basically verifiable, I've yet to find the significant independent coverage required to justify an entire article. I have no objection to the organization being covered in a broader article, with a depth proportional to the sources. It seems that the coverage is largely that of the various meetings sponsored by Horasis. The press are using the meetings to write pieces that are ultimately useful sources for our economy-related articles (USA Today for example, and probably with the Global Asia links above; alas they require a subscription). But I don't think there's enough directly about the meetings or Horasis. Marasmusine (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Maramusine, according to WP:N: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material – Horasis doesn't have to be necessarily the core issue. And According to WP:ORG: When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education – with the participants coming together at the meetings organized by Horasis it has notabiliy. Dewritech (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC) — Dewritech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yeah, I think I am leaning towards a "keep" actually. There's suddenly a lot of new accounts from people in related groups (no disrespect intended; they're making valid arguments) so for balance I'd also like to see the opinions of established editors too. Marasmusine (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know the people of Horasis from previous events and while looking into the Horasis meeting in Ljubljana this weekend I discovered this discussion. Of course my personal experiences with Horasis and my conviction that Horasis is an organization with notability are absolutely irrelevant according to WP:ORG. But I found a source that is not: the Government of Slovenia: “Global Russia Business Meeting”. Horasis with all the top-level meetings it is putting together certainly merits a Wiki article.Documentarybuff (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC) — Documentarybuff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Last weekend the President of Slovenia, Danilo Türk, attended the Horasis Global Russia Business Meeting in Ljubljana - another prove of notability (which will be added to the article next week as over this weekend I’ll have only limited web-access). Dewritech (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC) — Dewritech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I have notified the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horasis about this AfD. Having reviewed the deletion nomination and the sources, I cannot find nontrivial coverage in reliable sources, with the exception being this article from mzz.gov.si which reads like a press release. Therefore, delete. Cunard (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As stated below there are many good references. And you can not decline a significance of this governmental statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Slovenia just because of its style! Dewritech (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are many good references, but many of those appear to be trivial to me. It is up to the community to decide whether that matters. Traditionally, many sources meant notability. However, the consensus seems to have changed recently to require not just good sources, but significant mentions. Bearian (talk)
- Comment: Hello Bearian, thanks for your approval of the references. As you wrote it’s the open question whether they are sufficient or not to make Horasis notable. But what is with the fact, that Horasis obviously is notable enough for e.g. several Prime Ministers or the Secretary General of UNCTAD (besides of many others) to attend the meetings? The weekende before last the President of Slovenia spoke at a meeting. And isn’t it a significant effect according to WP:ORG if Horasis brings together influential politicians and CEOs from different parts of the world for years now? Dewritech (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sorry to all the people who want to see this article kept, but I'm simply not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources: all the sources that have been provided only mention the company briefly. What's needed is a source that focuses on them directly. The only ones which do that seem to be press releases, which are unreliable. It's not a clear-cut case, as there are indications of notability here - in particular, the business meetings have received some attention from independent sources - but there just doesn't seem to be enough to write an article on the company itself. Robofish (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Horasis as an organization which is able to gather at its meetings high-profile people from all around the world, who obviously believe in the notablility of this organization (otherwise they wouldn't come). There are many reports in different newspapers (also many non-English). And now it's the question of notability... I'm new here and this is my first article (for those who constantly points out the number of my contribs). Also I learned a lot about Wiki standards over the last weeks I still wonder, looking at the meeting-paricipants, why this organization should not obtain notability. And in some ways I had expected a different culture of controversy. Beeing nominated for AfD because of asking a critic questions on the talk page was a little surprise. Hopefully this is not the standard answer. I will see in the future - maybe here or at at least at my next articles. Thanks to all who like this article and thanks to all the critics - although I still don't agree. Dewritech (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see significant independent sources to establish notability, This version of the article still reads spamy, and if kept, should be rewritten by someone who does not have connection with the organization. Racepacket (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Request: Hi Racepacket, which of the given sources do you deny reliability? What in particular makes the article spamy in your eyes? And indicates your recomendation "if kept" that you actually see that there is notability? Where do you see the NPOV beeing violated? Dewritech (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although I am mindful of Athaenara's comment, I am inclined to agree with DustFormsWords' comments about these sounding like press-release wording rather than a journalist's independent writings about the subject. The 'delete's clearly form the consensus here, as there is insufficient coverage of a significant nature to justify the article's existence. Should significant coverage occur at a future date, the article can be recreated. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KidStart[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per decision to overturn and relist at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 3. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. I am unable to find significant coverage for this organisation/website. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deletion was the right thing to do in the first place, there is zero notability here. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 14:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: mentions in The Times, The Guardian, The Observer, The Sun, and Daily Express (see article) do suggest notability. – Athaenara ✉ 23:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reading of those mentions suggests they're regurgitated from press releases (they're certainly not in the prose style you'd expect from a newspaper) and therefore don't count as independent sources. They're effectively advertisements, whether paid or unpaid. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have now amended the article quite considerably on notability and hope that it now fits in with Wikipedia guidelines. As a parent myself I use Kidstart regularly and I am often being asked about it by other parents both in person and in forums such as Babyworld, Emma's Diary, Babycentre, Mumsnet, Netmums and Bounty therefore I feel this entry should remain. I based my initial draft(s) on similar Wikipedia articles Quidco, Top CashBack, Internet Cashback. If as suggested that notability is questioned with the Kidstart article, surely the majority of the articles listed under Wikipedia category: Reward Websites, should be questioned too ? Regarding coverage, as explained previously, this seems to be a regional difference. Please try the search again, via google.co.uk. http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=kidstart.co.uk&btnG=Search+Archives&ned=uk&hl=en&scoring=a http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=kidstart&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= If you feel that this article needs further amending to stop a deletion please do advise specifically what needs to change. Im happy to work with you on this but need guidance not negative comments. Emmamme (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of these improvements (or the Google UK search) address my concerns above. The coverage cited in the article is in promotional language and appears to be in the nature of advertising, whether paid or unpaid. There's no analysis or discussion of the service, merely a regurgitation of its press releases. As such, the coverage is probably not independent, meaning the article fails WP:N, which calls for significant coverage in reliable independent sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this is a matter of an opinion as i'm sure the journalists who wrote these cited articles would beg to differ or the reputable Newspapers for being called NON reliable independent sources. Anyone who reads The Express, The Times or Lovemoney.com articles can judge for themselves, also to use the term ‘probably not independent’ illustrates doubt in your argument. As discussed amongst editors already on this talk page, what one person sees as notable is different to another. The problem is, i have been getting mixed messages from you guys, as one minute i am told to place citations in the article and the next i'm not, and surely ANY citation from a reliable media source is a form of promotion, no matter what the subject is. I don't mind deleting them, but then i'll only get someone saying it needs citations and i'm back to square one. I also fail to see how this article is any different to similar Wikipedia articles: Quidco, Internet Cashback, Top CashBack (note: with similar citations), plus see other articles listed under Wikipedia category: Reward Websites. Amongst these cashback services KidStart is unique as it only benefits children and charities, so is it for this reason Kidstart should be penalised and deleted whilst these other articles have escaped this kind of scrutiny? Emmamme (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Carrying on with adding additional notability to this article I included a link of a BBC Breakfast News Youtube video commenting on KidStart. I would hope this was independent and significant enough to be included and establish even greater notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmamme (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to Help A Sexual Assault Survivor: What Men Can Do[edit]

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

Delete. Clear violation of WP:NOTGUIDE. Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual, however praiseworthy the intent of the editors. Best left to health organizations. Student7 (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE--Dmol (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a guide. 2 says you, says two 04:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe this article is an attempt at a how-to guide but rather a reference to some particular educational program employed on college campuses. Regardless, non-notable. -MidnightDesert (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, this article is not a how-to. (Isn't there a speedy for those? Maybe not, since we seem to get lots of cocktail recipes and the like at AfD.) Still, it's a self-referential vanispamcruftisement or whatnot for a very likely non-notable program whose DVD offering costs US$150. Does have a few Google Books hits, but none of them appear to be nontrivial. Heather (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus Jack (band)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have found several pages that can be used as references. However, I beleive that the fact the band was included by Petar Janjatovic into his EX YU ROCK enciklopedija 1960-2006 speaks best about the band's notability. This band satisfies at least three notability criteria:

The band has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable (EX YU ROCK enciklopedija 1960-2006).
The band has released two albums for a major record label (PGP-RTS), and three albums for a notable independent label (One Records).
Their song "Koliko puta na dan" has been placed in rotation by severeal radio stations, whila all the bands albums have been placed in rotation by Radio Belgrade. ostalocutanje (talk)

delete. They've been around for over 12 years, have released 2 full-length alums, yet only remain known in their home country. There is no evidence that they have charted on any national music chart, or have a gold certified album. Petar Janjatovic does not have his own wiki article, therefore, his book cannot be reliable. Also, that seems to be the only book the band has been the subject. WP:MUSIC states they must be in multiple, reliable, non-trivial works. zzz (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The band is well known in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia (I'm not sure, but I believe they also toured FYR Macedonia). Since the dissolution of Yugoslavia there have been no official charts in Serbia, therefore it's impossible for any artist to chart. The article about Janjatovic is the least problem, I could make an article about him, as well as about his book today. It's hard to make someone who never held the book in his hands believe it is one of the most important sources, if not the most important source, when it comes to Yugoslav rock bands and artists, but it is used as a source in most of the articles on former Yugoslav rock. I expanded the article, although I'm not sure if that can help in any way. Ostalocutanje (talk)

"Petar Janjatovic does not have his own wiki article, therefore, his book cannot be reliable." that's bullshit. and they don't need to be known outside their country to be notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The band Cactus Jack should have its article because of the following:
1. The band is notable with releasing a major record label releases and, since the case is PGP RTS, believe me it is not at all easy to achieve in Serbia, as this record label is extremely selective of the material they are to release.
2. They are very active in terms of touring, check out the tour dates on their website.
3. Janjatovic's book mentions the band, which is enough for the former Yugoslav scene. The reason why there is no article on wikipedia for Janjatovic or his book is the lack of the people interested in creating the articles on wikipedia, which leaves the whole Serbian rock scene to a couple of people, including myself, to work on.
4. I have seen articles for more unknown bands and less notable than Cactus Jack.

All in all, the article for the band might need some improvement, since it had shown a slight notion of the lack of notability, but the band IS notable, and should remain among other Serbian rock bands on wikipedia. Milosppf (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs improving if it is to remain on Wikipedia but there is significant coverage to prove this band's notability.Omeggia (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cerelac[edit]

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

No references being provided from long time, 2007 Abu Torsam 21:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources in the article to establish notability, also I could not find any sources to establish that the product is notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be a major Nestle product. In 2008, it was projected for 1 billion swiss francs in sales. It has garnered some controversy which includes coverage in books. A Google news archive search has a large number of hits. -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Deletion should be based on the quality of the subject and not on the quality of the article itself. That the article is a stub does not mean it is non-notable. Thanks for bringing it to the AfD: Thank you for bringing attention to this article to a broader audience. Kushal (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lack of sources in the article not grounds for deletion, only impossibility of finding sources. No evidence nominator has even attempted to find any. JulesH (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: AFD is not cleanup. Buddy431 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete besides nominator after two weeks on queue. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Smith[edit]

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

Drummer who fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTABILITY. Although he has played in notable bands, notability is not inherited. Claritas (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sources are added- Meets WP:MUSIC criteria 6 "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." As a member of both Godhead and Bullets and Octane, he would be notable under this criteria. That said, the article needs sourcing to prove this before it can be kept. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #6. I've added citations to news articles that confirm he has been a drummer for multiple notable bands; sources note his work with The Vandals too. With some more work, the subject may well meet criterion #1 as well, or the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hridayananda Dasa Goswami[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Non notable academic and no verifiable sources or working links. Not on Governing Body Commission anymore. Wikid ^as© 18:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep One of the most prominent Hare Krishna religious leaders. Article is well sourced now.--Gaura79 (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The person is real, but his notability if weak. If multiple verifiable/reliable sources are added to the article that attribute notability, I'll be willing to change my vote. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more RS to the article.--Gaura79 (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is innacurate in that, even at the time of nomination, the article was verifiably sourced to a book published by the Columbia University Press, and the fact that the subject is no longer on the governing body of a significant religious organisation doesn't take away from the fact that he was formerly on that body - we cover history as well as current events, if not more so. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply what is the book by Columbia University Press? Of what notability is this? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note there was not a single working link to a third party source at the time of nomination. The book you refereed could be a good source, but the subject is not covered in that book, it only mentions his name. The same goes for other sources, they are not covering the subject, even if reliable otherwise. Show me one reliable source that confirms his birthdata? Wikid^as© 07:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources do cover him as it shown in the article. The book "The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant" is available for viewing at Amazon.Gaura79 (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - At least there should be something more than a 5 line blurb among 20 other authors not notable authors in a rather small niche book. Wikid ^as© 15:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into Iskcon article. Needs more material for his own article. (User) Mb (Talk) 04: 35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides sources mentioned in the article, he has a biographical entry in The book of enlightened masters: western teachers in eastern traditions, published by Open Court Publishing Company and receives coverage in several other sources. Also in this video he debates with Ted Patrick on American TV in 1979. There's no reason to merge his bio into ISKCON article. He clearly has standalone notability, receiving coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources and being one of the most senior and prominent Hare Krishna religious leaders.Gaura79 (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources provided. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Lipof[edit]

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

Lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources; fails WP:CREATIVE. Primary sources and minor reference (programming notes) in New York Daily News. SummerPhD (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable television personality. No significant coverage in actual third-party sources, just his own facebook and employers. Fails WP:N and WP:ENTERTAINER. Without significant coverage, also impossible to properly meet WP:BLP. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Medical Clinic[edit]

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

Non-notable clinic; no evidence of notability has been provided. PK T(alk) 16:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been proposed for deletion, but prod was removed with the comment, "remove dated prod, notable medical clinic" in the edit summary. No improvement made to the article to indicate what makes the clinic notable. PK T(alk) 16:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator.--IslandAtSea (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Claims to be the first family-practice in Toronto and cited as such in Toronto Star. Staff also appear as sources for journalists in news stories about job action, vaccine and technology in health care but only occassionally. Canuckle (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--_Gordon41 23:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Toronto Star article verifies that the clinic is "Ontario's first group medical practice".[57]. Ontario is Canada's largest province, and the first medical clinic in that province is certainly notable. Vanruvan (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sold on your argument, but the point of this is to update the article to demonstrate that the Clinic is notable, if the article is indeed worth keeping. PK T(alk) 02:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was flagged for rescue so I took a look. I tidied it up a bit, but unless more articles beyond the single Toronto Star piece can be found, this one will have a difficult time finding a consensus to keep.--Milowent (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established through reliable sources. Aditya Ex Machina 09:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does seem to rather lack any notability other then it exsists.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like A Lady[edit]

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

Contested Prod, non notable future release per WP:CRYSTAL Mo ainm~Talk 13:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 13:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Delete, unequivically fails WP:NSONGS. It has not charted, nor recieved extensive coverage nor recieved any awards. Furthermore a large body of the article mentions myspace which is self-published. Finally notability aside there is not enough information to warrant a full page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lucy Robinson. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Flinker[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT. although she has appeared in over 70 episodes of 1 series she has not had multiple notable roles. please do not invent notability criterion that 1 role is enough (which I've seen unsuccessfully pushed in other AfDs). she also has limited coverage in gnews [58] so fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Yeah LibStar is right in this case. It fails BIO. This was her only role. Certainly no need to have an article about the actress. Redirect into Lucy Robinson and briefly mentio n her as the original actress playing the role. Perfect example of where a biography is inappropriate. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's just a stub, it's not self-promoting or selling anything. Its presence hurts nothing. Does it eventually turn into a real article about a significant individual? Maybe, maybe not. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lucy Robinson. Flinker clearly does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Lucy Robinson. Orderinchaos 04:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus seems to be that this is a minor character. The fact that he appeared in one episode is not in and of itself a reason to delete, but the fact that this is coupled with a lack of sources is. Should reliable sources be found, then this article can be recreated, but it would be probably better to add another sentence or two to the episode summary at List of Batman animated episodes -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Wormwood[edit]

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

Character only appears in one episode of the corresponding series. Template calling for notability has not been addressed in some time. RokXRokX (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. We have a few character pages revolving around characters exclusive to the DC or Marvel-related cartoon. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Merge to a list of characters. No independent notability asserted. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and extremely minor character who is in no way relevant above and beyond the episode he appeared in. The episode is covered in List of Batman animated episodes, that's all it needs. Someone another 17:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only appeared in one episode. Covered in episode list. No sources to write a stand-alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article needs expanding (including some of the references provided by Phil Bridger), but the 'keep's provide enough justification for this article to remain -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Steeplechasing Hall of Fame[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [59]. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even under plain old "Steeplechasing Hall of Fame", I didn't find anything. "This is a stub" only works for inherently notable topics, and halls of fame aren't inherently notable. Mandsford (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/merge Real location, mention in an encyclopedia of horse racing. Needs more sources and text though. Should probably be merged as a sub section of the racecourse article if nobody can expand it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With a little work I was able to find another mention reference and even a WP article of a member of the Hall, with two references to that. It appears to be a real place and, while poorly documented on line, certainly should have the stature for an expanded article if when what will apparently be print documentation of its membership is added.Trackinfo (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think its any surprise that you found a Wikipedia article for one of the hall's members, as their standards are far more exacting than our notability guidelines. As of 2006/7 the hall had only sixteen human and five equine members. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [60],[61],[62], etc., etc.. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emrah Yucel[edit]

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

~~BLP with no reliable third party sources confirming notability. Autobiography. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)~~ Appears to be notable, although needs editing. Nomination Withdrawn. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I can't find any reliable sources that indicate notability via a Google search, but it's possible I'm not looking in the right place. If someone can find some sources, then perhaps I would change my mind, but the article would need complete rewriting since it is an autobiography. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good job finding references. The autobiography issue still bothers me, as big test of notability is if someone other than the article's subject takes the initiative to create the article. Nonetheless, he seems well covered in various sources and I hope someone is willing to do some rewriting of this article, or at the very least, stub it down. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, it looks like an autobiography, but we're talking about notability. Emrah Yücel created posters for many Hollywood films (Kill Bill, Frida, etc.), see Today's Zaman, Bak Magazine, Turkish Film Council, grafikerler.net. He is a recipient of the International Design Award [63][64] and the Key Art Award [65][66]. The COI issue should be resolved by neutral editing, not by deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The "Turkish Film Council" seems legit and should satisfy any reality-based notability needs. The article needs to be rewritten with a heavy hand (and links) but should not be deleted. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Acronym. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-acronym[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only source discussing the topic as such is a blog Polarpanda (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. It's covered in Acronym and is well known phenomenon per Google books ~~(edit cant seem to fix link)~~. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savonneux (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything to acronym that isn't already there. There's not enough to say about the topic for it to warrant its own article. +An gr 07:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to acronym. Articles are about summarising subjects, and it's a type of acronym.- Wolfkeeper 20:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Ball[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. All GHits appear to be IMDb, Linkin, Facebook, etc. No GNew/Books/Scholar hits of significance. Fails WP:ACTOR. GregJackP (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant self promotion. No independent hits.--Dmol (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:CREATIVE. OlYeller^Talktome 02:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make the Pledge[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of any media coverage that might indicate otherwise, I have to agree with nom - there doesn't appear to be much notability here. I'd recommend a redirect to the band's article (Allegiance (Australian band)), though that one might be a candidate for AFD as well. The only source for anything about the band is their old MP3.com profile - not good. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Live[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, demo album aside it is not notable per WP:NALBUM and WP:NOTABILITY. No charts, no awards, no independent coverage. Easy choice in my opinion... Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Should sufficient reliable sources be found at a future date, this article can be recreated, but the consensus here is to delete at this time, as no evidence of notability as per Wikipedia's guidelines are present in the article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan FeBland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced BLP. Google news returns exactly two sources: one saying the composer expects 2005 to be great, the other a 1-minute rendition of a piece of music. Google itself returns social networking, blogs, self-published, publishers etc etc No way near notable enough for a BLP these days. Previous debate was poorly attended. Jubilee ♫clipman 00:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, poorly referenced article, no evidence of notability found.--Dmol (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Jubilee ♫clipman 00:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, My GoogleNews search turned up no hits at all. FeBland is only on my watchlist because of some cleaning up I did at Clarinet-cello-piano trio and I have no opinion on his music. But one of his 2 claimed UE publications is still in print and it sets a dangerous precedent to deny notability to composers with major publishers. I havnt chased down the Musical Times reviews cited by Zachlipton in the previous AfD, but he would seem to pass notability as a performer as well. Agreed it is a very problematic article, but editing the more self-serving claims is a more obvious remedy than deletion. Sparafucil (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True: the UE publications check out. And we could certainly do with those Musical Times articles. We aren't setting any precedent here, though, by deleting an article on notable person with no references to speak of: that precedent was set a few months back... We will have no choice I suspect but to delete if the independent reliable sources aren't found. Sorry Jonathan! --Jubilee ♫clipman 08:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided, but commenting anyway. He is a minor composer who hasn't achieved anything particularly notable. Even so, he has been taken up by publishers and record companies, which makes me think we shouldn't ignore him. But I cannot bring myself to vote to keep the article in its current poorly written and poorly referenced state. Can I vote for the article to be deleted and rewritten from scratch with proper sources? --Deskford (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think I have been convinced by Voceditenore's arguments below. The key point is that there is no evidence that this composer has made any impact. The pieces that have been published and recorded are trivial and do not seem enough to signify notability. --Deskford (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've cleaned up the article to remove the puffery and add inline cites, so people can judge from what's really there. True this is a niche area, but there is no evidence that this composer has made any impact at all. Some compositions recorded, but no reviews. Nothing in Google Books. Nothing on Jstor [67], and one article in a very local news paper which is basically a puff piece. Yes a couple of short pieces published by UE, but observe how many libraries actually hold them. Some might take the position that anyone who has ever published something with a reputable publisher (no matter how short, or whether it is widely held in libraries, or considered noteworthy enough for even one independent critic to review it) is automatically notable enough for an article. I don't. Voceditenore (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The absence so far of any independent reliable sources which have reviewed or mentioned Febland's music on the the CDs (or even reviewed the CDs) could made up for by the fact that the musicians who have recorded it are highly notable (although, if they were, the CDs would probably have multiple reviews). The clarinettist who included his Miniatures (Deborah de Graaff) and B3 Trio are marginally notable (although it's unclear whether they'd pass an AfD if they had articles. Louis Demetrius Alvanis has a poorly referenced stub on Wikipedia with no real evidence of notability, but it was created by the same editor who has been extensively editing this article [68] and who has openly identified himself as FeBland. [69]. If independent reviews from reliable sourcs can be provided, I'm willing to change my mind, but until then.... Voceditenore (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Girl[edit]

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

Basically a dictionary term (and suspect at that) disguised as an article. Speedy request was deleted. No evidence of notability. Dmol (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Weak Redirect to Wingman (social). It looks like a thinly disguised ad to me.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editors under me provided good points, removing redirect suggestion.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect, no transwiki. I've removed the advertising (which wasn't even thinly disguised); what remains is a dicdef for which I cannot find any attestation. —Korath (Talk) 17:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't widespread use of this term in same sense as Wingman (social), so a redirect does not seem appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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