< 24 May	26 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partap Sehgal[edit]

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

Contested prod. Not clear how this person meets WP:BIO, lacks references to significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is pretty bad, no references. If some reliable sources can be found this article should stay, but the crazy list should be cut down or removed. Right now though it should be deleted though, maybe I am being cynical but the article suggests a COI as well to me DRosin (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- If citations could be provided, the article would meet notability standard.--^Nilotpal42 07:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete due to the lack of sourcing, but I can be convinced to change on this one quite easily. Nuttah (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find notability evidence on Google in English, maybe if someone can search in Hindi? Surprisingly little found at Google Books - for a writer you would think there would be a lot. Again, maybe the problem is language, but on the current evidence he fails WP:Author. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 31 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Martin Alexander[edit]

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

Contested prod. Autobiography. Mayor of a small town near Camden, New Jersey. News coverage is sketchy. Delete Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, what appears to be a soapbox and, frankly, a silly idea. Mayors don't get their own personal webpage on Wikipedia, not even the Mayor of Haddon Heights, New Jersey (pop. 7,365). Is he up for re-election in 2011? Mandsford 23:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~!Neutral~~ - I found a number of reliable sources, however it is an autobiography and the information posted initially was not encyclopedic - appeared to be more of the beginning of a puff piece / campaign ad. I did add the section on the fraud allegation to paint both sides of the picture (and appropriately cited the negative information). GregJackP (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find any sources that show notability? Theoretically, even the dogcatcher in Haddon Heights could find references to himself in reliable sources in the local papers and could write a detailed story about the borough's animal control needs. Notwithstanding that we don't want to encourage politicians to make Wikipedia their webhost, it occurs to me that maybe the article was written by someone who is posing as the man. The idea of a tiny-town mayor maintaining his own personal Wikipedia page is so silly that I think that it's more likely that a person is planning to make him the object of ridicule. Better that Wikipedia stay out of the politics of this South Jersey village. Mandsford 12:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/2/2009; [New York Times, 6/15/2008 (5 paragraphs of article); a bunch from the local paper. GregJackP (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times covers New Jersey as part of its "beat" (I'll concede that the town is more properly in the Philadelphia area than in NY Metro. Still, the article is part of the regional news section, and it's about New Jersey's high property tax rate rather than about Mr. Alexander himself, even though he got quoted in the piece. While getting mentioned in the NYT is something I have never achieved, lots of New Jersey people get referred to in the Times. Mandsford 18:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A long way short of satisfying WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - changed vote from !neutral to !delete based on continued editing by subject of article, adding uncited material and redundant comments. GregJackP (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, hoax, author has now gone so far as to start reporting "no" voters to AIV. Enough. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceduck[edit]

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

A disputed speedy; I thought this was suitable for a more wide-ranging discussion. This appears to me to be a hoax. The only useful citation is a link to a BBC video that I cannot access; a Google search reveals no information about this topic that relates to the material in this article. There is nothing here that appears to meet the requirements of WP:BAND. Please note that there appears to be an open sockpuppet investigation with respect to the individual(s) most disputing the speedy tag. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, the BBC link I have viewed and can't see how it relates to anything called Superduck. I can't see how this person or group are notable enough of their own article --5 albert square (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albert, the interview with Spaceduck and concert footage is there plain as day if you watch the documentary. And if you're searching for "Superduck", of course you won't find anything because that's not the name. Please try again and report back. I know it will take an hour of your time. Bear with me and do it. Chazella (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceduck has been around for 10 years. I checked the link to youtube, it's valid. Also saw it listed on last.fm. The BBC show can be watched if you're a subscriber but I'm not, so I wouldn't know about that. Article needs proper citations, but Andyjw's accusations of 'blatant hoax' are wrong. Flag it for citations needed instead. Wikisicky (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Youtube isn't a reliable source as per WP:RS, as a matter of fact XLinkBot (the bot responsible for removing such links) will probably be paying the page a visit soon to remove it --5 albert square (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RS or not, the link shows that such artist exists. That's why I opposed Andyjsmith's tiresome accusations of 'hoax' and why I removed his tags. If he meant to say the article is not noteworthy, let him tag it thus and allow authors to amend, which is what I suggest. But we agree it's not a hoax, right? Wikisicky (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I trust the judgment of both Accounting4Taste and 5 albert square having observed them on a frequent basis here. I could not find a reliable source for the article. Not notable, fails WP:MUSICBIO if it is not a hoax. GregJackP (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now viewed the clip on the BBC link provided and the clip does not mention anything called Spaceduck. If Spaceduck are real then it might actually be them in the clip but as the clip doesn't confirm this we can't be certain. Either way the link would be no good to the article - it won't mean anything to anyone unless they're actually fans of this group!

I also saw the 49 sec BBC clip. Apparently to watch the full show you need a subscription. But as I've been saying, the article is not a 'hoax' as the old youtube videos prove. The article should be flagged for improvement, citations or moved to a stub, but 'hoax' it is not.Wikisicky (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody has bothered to watch the full BBC link, and they still think this is all a joke, I present here for evidence a screen cap of Spaceduck as shown in the documentary (yes, I'll delete it as soon as this investigation is over, but I would like you all to see it first). Also the YouTube link to the short film "Brains" seems to work fine, so I don't understand why others persist in calling it a 'hoax'. True, the article needs work, but this won't happen if people keep yelling 'hoax'.Chazella (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed the copyrighted/non-free use image from this page. Such images are only authorized in an article, and then only under specific restrictions. See WP:FAIRUSE. GregJackP (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, as I said here and on the other page, the image was uploaded solely for the administrators' benefit. Please, stop tampering with the evidence, and let's try to be cooperative about this investigation if nothing else. Chazella (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with cooperating with the deletion discussion (it's not an investigation), but that doesn't include violating Wikipedia policy on copyright. GregJackP (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, before you deleted it, you must have seen the BBC screen capture which is obviously not a hoax. That's all I had intended to do: convince you (you particularly, since you sided with the accusers) that this is not a hoax. If nothing else, would you please admit that Spaceduck is real and not a hoax? It would do wonders for this discussion if we could just get past that absurdity.

Next we can discuss if the artist is noteworthy. According to WP:MUSICBIO, the artist is notable if he "has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." That was the whole point of my posting the BBC screen capture. Let's now work together to make this a better article. Can you suggest what would help? Chazella (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase is "the subject of" - which, based on your own comments, he was not. A mere appearance does not make the person "the subject of" the show. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, whether a hoax or not. GregJackP (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. The BBC video has no references to this "artist"; the links to YouTube, LastFM etc all go to spoof material that was posted in October 2008; there are no relevant hits on google; and the website link is broken. This article clearly fails the Spaceduck test. andy (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you already admitted that you don't care to watch the BBC video (and if you had, you wouldn't be posting). Please stop misusing words like "hoax" and "spoof" unless you are aware of what they imply; the links provide at least a dozen legitimate clips of the artist's work. The artist's website works fine on my computer; don't cry 'hoax' just because your internet connectionm is faulty. And most of all, please stop being so angry and antagonistic. Let's help each other improve the article, which I admit needs work! What do you suggest? Chazella (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so exactly where in that video is there a reference to Spaceduck? An approximate time would help - I certainly can't find any reference myself. andy (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the latter half. They cover the classic prog bands first, and then they move on to show the more recent crop. I have the documentary on my computer, and thrice I've uploaded screen caps for those who can't access the full video, but you guys keep deleting the evidence. I don't know what else to do. Chazella (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the BBC has now withdrawn the full documentary so nobody can check it out. BTW it was never available to download so I don't know how you claim to have a copy - the BBC uses a DRM system that only supports streaming. andy (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but request more citations. Change to a stub if necessary. The charges of hoax were not appropriate as I think we all see now. What's in dispute is notability which is proven by the BBC documentary. However, if the BBC documentary is not accessible, then give editors (prog rock experts) a chance to provide an alternate reference. To answer your question, Andy, Google 'how to download streaming media'. Chazella (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If notability can be established later, then the article can be brought back, but we don't leave an article up that fails notability standards on the mere possibility that it might be able to prove notability later. GregJackP (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, you of all people should reverse your vote, if not abstain from voting, because you have seen the screen caps I posted from the BBC documentary establishing notability. Your stated reason for deleting this article was that you trust the others. However, none of them saw the BBC documentary or the screen caps before they voted. I just need to find a reference to the BBC that they can access. Chazella (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not changing my !vote. You have shown nothing remotely indicating that Spaceduck meets the standards of WP:MUSICBIO. Screen caps, without context, are useless. GregJackP (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete leaving aside the arguments about whether or not the article is a hoax, there is the question of notability. The only "references" in the article are (1) a link to Spaceduck's own site, and (2) a link to a video which does not mention "Spaceduck". It is possible that one of the people performing in the video is Spaceduck, but, apart from the fact that it does not say so, a video featuring the "artist" performing is not independent coverage. So the article gives no independent sources at all. Nor do the arguments above: we have for example "Spaceduck has been around for 10 years", and "RS or not, the link shows that such artist exists", none of which is about notability (my wife's pet cat has been around for ten years and really does exist, but is not notable). The only claim of substantial coverage is the BBC documentary. Although this documentary is no longer available we can get an idea of what was in it from the comments about it above. Andy said he couldn't find any reference to Spaceduck, and chazella responded by saying "It's in the latter half. They cover the classic prog bands first..." This suggests a fairly small mention: it is certainly clear that Spaceduck was not "the subject" of the documentary. My conclusion is that nobody has indicated the existence of any substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James, Andy did not bother to watch the BBC documentary when it was available. He said so (quite rudely) earlier, so don't accept his opinions on what it did or didn't contain. Rather than spend 1 hour watching the documentary when it was up, he would rather spend the last 72 hours cooking up his angry conspiracy theories. I agree that the BBC documentary needs to be available if cited. I am looking for an alternate reference, but I'm only one person with little time vs. a paranoid avenger with evidently too much time. I see his history & pride on Wikipedia revolves entirely around deleting articles, nothing ever contructive or contributing.

Back on topic, though, you made a point that the artist should be the primary focus of the programme, so the article should use something else entirely. Thanks for contributing to the discussion without getting venomous Chazella (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the entry below was edited because it contained a link to an illegal downloading site posted by User:Andyjsmith. When I clicked on it, it infected my computer with malware which I've spent the last hour scrubbing from my hard drive. Andy, that was really uncalled for. You have been reported. Chazella (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's available to download <redacted> There's a complete track listing here. And guess what...? andy (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that. Torrents are not allowed on my computer nor does wikipedia allow them as citations I'm sure, so I didn't explore your link. Furthermore, as we covered above, Spaceduck would need to be the primary focus and not just an interview (which at least you've seen finally) so the whole BBC issue may be irrelevant. I will continue searching for an alternate reference of notability. If you would like to help, please do. Chazella (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, I thought Andy was actually trying to help. Lured into clicking the link posted by Andyjsmith above, I was dumped on an illegal downloading site which infected my computer with malware. Links to illegal downloads are a blatant violation of Copyrights ("if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work") and the malware infection, to say nothing of the user's persistent hostility, is a violation of Civility. Chazella (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time pointing out the bleeding obvious but the "official website" is of course part of the hoax. Just one example will suffice: the Tour page shows a performance at the Troubadour in Los Angeles on December 8, 2009. No such performance is mentioned in one of the top listings magazines here, which does mention other performances at the Troubadour that month. Indeed, Googling site:troubadour.com "December 8, 2009" yields no hits while Googling any of the other performances mentioned in Rollo & Grady does yield a hit, for example site:troubadour.com "December 11, 2009". I guess this is why self-published material doesn't count as a reliable source. andy (talk) 09:53, 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 speedy delete (G5) as a page created by a banned user Alexcas11 (talk · contribs) in violation of ban. –MuZemike 23:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scratte (fictional character)[edit]

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

Cartoon character that appears in a single film. No indication of notability. Article appears to be little more than expansion of film plot as it concerns this character NtheP (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by no notability? I added several references and a screenshot of her, isn't that enough proof? --Hjfhksdjf (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to Question Above) Notability means the importance of the subject (Scratte) and whether it is important enough to included in this encyclopedia, not whether info can be found about the subject. Since she is not essential to the movie and only in one, she should just be mentioned int he movie article, she doesn't need her own.
~QwerpQwertus |_Talk_| |_Contribs_| 23:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references appear to document any of the assertions within the article; essentially, a lot of hard work went into a great deal of original research into this minor character with, as per the nomination, no indication of notability. There's nothing here that needs to be merged into the main body of the article for the film(s) in question, I suggest. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Ice Age character page, not notable enough for its own article. Also per AfC decline by me. —fetch ·comms 22:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think that it should be merged to List of Ice Age characters#Scratte along with the image. --Hjfhksdjf (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree - this should be merged with it's corresponding section in the Ice Age article - the character is not really essential to the series (and so not notable enough).
~QwerpQwertus |_Talk_| |_Contribs_| 23:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is it going to be deleted then redirected to the requested link and is it going to include the image? --Hjfhksdjf (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Merge Place We should redirect it to its section on that page.~QwerpQwertus |_Talk_| |_Contribs_| 23:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and note that if kept by some strange twist of consensus, this article should probably be at Scratte. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any reliably sourced text to List of Ice Age characters#Scratte. First Light (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Speedy delete as yet another creation of our usual pair of idiot Disney vandalizing socksUser:Alexcas11 -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:23, 29 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. AfD withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swargadwari[edit]

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

Topic does not appear to be notable. There is only one cited source and there are few google sources http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Swargadwari&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=.org&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images . I propose the article be deleted or sources be added. Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swargadwari is one of Nepal's top dozen or so pilgrimage sites. [1] It is significant enough that a cable car is being built there [2]

I originally started the article as a place to put a substantial amount of material someone else had appended to an article on Pyuthan District. I didn't think so much material on the pilgrimage site belonged in the district article, which had a variety of other subject areas to cover. At that time I couldn't find anything very scholarly in the way of references, but Googling it (and Sworgadwari -- one of several alternative transliterations -- got over a thousand hits. The single reference I provided was more or less representative, so I thought it was sufficient for the time being.

I beg to differ with your assessment that the topic isn't notable. Outside of the Kathmandu and Lumbini (birthplace of Buddha) areas, sites of cultural and historic interest in Nepal are extremely under-documented, particularly in English. Perhaps I just didn't do it justice.

When I googled "Swargadwari" I got "about 4,000" hits. "Swargdwari Nepal" gave me 947 and "Sworgadwari Nepal" -- alternate transliteration -- got 220. LADave (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've removed the ref tags from the links so they can be easily viewed by other editors in the discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable pilgrimage site. This is a newspaper article about it. Books [3], [4] confirm it as a popular pilgrimage destination. I suspect there are non-English sources to be found as well. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough to be on the official Nepal tourism site [5]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD withdrawn I have been convinced that the subject is notable. Request withdrawn. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and early close, since nominator has withdrawn the request. First Light (talk) 04:24, 29 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. Nomination withdrawn; no other delete opinions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinating, kidnapping, and assaulting the government officials of the United States[edit]

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

~~I don't see how this law is notable. Sure. it's illegal, but has it been the source of any discussion outside of the government? Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)~~ Forget it, this was a stupid nom. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's meant to show that they hold special consideration under the law vis a vis ordinary people. I think relevant court cases would make it a notable topic but right now it's just a summary of the statute (except for the one case at the bottom).--Savonneux (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Definitely an odd title for an article, and there are three others by the same author. I hate to judge an article on its name, although this would be my second choice for what to call laws that give federal jurisdiction over crimes against certain persons. I believe that the original law was called something like the "U.S. Presidential Protection Act" and it has expanded to encompass other persons. Mandsford 23:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These statutes seem to be scattered all over Title 18 of the U.S. Code (with one statute covering, say, members of Congress, and another covering executive branch leaders), but they are handled in a more unified manner under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Suggestions for a better page title or for refactoring of the information are welcome. Tisane (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The statute is surely notable; the fact that the title is unwieldy is not a reason to delete the underlying article. And I was so hoping that this would turn out to be a how-to guide. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now THAT made me laugh out loud. Mandsford 20:25, 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mons Daveson[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources for this author. She wrote several books, but all are category romance novels; that means they are only available for purchase for one month before going out of print. The sole reference is to the website Fantastic Fiction, which I do not believe qualifies as a reliable source, and if it does then it provides only the information in the article - that this author exists and wrote these books. There are no reviews of these books that I can find (and no other coverage of the author), and the author does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. This is a contested prod. Karanacs (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this may be an unsourced BLP - it's difficult to tell if she's still living as there are no sources. Karanacs (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author has created a significant collective body of work. The romance novel is a notable literary genre, and this author is a very prolific author within that genre. Macpl (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources can be shown. Canadian Paul 15:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in Google news or scholar, and I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources on the web in general. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per established guidelines, like above nothing shows up for me when googling and fantastic fiction is not reliable. --ImGz (t/c) 19:48, 31 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) 04:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nzb Project (Usenet client)[edit]

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

I'm not convinced this software is notable. This is some Usenet client with focus on NZB support for binary newsgroups, I gather. Pcap ping 20:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agree (adding that it was created 2 years ago by a single-purpose editor) Tedickey (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I, too, did a few searches and came up with nothing useful, just SPS, false positives, and Wikipedia mirrors. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 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.

Non-admin closure: nomination withdrawn by nominator. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9to5 – Days in Porn[edit]

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

There is no indication that the general notability or film notability guidelines have been met. The prod tag was disposed of at some point without the issue being dealt with, so I've brought it to AfD to properly deal with the problem. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11] Joe Chill (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Solid Keep per improved article now meeting WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw per above. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:07, 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 Deleted as self-promotion by subject. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Surge-N[edit]

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

A disputed speedy. I'm unable to find any way in which this entry meets the requirements of WP:BAND; there is a suggestion that the number of YouTube viewings is an assertion of significance but I am unaware of any such notability standard. The article's creator's username is User:DJ Surge-N, which suggests a conflict of interest issue. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The Ectoplasmosis reference is the only reference I see that could be a claim of significant coverage. I haven't been able to search for references yet so I'll !vote late. OlYeller^Talktome 19:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom can't see anything that shows the article meets WP:BAND. Codf1977 (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hi there. Just letting you know that the WP:Band can be met under "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." and "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style" - This is an objective and neutral statement and this can be seen by comments, view counts and listen counts on the associated YouTube, MySpace and Facebook pages, as well as the Ectoplasmosis review and others which I also plan to add in due course. People now refer to DJ Surge-N as a trusted, consistent DJ who's solidified his remixing/mash up techniques in an online community and a progressively into the offline community. The radio station which played 'Tick-Toxic' in constant rotation was based in New Zealand, known as ZM. This I aim to get verified for reference purposes, however this may be difficult due to its rotation back in 2004-2005 originally. So taking these two points into account, I believe that WP:Band is met. I just wanted to clarify that to avoid another deletion as time has been spent on cleaning up the article and establishing it further, including a discography and some forthcoming edits. As of now I believe the information given accurately dictates DJ Surge-N's notability to an extent, using the resources cited. I plan to further this in due course, but due to other commitments I cannot edit full time. That being said, whenever the time permits I shall be elaborating further and adding onto the article which as of now provides a decent basis. Cheers Surge-N (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Surge-N[reply]
Delete - not notable. GregJackP (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent evidence of notability. Thparkth (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~!Keep~~ - Some reviews were removed by someone, and they have been re-added. Showing some evidence of independent notability. Adding more shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge-N (talk • contribs) 23:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's in bad taste to add multiple keeps, especially when there appears to be a conflict of interest. ialsoagree (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I removed the 2nd !keep - you only get to !vote once. GregJackP (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As has been stated, does not appear to meet requirements of WP:BAND. ialsoagree (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User has created 2 additional pages related to this, DJ Surge-N discography and State of Ensurgency EP. Both have been tagged for speedy deletion. FinalRapture (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I refuse to edit and waste my time further if an agreement can not be made soon. I disagree with most of what many of you have said so it would be highly amusing if later on down the track another similar or identical page was created which would prove most of you incorrect. I implore you to check at least some sources which provide a decent basis on which to acknowledge notability, if one video, channel or website isn't enough then I implore you to check comments and feedback also. Understandably 'comments' aren't a 'definitive' and/or 'reliable' source, however it does indeed show a notable artist with considerable influence. If other YouTube users (such as Internet Killed Televsion also known as CTFxC) are able to create an internet account and are notable (not only by a few reviews/few awards, but by also comments and popularity clearly shown by their videos as well as on their related sites such as Facebook and Twitter), I believe this musician should also be allowed taking into consideration all that has been said. Unfortunately, as opposed to the time you may be able to give, my time cannot be used full time to develop the article but as I believe I have established a sound basis I saw fit to start this article as to my surprise there was none. There is a reason why I have contested this, and I implore you to see reason. Also note that DJ Surge-N has made the mash up charts over on this particular website: http://www.mashup-charts.com/artist/?bootlegger=DJ_Surge-N - Archives from 2004 have stated high rankings, top 10 and top 20 (Currently still at least in the top 250). The exact rankings are yet to be determined as archives will have to be run through. This website is not run by him and/or his management and is completely independent. Surge-N (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Surge-N[reply]

Comment: Surge-N, you might want to double check the CTFxC article. It includes many references from third party sources. Part of the problem with your article is that it doesn't cite any third party sources, and third party sources are hard to find (in fact, a news search of google turns up nothing). If you'd like this article to remain, you need to provide references that show it's notoriety. I appreciate that you might not have the time to flesh the article out yourself, but others might not either, and until someone is willing to do the research to show why this article is notable, it shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. ialsoagree (talk) 05:45, 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 Guy (Help!) 11:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welmer Quezada[edit]

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

Simple case of BLP with no references. Probably self-promotional. Florid, totally unencyclopedic style. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 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 no consensus. This is a bit of an odd case, but I'm not seeing a consensus for deletion. WP:MOSDAB does not seem to provide conclusive guidance here, and certainly there is a legitimate debate as to whether the guideline allows for this kind of a page or not. No one seems to be suggesting that the current situation is ideal, but there are different ideas about how to fix the problem (turning it into a full article, turning the linked-to subsections into full articles, redirecting, etc.). All of these options can be discussed further on the talk page and probably should be. One editor has already tried to essentially turn this into a tiny "list" article instead of a dab page so in a way what we have now is different than what was here when the AfD was opened. All in all there's too much going on here for an admin to close this as anything but no consensus, so folks will have to work out a solution among themselves (it should be pretty doable). Finally I would note that there does seem to be a consensus that "Arizona boycott" is a plausible search term which further militates against deletion at this time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona boycott[edit]

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

Inappropriate and unnecessary "disambig" against Arizona pointing to proclaimed "boycotts" that have no articles, and that were supposed responses to two events. CSD tagged as an attack piece, due to somewhat inflamatory name (IMHO) and lack of necessity, but was declined. It was only after I did the AfD did I learn the remover was not an administrator. Can think of no good reason to have this. We have no such attack pages against any other state, and no matter how stupid Arizona is being, I don't think we need on against it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to decline the speedy myself (I am an admin for anyone too lazy to check ;) ). There's nothing attacking anybody nor any negative unsourced statements of living persons. I agree the dab seems unnecessary, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary and violating WP:MOSDAB (because there are no articles about the two boycotts). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's a reasonably likely search term, and doesn't attack us at all. Maybe "list of Arizona boycotts" would be more appropriate, but forcing a "list" name when there are only two entries seems unreasonable.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why not Texas boycotts, Alaska boycotts, etc. Why only Arizona? Many states have been boycotted at one time or another. Probably all of them at this point. What makes these so highly notable and not just current news that makes them more worthy of being a "search term" than anything else, when we have no articles just on any one state's boycotts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a completeness argument. List of boycotts is woefully incomplete, but if it was, this would still be a useful navigation aid.—Kww(talk) 19:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful. WP:MOSDAB permits linking to named sections of other articles, from what I can see. Thparkth (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow the user to choose from a list of Wikipedia articles, usually when searching for a term that is ambiguous" - it is not intended to be purely a list of links to "sections" of articles. See also WP:DABNOT - "A disambiguation page is not a search index."-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I base my opinion on the inclusion of this section on anchor point linking in WP:MOSDAB. However, I see that it recommends using redirect pages to achieve this. Would you be happier with the article if this was done? Thparkth (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean creating intervening pages named things like Martin Luther King Day inspired boycott of Arizona and 2010 Immigration Law inspired boycott of Arizona housing the redirects, so that this article could then use those to house the redirects? That seems like process wonkery at it's peak.—Kww(talk) 20:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Thparkth (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they still are not articles, and just making redirects to justify a disambig page is generally a reason to show the disambig page isn't needed. Wikipedia does have a search function for reason...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Disambig page that doesnt even point to articles. WP:DDD--Savonneux (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless and until articles are written about the two events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everard Proudfoot (talk • contribs) 16:23, May 25, 2010

Keep (by disamb. article creator, as posted on the article's talk page):

I strongly disagree with AnmaFinotera's charge of "statements attacking people or groups of people". Clearly, the article does no such thing. It merely disambiguates between two very prominent boycotts of the state of Arizona, one current and one in the past. The article does not take a position on either of the boycotts, it merely serves to direct a reader to the one the reader is interested in, or to inform the reader that there is more than one.

I am not taking sides on the issue of whether the current boycott of Arizona is deserved or not. Although I added some obviously needed information about the large City of Los Angeles boycott at Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act#Boycotts, I plan to add some new material I have discovered about counter-boycotts against Los Angeles and San Diego, among other locations.

To summarize, I strongly protest the suggestion that I am making "statements attacking people or groups of people" for merely including well documented, notable, encyclopedic information from reliable sources. If there are any further similar such statements on this issue by the same editor, I will consider them to be hostile and contrary to the spirit and policies of Wikipedia. Facts707 (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there are many, many redirects and also disambig page entries that contain links to sections within articles, rather than to articles themselves. The argument that a disambig page entry links to a full article rather than a section in an article is weak at best. Facts707 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to list boycotts of Texas, Alaska, or any other place, industry, organization, person, etc. if that made sense. Searching for "Arizona boycott" in WP shows two prominent ones on the first results page, and they are both boycotts of the entire state, not just one city or for one industry. Doing the same for "Texas boycott" shows a list of many single boycotts of one particular thing, like grapes, lettuce, Campbell's soup, the 1965 American Football League All-star game, or the University of Texas School of Law, none of which seem to involve the whole state. Ditto for Alaska. Facts707 (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Texas has been boycotted several times: This boycott got some traction if I remember correctly, but I'd have to do some research to find independent sourcing. It may be that constructing an article named List of state boycotts or somesuch and merging this into it is the best way to go.—Kww(talk) 03:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the best practice would be to have an article on state boycotts, and a category of state boycotts. the articles linked to here could be included in the category, and i think each boycott event probably deserves its own article. If someone created two standalone articles, then this disambig would make more sense. While i dont really like this use, its pointing to a shortfall in our coverage of these events. i think that deleting this disambig may be correct in terms of strict adherence to manual of style, but avoids the issue of whether the events are adequately covered. and i think that this is a probable likely search term, and that these two need to be distinguished, and made easier to find by wp readers. i also dont see any evidence that this is in any way an attack on any person, group, or the state. these are simply notable events.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- definite potential for becoming well-sourced, and AfD is not cleanup. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of boycotts definitely needs work. It should have a section on international boycotts, then a section for boycotts by country, then within each country boycotts by state or city if any (preferable in reverse chronological order, i.e. latest first). Distinction between "consumer" or "political" boycotts should be made in Boycott, but not in List of boycotts, in my opinion, as some boycotts are both. Facts707 (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this is an attack page at all. It's a likely search term, and the city of LA boycott and tit-for-tat with Arizona on its own got more than enough coverage to create an article, so the "only links to sections" argument is wikilawyering at its best/worst. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 23:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: looks more like a list of events than a disambiguation page, and I've recast it as such. No opinion of its keepability or deletability. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmph. I came here chomping at the bit wanting to !vote "keep", expecting an article about the current boycotts and both ready and willing to add dozens of reliable sources from major Mexican newspapers and magazines if that's what it needed. But there is no article here, just a dab page, and, strongly as I might be personally opposed to what's been going on in Arizona, I cannot fail to recognize that this is POV-pushing, in that it is attempting to emphasize racist actions by the Arizona state government. I detest unnecessary dab pages, and I like POV-pushing even less, so Redirect to Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act#Boycotts. No opposition to a complete rewrite as an article on that subject, by the way; I'd be more than happy to help if that's where we end up. Heather (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, is anyone interested in starting a new centralised discussion somewhere about whether dab pages for deletion should be discussed at MfD, like redirects? Apologies if this has been discussed before (as it quite possibly has), I just don't remember it coming up in the past, and it would stand to reason, as these things are clearly not articles. Heather (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely, you will see it is not just a "dab page", but in fact is a "disambiguation page", because there have been two prominent and notable boycotts with Arizona as the target, one current and one in the past. Thus the purpose of the page is to distinguish between the two. Facts707 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dab pages" and "disambiguation pages" are the same thing--see MOS:DAB. Also, neither of the links points to an actual article. I picked the one that was closer to being one. I'd really prefer to see this rewritten as an article on that subject, or redirected to it, with no objections to a hatnote pointing at the article-section on the earlier boycott. Heather (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the boycotts were/are justified or whether they were in response to "racist actions by the Arizona state government", this is just a disambig page and it does not take any position for or against. Thus I disagree with and protest your accusation of "POV-pushing". Facts707 (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful search term, and there is no indication that WP:MOSDAB prohibits links to sections within articles. --Pink Bull 06:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Logan-Black[edit]

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

This article is about an actor credited on IMDB with a total of two roles; "Control Center Guard" and "Commando #2". There are is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — does not meet WP:BIO Zhernovoi (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:BIO. Karanacs (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the above reasoning. Jusdafax 01:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SnottyWong talk 16:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also add delete per nom, but also specifically, this actor has had two unnamed roles in two films. That fails WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 31 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 Murdoch University. Juliancolton (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoch Guild[edit]

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

Declined speedy; as the navigation box demonstrates, what we do with these varies widely. My personal view is that all principal student organizations of major universities are notable. but that's only my own view for what it's worth. This particular one therefore needs a group decision. (as for as anyone wants to vote count, my view this nomination should be a keep, not a delete. I send it here myself to simplify matters, since someone else surely will. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to Murdoch University. I agree that the principal student organisations of a university are notable elements of the school, and basic information about them belongs in the article about the university. If the organisation is particularly active and engages in activities that draw coverage in reliable sources, it may editorially make sense to expand the content in a sub-article, to give extra space for sourced material. However, in the case of the current Murdoch Guild article, the extra space seems to be serving only the purpose of enabling all the members of the Guild Council to get their names into Wikipedia. And the article currently lacks any sources or indicia that suggest that the Guild is notable independent from the school. (Google News does turn up a couple of stories about some 2008 friction between the guild and the administration[12][13] but I'd be inclined to think this would be well enough treated in the university article, if at all.) So I would be inclined to support merging this back into the main article for the school, without prejudice to restoring a separate article if such becomes useful in future.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 08:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced and relevant content to Murdoch University. Not sure where the independent sources will come from for most of the material in the article. If the idea of "deemed notability" for these organisations as pushed by the nominator is accepted it will lead to a run of articles like this one that fail to meet the core project policy of WP:V. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 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) 04:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneur 2.0[edit]

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

Contested prod. This is a non-notable neologism. As the article states: "the term is very new to the late date of May 2010." De728631 (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non-notable and barely(=not) used in professional conversations. Zhernovoi (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly. Not used in any RS. Puffy _{fish penguins} 20:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting notability criteria. Karanacs (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. Also appears to be self promotional. Verkhovensky (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also patent nonsense that says exactly nothing: ...a term that refers to a new generation of entrepreneurs and suggests a substantial change in the characteristics of now-days (2010) entrepreneurs called Google Generation. Name used for a 2nd type of entrepreneur is much more agile that unlike business entrepreneurs and more common and more traditional training or a type of entrepreneurial thinking less dynamic. It goes on and on that way, too. No one need be bothered with agile, dynamic thinking after chlorpromazine was discovered. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense and per WP:SNOW. SnottyWong talk 16:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly per Puffy (what a delightfully succinct !vote) as a protologism that fails badly at attempts to meet our standards for inclusion. Heather (talk) 00:50, 30 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Pallotta[edit]

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

Non-notable player no professional experience or major individual award. Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior A/Canadian university is not a notable level of play. Reso lute 18:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was on the All-Rookie team in University. Which is a notable award. But there are no references so I am leaning towards probably delete unless some references can be found. -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd consider a CIS award as notable, myself, given it is a glorified senior league. Reso lute 18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am prone to agree with you, but I think the level of play is still pretty close to the NCAA so I would be hard pressed to discount it automatically, if significant coverage of him can be found. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I would note, I can only find listings that he did win. But no significant coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure being on the All-Rookie team of the CIS is notable. I don't know of an equivalent award that exists for the NCAA, but I don't think an "All-Freshman Team" at the NCAA level would make someone notable either. For NCAA, I think Hobey Baker or an appearance on the All-American team should be the guideline. Patken4 (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"All-Rookie" was all that I needed to see to know that this one is a delete. Even pro players are of questionable notability until certain standards are met. Hopefully he'll meet those in the future, but he isn't there yet. Heather (talk) 01:35, 30 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) 04:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catch Marketing[edit]

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

Prod'd as non-notable, prod was disputed. Original creator of article had WP:COI issues (see [14]). I could not find any reliable sources to indicate that this is a notable marketing term. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subliterate promotion of an Internet marketing plan: The definition is to collect and provide knowledge onto a marketers website which is useful to consumers who need information online.... The process of Catch Marketing is to provide more on-page website resources in order to capture the perfect target audience by being informative. It is also a reliable technique attributed to white hat search engine optimization. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable neologism; completely unsourced. Is there really no speedy this would have qualified under? Heather (talk) 01:38, 30 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) 04:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lt. Col. James M. Tully[edit]

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

Absolutely unsourced biographical article, unable to find a single relevant search result, even for dumbed-down searches like this one. AFD, in short, because lack of sources to validate information of the article. I should also mention the obvious WP:COI here. — Timneu22 · talk 16:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely any assertion of notability, let alone sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and although the policy may seem harsh, it is necessary in order to keep an online encyclopedia of this nature under control. Lt. Col. Tully died on February 11, 2010, after a career of service to his nation [15], but the memorial rule is non-negotiable. Mandsford 17:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be his corporate bio at a company he established in 2006.[16] There are assertions about his extensive awards and decorations during his service; if something were identified in reliable sources to substantiate this, the result might change. But I found nothing else.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - highest award appears to be the Silver Star - does not meet requirements of WP:MILPEOPLE. GregJackP (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no refs whatsoever, nothing showing a hint of MILPEOPLE notability. Not even listed in the History Division website. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:09, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-scholarship[edit]

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

This article is a definition, and belongs in Wiktionary; ~~it is original research and cites no dictionary for its source other than a Wiktionary definition created by the article author today~~; it exists purely as a category heading ("catmore") for a category created by the article's author. Anthony (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC) (I have found an authoritative dictionary definition to support pseudoscience, etc. being types of pseudoscholarship. Anthony (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep This is a list article which helpfully draws together various sub-species of pseudo-scholarship for easy reference. It's simply untrue that the article constitutes original research as the definition used on the page is supported with sources (one of which is an academic journal) published by three different academic publishers--two of them university presses.

Further, Anthony is engaged elsewhere on Wikipedia in a dispute over whether a certain fringe theory can be legitimately labeled "pseudoscholarship". Anthony didn't think it could.[17] When he failed to achieve consensus on that point he indicated that he didn't think that that article should wiki-link the word "pseudoscholarship".[18] When he failed to achieve consensus on that further point he came to the pseudo-scholarship page and tried to force a bizarre implied definition into the article that clearly cut against the word's general usage.[19] Now that even that has failed, Anthony is trying to just delete the page.

Don't play along with Anthony's little WP:GAME. Eugene (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion concerning use of the word "pseudoscholarship" in the Christ myth theory article is very much ongoing. No one has succeeded of failed on that issue. This discussion (what is pseudoscholarship) is a part of that debate. First, define your terms. There is no dictionary definition of pseudoscholarship, as there is no dictionary definition of pseudogrape or pseudotired. Pseudo- is a prefix. Understand it and add it to a word. Then understand the word.

The "bizarre implied definition" I tried to "force" into the article derived from

Pseudo-

Cambridge not real; pretended.
OED false, not genuine; resembling or imitating.
Websters being apparently rather than actually as stated; sham, spurious.

Scholarship

Cambridge serious, detailed study
OED academic achievement; learning of a high level.
Webster the character, qualities, activity, or attainments of a scholar : learning.

Think for yourself, don't let Eugene's spin snow you. Look at the dictionary definitions of the suffix and noun. My "bizarre, implied definition was

Pseudoscholarship is a word comprising the suffix "pseudo", meaning not real, pretended, imitating, apparent but not actual; and "scholarship", meaning a high level of learning.

Now look at his definition. Anthony (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My definition is the one that is actually supported by sources that use the word; your's is your own personal attempt to reverse engineer the hypenate into its constituent parts without sources that support such an endeavor. Deconstructing a word into its elements can be helpful (E.g. senseless --> sense + less = "without reason") but in other cases it can be highly misleading (E.g. frogfish --> frog + fish ≠ "a genetic hybrid of a frog and a fish"). Your OR definition falls into the later category and contradicts general usage as seen in the sources. After all, which of the definitions of "scholarship" is the one in use here? You've preferred the OED's "learning of a high level" while overlooking Cambridge's a "serious, detailed study". This is why your definition, given without a direct source for the complete word, constitues OR. Eugene (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eugene. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eugene. Trigaranus (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Pseudoscience, which this just seems to be another name for. (Unless anyone can explain what would make something pseudoscholarship, but not pseudoscience.) We already have an umbrella term here, we don't need to invent another one. Robofish (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-scholarship can also refer to goof-ball stuff in the humanities whereas pseudoscience is more narrowly focused on the sciences. Eugene (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ No opinion (But define according to a reliable dictionary definition.) I've been involved in an ongoing discussion at Christ myth theory with Eugene and Bill about whether or not to use the word "pseudoscholarship" to describe the theory. I looked for a definition of the term and found none online in any dictionary but Christ myth theory and a number of other Wikipedia pages were linked to this version of Pseudoscholarship. This didn't fit what you get when you add "pseudo-" to "scholarship" (pretended learning), and it wasn't sourced, so I PRODed it, and the PROD was removed by Eugene. (I have found this dictionary definition of scholarship, so dab's use now fits one of the definitions of scholarship. Anthony (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC) )[reply]

Since then there has been a discussion at the Talk page. dab (𒁳) - the author of Pseudoscholarship - has today created a Wiktionary definition of pseudoscholarship derived from three examples that in no way support his definition. His Wiktionary definition differs from Eugene's Wikipedia definition, neither is supported by a dictionary definition and neither is supported by the usage sources they cite. Should Wikipedia even have a page that consists solely of a definition?

I was making a start on an article by adding a discussion of EM Forster's view on pseudoscholarship but it was deleted by Eugene and --Akhilleus (also an editor of Christ myth theory) because the article "should be a simple list page that defines the term and links out to the varieties" and because EM Forster is "not talking about pseudoscholarship in the sense that this article is about." At that point I decided to nominate the article for deletion. Anthony (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable neologism, despite special pleading. Artw (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This word has been in existence for more than 150 years; it is not a neologism. Eugene (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It definitely exists, for quite a while, and there is plenty of material to expand it. And I'm quite comfortable with its current state as a set index with a brief definition. However, the difference between pseudoscience and pseudoscholarship is beyond my comprehension. The article does not assert this difference at all. If Eugene is confident that there is -scholarship which is not -science, he'd better put it, properly referenced, in the article. East of Borschov (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the more specific "pseudoscience" and the broader "pseudo-scholarship" is akin to the difference between integers and numbers: the one is a specific class of the other. Pseudoscience is junk related specifically to science (E.g. Timecube) whereas pseudo-scholarship can refer to pseudoscience, but it can also refer to junk in the humanities (E.g. Priory of Sion). The article already includes a citation indicating that "pseudohistory" is a subset of "pseudo-scholarship". Eugene (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that there are people who exclude humanities from sciences? Isn't it a prime example of pseudoscience? East of Borschov (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to pseudoscience~~. Keep and turn into a disambiguation page. While there is scholarship that isn't science I think this is best dealt with at that entry because this particular phrase doesn't have the coherence that the other one does. It is, with regularity, simply used as a disparaging term for scholarship people don't like. Take this example for instance. Someone is calling the view that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch "pseudo-scholarship". Clearly, by the definition proposed here, it's exactly the opposite. The view this author holds is itself pseudo-scholarship. But such examples of use are not uncommon. Let's keep the list but as part of a disambiguation page to the varieties of pseudo-scholarship that have coherent phrases associated with them.Griswaldo (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly would it disambiguate? What other article topics are ambiguous with "pseudo-scholarship". I don't mind a !vote of "keep and turn into a list article", but it's not a disambiguation page candidate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Dab's response below. This is prime for disambiguation.Griswaldo (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is prime for a list article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not a clearly defined concept. Just because two words can be combined does not establish a concept. In order to do that we would need to show that there is a body of study of "pseudo-scholarship". TFD (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Just because two words can be combined does not establish a concept" may be true enough, but did it occur to you that it wasn't us who combined these two words? That these two words have been combined in a meaningful way for at least 180 years now? No? See wikt:pseudo-scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 20:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but they have not been combined to form the same concept. I have commented in detail below. TFD (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambig page - The term is not notable and otherwise is a wikt entry. That said, I can see someone typing in searching for "pseudoscholarship" to be offered links to the notable "pseudo-" articles that are listed. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be a list article of notable "pseudo-" articles, not a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Much broader than pseudoscience. As indicated above, it's used as a disparaging term for scholarship people feel is illegitimate --hurled by the fringe as well as the mainstream: global warming is an example where both "sides" claim the other is engaging in it.- LuckyLouie (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep as disambig page, or merge into fringe theory & friends. This AfD is pure WP:POINT, inspired by the derailed forum-style "controversy" at Talk:Christ myth theory. I find it unacceptable that this trainwreck of a debate now begins to spill to other pages. --dab (𒁳) 20:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is most definitely not material for a disambig page. Mercury is an example of a proper disambig page - there's a god, a planet, an element, cars, and a singer all known by that specific name, all having the word "Mercury" in the article name. That, and only that, is what disambiguation pages are for. As for the article, keep and expand. There is a history to the phenomenon as a whole to be explored. bd2412 T 20:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- the term "pseudo-scholarship", depending on context, may refer to pseudohistory, pseudoscience, pseudoarchaeology, all of which already have articles. This is exactly what disambiguation pages are for. To help locate the reader the article they are looking for in their present context. What we do not want are sterile stubs on random terms just because they exist and a short definition can be referenced. If you want to explore the entire phenomenon as a whole, for pity's sake merge it into fringe theory, and that possibly into fringe science, along with half a dozen of other forlorn stubs people created just because there was a redlink. --dab (𒁳) 20:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those were exactly my thoughts when I proposed this above.Griswaldo (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That still sounds more like a list of types of pseudoscholarship (a list article). I am not suggesting a red link. I am suggesting a list article be used where a list article makes the most sense, such as when pointing readers to articles on types of pseudoscholarship, none of which try to address a concept of "pseudoscholarship" itself. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - what you would do well in realizing is that in the real world, our concepts of "list", "content index" (and, God help us all, "outlines") and "disambiguation" have topical and conceptual overlap. It's not as clean-cut as our pretty guidelines would have you think. Since this discussion is hardly the place to go into this, and since you have shown exceptional resilience in withstanding common sense in the past, I will not be willing to further elaborate this particular point here. --dab (𒁳) 15:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Or from the other perspective, you would do well to realize is that on Wikipedia, we have consensus to distinguish between articles and non-articles, and consensus to treat lists as articles and to treat disambiguation pages as non-articles. Our pretty guidelines make that clean-cut distinction, and fortunately they are both easy to understand and easy to follow. Since you have shown exceptional resilience in withstanding them, I elaborated further on this particular point for the benefit of the reviewing admin. I agree that there is no need to try to change those guidelines here, which is why instead I'm recommending that we follow them. Since you think the lines are blurry, I do not understand why you object to making the resulting list a list article instead of a disambiguation page -- that would appear to work for both sides: you get a list in the supposedly blurry realm of "lists, content indexes, outlines, and disambiguation pages", and I get a list that I think is not a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if not possible as an article then as list or disagmbig page. Andries (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into pseudoscience. ^^James^^ (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand so it becomes more than a list article or dab page. A little research should allow us to note prominent people who have used the term, and in what context they use it (which would substantiate the links to other articles). Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already done this, at wikt:pseudo-scholarship. I do not think that there is more than a (well-developed, extensive) dictionary entry in there. It turns out that the term has been used in respectable literature in exactly the sense intended by our Category:Pseudo-scholarship since at least the 1850s (which is to say, balls to the original nomination). One prominent person quoted is Alan Sokal (2000), who uses the term as a synonym of pseudohistory, for the historical revisionism in both Afrocentrism and Neo-Nazi Holocaust denial (saying that if we allow Afrocentrist pseudohistory as "good pseudohistory" and reject Holocaust denialism as "bad pseudohistory", we will be on extremely shaky ground, because we base our judgement on "good" vs. "bad" rather than "pseudo" vs. real scholarship). [I thank Mr. Sokal for this, since it is exactly what I have been preaching in the Talk:Afrocentrism debate for years. An encyclopedia has no use for affirmative action.] --dab (𒁳) 15:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it makes sense as a category or (shudder, I hate lists) a List of pseudo-scholarship topics, but I don't see how the article can ever be more than a stub. Dlabtot (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ and expand. Pseudo-scholarship is not the same thing as pseudoscience. The first is the practice of parodying (intentionally or otherwise) scholarship, and it is prevalent today with easy publishing and software geared towards gratuitous referencing. The second is the science of scientifically discredited science, which can be supported by scholarship, thought it is more often supported without pretense of scholarship. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD below is making a convincing case that there are no independent sources. No one is using the term who is not using it for some purpose. There is no material discussing the use of the term dispassionately. I expected that there would be, but until such independent secondary source material is available, it probably belongs on wiktionary only. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a tendency in Wikipedia when we find that a google search shows that various writers have put together an adjective or prefix and a noun to assume that there should be an article. Before we do this we must establish that there is a body of literature that defines and uses the concept. We would expect that there would be a least one scholarly book about the subject and that later scholars would refer to earlier scholars' use of the term. Various writers will attach terms like pseudo, new, old, neo, proto, national, etc. to nouns. Sometimes these will come to refer to specific concepts, e.g., "new money", "neoliberalism", sometimes they will be used differently by different writers, e.g., the "new science", the "old liberalism". Without a concept articles become a mishmash of unrelated concepts and are just original research and synthesis. The way to tell that this is not a recognized concept is that the sources used each individually define the terms for use in their books without any reference to previous writers. TFD (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- indeed. This page is one large exercise in "popular misconceptions about Wikipedia". Misconception 1: each term needs an article. This is why wiktionary and other sister projects were created. Misconception 2: we have a page about a term that doesn't really deserve an article: Omg, take it to AfD. This is why ((merge)) was invented. I am not exaggerating when I say that 90% of AfDs I have seen were completely pointless and could have been solved by a good editor without touching admin buttons in a couple of minutes. I won't go into Misconception 3, literal exegesis of guidelines trumps common sense, because that is getting my goat too much. --dab (𒁳) 11:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree, each entry in a list article does not need an article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I largely agree with TFD and dab. We are discussing a borderline neologism here. Disagree that an entire book is required to demonstrate sufficient notability. Non-trivial coverage, even just a few paragraphs, in a teaching textbook, would be enough. Definitely agree that if we decide it is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article, we should consider the merits of merging to a section in pseudoscience or elsewhere before resorting to deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three sources used to establish the notability of the topic, there is no information on what Jacobsen wrote in 1941 and no evidence that his paper has influenced later scholars. Stern used the term to refer to politically biased scholarship, but says nothing further about the topic.[20] Smith and Cohen were writing about pseudo-scientific proofs of events in the Bible.[21] Both the later writers tell the readers what they mean by the term and neither credits any previous writer with having used the term or make any claim that anyone else uses the same term in the same way that they do. TFD (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful list article, clearly not a neologism - over 150 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.136.194 (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary. I thought the AfD might spur better sources, but if this is all that exists, it's best left as a definition. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only authoritative definition is the one produced by combining the definitions of "pseudo-" and "scholarship" from an authoritative dictionary. No one is disputing the meaning of "pseudo-". I opened this AfD because all the free online dictionary definitions for "scholarship" say it is "the learning or qualities of a scholar" or the like; i.e., a personal attribute, and this combined dictionary definition of pseudo- + scholarship (faked scholarly qualities such as erudition and discipline) conflicted with the way dab was using it at Pseudoscholarship ("appearing to be but not really in the realm of honest, disciplined, intelligent learning; looking like but not actually a part of the sum of scholarly wisdom"), and Eugene was using it at Christ myth theory ("the work, output, publications of a scholar"). I have now found this at the Oxford English Dictionary subscription site:

Scholarship: The attainments of a scholar; learning, erudition; esp. proficiency in the Greek and Latin languages and their literature. Also, the collective attainments of scholars; the sphere of polite learning. (Full text)

The first, purple, part matches what the free online dictionaries say but the green part confirms dab's use. Since "scholarship" also means "the sphere of polite learning" it is the perfect generic term for all the disciplines of learned inquiry, and "pseudo-scholarship" is the perfect generic term for "pseudo-science", "pseudo-history", etc.

There is nothing wrong with the way dab is using the term. All that remains to do here is decide whether the article deserves to exist and, if so, in what form. Anthony (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Eugene. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an old term, not a WP:NEO. The nomination seems pointy. Also, Eugene. Verbal chat 20:56, 31 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ulysses Learning[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since July 2009, the page currently has one incoming Wikilink and contains much product information. Google search reveals 7,590 links, most of which beyond page3 are blog entries and commentaries. Can not substantiate reasons for notability, hence proposed for deletion Trident13 (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional to the border of unintelligibility: The CallMentor Learning and Performance Improvement System features: four simulation-based e-Learning programs; group-facilitated exercises; coaching methods and processes; and performance improvement services - implementation consulting, performance measurement, Master Coach and Facilitator Certification, and certified IT installation and support along with a Learning and Administrative Management System... I reckon what this means in English is that they train people who work in call centers. No indication that this business has any kind of historical, technical, or cultural importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company. Google provides no information except that the company has one location and 17 employees.[22] --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 31 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. There was a strong argument made in favour of merging made by at least two editors, but the lack of cited sources and the fact that all available sources seem to be local combined with the "WP:OTHERCRAP" keep argument was enough, in my view, to push the consensus to delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Academy[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a closed school. No indication of WP:notability. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Just as notable as any other school out there, has sources like this (Where it has a five start rating, granted not very much but still something).--SKATER ^Hmm? 15:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:reliable sources and WP:notability. How does this school meet these guidelines? noq (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this any different from Cave Spring High School or any other school that's apparently notable?--SKATER ^Hmm? 23:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because a similar article exists does not justify the existence of this article. I have not looked at the other schools page but it is not relevant to this discussion. noq (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Buffalo, New York#Private schools. Generally, articles about high schools tend to be kept, articles about elementary and junior high schools are referred to in an article about the school district or in the article about the city or town for a private school. I hasten to point out that the five star rating is not a certification of any sort, but rather a summary of five parents' comments on the website. Mandsford 16:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment News search for "Covenant Academy" buffalo gives 22 hits, of which 5 are unrelated and 16 of the remaining 17 are from the Buffalo News and behind a pay wall. Most of those are passing mentions. If anyone wants to do further searches, the school was actually in Tonawanda, not Buffalo proper. David V Houston (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from schools with a large national level award (Blue Ribbon Schools), primary schools are not kept. Merging is only relevant if the locale wants to include a writeup on closed schools. Since there's no cited information, just delete. tedder (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article before the school was closed last year would not have been notable. The article cites no sources, with a quick search I was able to round up a few, including a ranking as a top 50 school in western New York, noting this is a local award. However, the sources do not indicate notability for a primary school as they are incidental and local in nature. Article may even be eligible for Speedy Deletion. WikiManOne (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Buffalo, New York#Private schools, per User: Mansford.--Pink Bull 06:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deletion of the snowball variety. Marasmusine (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA 12[edit]

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

Fails WP:Crystal - with no firm reliable source confirm a release date. Codf1977 (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - when we hit 2011 we can discuss a recreation, but given that FIFA is a yearly series this is far to far out there. --Teancum (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure speculation. –MuZemike 17:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - Whilst FIFA 12's gonna be notable when it comes out, that time isn't now. We don't even have an article for FIFA 11 - that redirects to FIFA (video game series). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 03:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete What DitzyNizzy said. Deletify pl0x, there's less open-and-shut AFDs to discuss and editing to do.. Someone another 04:48, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neglected Mario Characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable webcomic. This was previously taken to AFD back in 2006 and kept, but times have changed since then and these days we enforce our policies more thoroughly. This comic has never, as far as I can tell, been the subject of significant coverage from a reliable third-party source. The best source there is is a mention in this 1up.com article about the history of webcomics [23], and even that only covers it briefly. As a result, this article fails WP:WEB. Robofish (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough sources to demonstrate notability, and googling gives little past what the nom found, so it fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up and properly referenced. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. I don't think it was notable then, and it certainly isn't now that our verifiability standards have tightened. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication this meets WP:WEB notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beyond me how this survived the first one. And, holy cow, the design of that web page was bad even in 1997. Powers ^T 19:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Go ahead. I don't really edit it anymore. SPKx (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up. I'm going with Stifle on this one. CaptHayfever (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. Fails WP:WEB badly. Nandesuka (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A total mess. Mostly unsourced WP:OR. The best potential source (1up.com) is a trivial mention in an unreliable source. I'll second Powers' on "Beyond me how this survived." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also think that it should be salted. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:13, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no outstanding delete !votes Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Monjack[edit]

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

Lets start a bit about this brief recent history of this article, back in ~~February~~ (correction) March, I nominated this for a WP:PROD for that Mr. Monjack's only reliable third party coverage there is was being married to a famous actress, he was never famous for being a director, producer, a screenwriter or whatever. As for his "career", IMDB cannot be at all considerred a reliable third party source; the claim that he is a writer for one film have been rebuked by the director of that film he claimed, but still only received a credit for ass listed by IMDB.

As for being married to somebody famous, he ain't no Elin Nordegren or Kate Middleton enough to have his own article here. These were my decision to originally PROD this article, which then another editor later merged it to Murphy's article, caliming that notability is not inherrited, which I agreed on that decision. Now after learning that this was reverted because of reliable third party coverage of his death, I decided to revert this back to its merged state but another editor disagreed reverting this back suggesting that I should nominate it for an AfD if I disagree, hence I take this decision to nominate this article for deletion. I am willing to accept a decision to merge this to Brittany Murphy

Below, I included the original PROD nomination.

The only reliable third-party sources there is that exists of this BLP is either being married to Brittany Murphy or being still married to her at the time of the events that led to her death, nothing else in between. Other than that, there is no evidence of notability in existence other than anything in relation to Ms. Murphy's death or the time or their marriage, not even on his own or even his career. Donnie Park (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination:I am withdrawing this nomination for the time being. Donnie Park (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has gone beyond stub class since the concerns raised in February 2010 and meets WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, only on his marriage, legal troubles, death and whatever has to do with his wife which all of its claim of fame has to do with, that will make up for more than a stub article. Anything to do with his career is IMDB, which cannot be classed as a reliable third party source. Have any reliable third party sources mentioned him without namedropping his wife? I doubt it. Donnie Park (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My correction, actually it was March not February, looking at the differences between the PROD nomination and events since then prior to this nom, the difference between these edits is his death, but then unless you are murdered, does dying make you famous. Donnie Park (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several reliable sources that cover him in detail (for example: [24][25][26]). From the GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". The coverage is clearly significant as I see it. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brittany Murphy, as his only claim to notability is being her husband. Coverage only of his death (or only in relation to her death) does not confer notability, and it doesn't help that the articles on his death are mainly concerned with recapping what happened to her. Karanacs (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I understand the reasoning for this AfD, in my view Monjack moved well past the point of notability in his own right after Brittany's death. I also don't think a re-merger is editorially desirable at this point, since there is a lot of stuff about him now that isn't about her.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARGUMENT TO KEEP THE ARTICLE: The page for Simon Monjack should remain. He was still a human being who made headlines, regardless what that was for. Monjack did in fact work in the movie industry, which is not being disputed. Despite whether legalities of copyrights and contracts which outsiders will likely never be privy to, he made contributions in his circles the extent of which we also are not privy to. Of course he gained additional notoriety because of his very famous late wife's passing; however, that doesn't mean that he does not deserve a short article of factual information since his degree of famosity was not equal to his wife's.

If this is deleted, then by that logic so should the pages of many others whose spotlight was brightened by proxy of their spouse's much brighter light. Now that he's passed on, strangely very soon after his late wife's passing (also a fact worth remarking at least for its poetic value if nothing else), and respect should be shown by acknowledging he existed, like any other human being with some spotlight. There is more than enough space to do so, and in addition, one never knows how much more remarkable information is discovered posthumously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisan1978 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC) — Lisan1978 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I have heard of this man independent of his wife. Yes he is linked to his wife, but he is still independent of her. Doing a Google search of his name while excluding his wife’s ("simon monjack" -Brittany -Murphy) still brings up 738,000 results. I do agree IMDB should not be the only source of information, but I think the page is still valid.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above reasonings. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets wp:gng to me. Dismas|^(talk) 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This man was a director. Now mind you he only had one film, but he was a director none the less. He was independent from his wife. While his marriage to Brittney Murphy did bring him further in the spotlight, it does not diminish his career and his independence. To say so is without merit. If this is deleted, there are quite a few others in Wikipedia that meet this same criteria for deletion that is being used for Mr. Monjack. Some in this category include Kate Middleton, famous for her wait for Prince William- no real career to speak of and Elin Nordgrun, a former nanny now wife of Tiger Woods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.142.1.16 (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. errrrr...since when was he ever a significant director, is there any reliable third party source to back your claim or are you a conlict of interest party, friends or relatives of his in that case, if you are then consider yourself conflict of interest and stay out...what I stated was all he was known for was getting married to Ms Murphy just so he can keep his ass in la la land and live off her money, hence how I compares him to Ms Middleton and Mrs Woods and your vote counts for nothing since your reason are pretty lame. Donnie Park (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. I am suspecting that 160.142.1.16 and Lisan1978 is a sockpuppet of ARTEST4ECHO. The claim that "independent of his wife" is just a sign unless this user have cut and paste a word and passed it off as his own. Donnie Park (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant enough coverage of his own life, separate from his wife's. First Light (talk) 04:38, 29 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 and redirect to Kevin Kennon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kennon Architects[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ORG due to a lack of reliable sources available that actually mention the firm "Kevin Kennon Architects" rather than Kevin Kennon. This may be due to the company only existing for him to trade under, in which case the article would fail CFORK guidance. Fæ (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy. Sounds like they're just advertising themselves. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kevin Kennon. Two of the cited sources do refer to the firm as well as the individual, but all of them seem to be talking about Kennon's work. The sources and additional projects would be a useful addition to the Kennon article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kevin Kennon - good idea.Lionelt (talk) 20:29, 28 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. Please note that consensus is not defined by any particular number of "votes" at AfD. Juliancolton (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Valentine (1948)[edit]

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

Fails WP:V - existence of this military operation cannot be verified through JSTOR, google scholar/book/web. Unmentioned in all the references listed - possible hoax. Claritas (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important note - the original contributor - SGGH created the article in good faith, as it was a red-link in a template, and provided the references used for the main articles. Claritas (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this time, despite extensive search in every reference listed on the page (included there for an eventual background section when the article was being built) as well as JSTOR, google books, scholar, google and so on using the most imaginative things I could find, big fat zero. If Bernard Fall and Martin Windrow didn't record it, then it probably doesn't exist and I don't know why it was in the campaign box. SGGH ^ping! 14:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the campaign box because Cliché Online added it on the 15th of May, 2007. See here - [27]. Claritas (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked him to this discussion to see if he can shed more light. SGGH ^ping! 16:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, in Fall I can't even find any record of any operations for 1948, of any name. I only find Lea followed by something called Calibre or something similar. SGGH

I've read through the relevant sections of [28], which seems to give a pretty thorough coverage, and there's no "Operation Valentine" mentioned. Operation Lea is the only one which occurred around that time. Claritas (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ping! 12:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~Delete per User:Claritas comment below. Treylander 15:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the nomination before !voting in a discussion. There are no references to "Operation Valentine" in any of the works listed. Thanks. Claritas (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question the seven days are up. Is this going to be relisted? Not sure if I can do that seeing as its about an article I created. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a consensus to delete if three users are in support of deletion, and there are no users in support of keeping. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chak 137, for instance. Claritas § 17:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I've created a new article for an operation to go where this was one in the template. This can be deleted now its closed. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G4 UtherSRG (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gökhan Töre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously AFD deleted, but might have gained notability. Elevating from speedy G4 for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD G4, nothing has changed since previous AfD. Fails WP:ATHLETE due to never having played at a fully-professional level. No significant media coverage beyond the WP:NTEMP stuff means he fails WP:GNG too. --Jimbo^[online] 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD G4. Neither the article nor the subject have changed in any relevant way since it was deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD G4. Must we really go through this every time? – Pee Jay 16:39, 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 keep. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tie Break (jazz ensemble)[edit]

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

Speedy contested, has article on Polish wiki. Elevating to AFD for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable jazz rock group. Has entry in Leszek Gnoiński, Jan Skaradziński: Encyklopedia polskiego rocka. Poznań: 2001. ISBN 83-8636-508-0. Group has played at the Jazz Jamboree and Umbria Jazz Festival, major festivals and countless others. Starzynka (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cites added.----moreno oso (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage found appears to be just enough for the group to meet WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete A7 UtherSRG (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steamboat Willies ICC[edit]

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

Declining speedy, can't tell if this is professional (and notable) or amateur (and mostly nonnotable). Elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Accountants with bats? The Gumbys? seriously, look at linked "player profiles" with "Team Role: Beer Connoisseur" ... guys are just having fun. East of Borschov (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is obviously a non-notable cricket team. Article should have been deleted per WP:CSD A7. – Pee Jay 16:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You seriously declined a speedy for that? Andrew nixon (talk) 17:11, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Jennings[edit]

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

Sefl-published author and book, lacks notability Misarxist (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Misarxist (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Misarxist (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both. lacks coverage and fails WP:AUTH and WP:NBOOK respectively.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously promotional and non-notable Deb (talk) 17:06, 31 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.

Alloy Ventures[edit]

The result was Speedy Keep (Non-admin closure). It's obvious the nominator started this AfD only as retribution for a previous AfD on an article to which he has an emotional attachment. The article is clearly well-referenced, and furthermore it is under expert attention. There is no argument that the topic passes WP:GNG. Let's not waste anyone else's time any further with this. SnottyWong talk 22:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lack of notability.

Maksan84 (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Lack of notability.[reply]

Article is a part of Private Equity Task Force and is a subject of experts attention. The article represents a stub (indicated using a stub tag) and being constantly improved by members of the task force. The notability of the company remains at a high level for the experts of the industry and meets the general notability policy. The acting of Maksan84 is, assumably, backed by an interpersonal issue with me and the nomination for deletion of the article Kamaliya with, assumably, no professional point of view of the private equity industry. Zhernovoi (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maksan84 (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Zhernovoi is correct only at 50%. I really found an article about Alloy Ventures when I had been looking through his contributions. However, I really do not understand the value and notability of Alloy Ventures for Wikipedia and its readers. I kindly ask Mr. Zhernovoi to present at least 5 external links to media or expert communities, which prove that Ally Ventures is worth to be presented on Wikipedia.[reply]

~~Maksan84 is encouraged to follow the How to list pages for deletion procedure and to log the deletion discussion page to the AfD Log~~ Done by myself. Zhernovoi (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alloy Ventures, as a Company, is being widely covered by several third-party independent sources. The lookup at, for example, Google News and Google Books shows non-archived articles concerning Alloy Ventures and funded companies. The Notability policy of Wikipedia does not indicate a fixed amount of sourced needed to specify an article as notable. Zhernovoi (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This already had a number of references; I have added some more, all of which I believe constitute substantial coverage in reliable sources and therefore establish notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. notability established, coverage in reliable sources used as references, article under experts attention of Private Equity Task Force.

User Maksan84 added a COI tag to the article. In my opinion, the point of neutrality is being kept — information added from direct sources, NOR. Zhernovoi (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Zhernovoi (talk) 14:55, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Sharma[edit]

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

Declining speedy. Looks possibly notable. Elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basically an unsourced BLP. (youtube link is dead and she is uncredited on Sticky TV). Despite its hype, WCOPA is a commercial talent quest and being one of 5,000 entrants (15 from New Zealand that year [29]) is not notable. No other sources located which support notability - the best (being that she took the lead in her school production [30] fall a long way short. dramatic (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Delete - Created by a single issue user whose only contributions (2) have been this article. I suspected COI. Clearly non-notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:28, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ritwik Mallik[edit]

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

Another novelist with borderline notability. Elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - a 16 year old novelist who sold 8,000 copies of a book in four months is hardly notable. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero GNews/Books/Scholar hits, GHits appear to be from non-reliable sources. GregJackP (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wrong side of the borderline to notability, as I see it. Jusdafax 02:13, 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 speedy keep. No remaining !votes to delete, nominator has indicated withdrawl of the nomination on their talk page. Non-admin closure. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariusz Adamski[edit]

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

Under-sourced WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why the sudden deletions? This is a notable aerial photographer, published works in many publications in his field..Starzynka (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:Notability (people). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have begun editting the article. I would recommend closure now as I will demonstrate his notability in less than three hours. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Recent edits prove WP:ARTIST has been satisfied. SnottyWong talk 22:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Snottywong: references from several independent sources; I've checked some of these, and they seem reliable. I don't think the notability of this individual is in question any longer. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per WP:BASIC this individual has been the subject of reliable primary sources such as the US State Department, Jane's All the World's Aircraft (which is a definite source on aviation related matters), and secondary magazines references like Air & Space Magazine, Flight Global and Skrzydlata Polska. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references found. Dream Focus 23:21, 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 merge to List of Indian rail accidents . (Or any of the other articles mentioned.) Juliancolton (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Naugachia train derailment[edit]

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

Very minor incident that is extremely unlikely to have any lasting notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor derailment no fatalities.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:NEWS. Although fatal train derailments can be notable (and some non-fatal terror attacks that result in derailment can be as well), this wouldn't be historically notable in any location on earth under the circumstances described. Mandsford 16:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much of a news story. It doesn't belong here. The Pebble Dare (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the salvageable content to List of Indian rail accidents and Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. utcursch | talk 08:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Indian rail accidents and List of rail accidents (2010–2019). Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment should this prove to be sabotage then due consideration should be given to recreation. Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Indian rail accidents and List of rail accidents (2010–2019) per Mjroots. ----DanTD (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but don't merge as its not notable enough for the aforementioned lists either ! GrahamHardy (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Unlikely to have any lasting notability" sounds like speculation. There is to be a inquiry according to this and this, while sabotage has not been ruled out by the railway ministry. Suspected sabotage. 14 coaches derailing at once seems quite unusual. This says helpline numbers had to be set up. Statutory enquiry to be conducted/different versions of events/cancelled trains. --candle•wicke 04:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge While not notable by itself, the accident seems significant enough to be included in the List of Indian rail accidents. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree (and no redirect necessary). The list of accidents is a good mix of accidents for which we have an article, and other accidents that don't have an article (whether they "deserve" one or not). For now, I'd remove brackets from any red links on the list. I suppose that someone could sort through those lists and eliminate the ones that aren't blue links, but it would be quickly reverted, since there's no rational reason to censor the contents of a list of accidents. Mandsford 20:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge, merge without a redirect? Are these statements not ever so slightly contradictory? --candle•wicke 01:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the statements are contradictory. All they imply is that the incident is not noteworthy of an article of its own but it merits a line in another article. Almost all content in this encyclopedia fits that description. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may need to be reviewed, given that a train was derailed by Maoists in the area today, the above accident may also turn out to be their work. Therefore I'd like to propose that this AfD be extended for a week to allow time for further facts to appear. Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep and improve - it can be added. Lots of articles like this exist, with less casualties and relevance. Heck, the 2 Naxal attacks in Dantewada have seperate articles when 1 would suffice. (Lihaas (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mjroots. —fetch ·comms 17:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge we cannot allow articles on every NN crash. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Indian rail accidents and List of rail accidents (2010–2019), per Mjroots, and (or) perhaps merge into Rajdhani Express.--Pink Bull 16:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bal Kishan Dabas[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Non-notable author and academic. 1 GScholar hit, 2 GBooks hits (his book and cited in another), no GNews hits. Several GHits, but most refer to the book (actually, most appear to be sites to sell the book), not the author. GregJackP (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesnt meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTH--Sodabottle (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All fluff, no meat. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 30 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Cheetham[edit]

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

Declining speedy A7. I'm unsure of the notability requirements for authors. Elevating for a fuller discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline fails WP:AUTHOR - the relevant policy in this case. Replace with an article on James Cheetham, the biographer of Thomas Paine ? Claritas (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing can be found written about his books, and in fact his books themselves can barely be found on Google. Search for his name turns up lots of OTHER people named James Cheetham. Article appears to be an autobiography, written by a WP:SPA called User:Running Zombie. --MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep since only the nominator seems to have provided any rationale for deletion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamaliya[edit]

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

Lack of V and NOR throughout the whole article. Likely to be challenged statements in the second part of the “Movie start career” section not attributed to a reliable source (using inline citations), no NOR. Lack of NPOV, V and NOR in the “Early life section”. Poor writing and lack of V in the “1993-2007” section. Nomination after prod removal by article author. Zhernovoi (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maksan84 (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Please specify the reasons for this article deletion.Maksan84 (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC) NPOV is debatable. Writing will be improved soon. More sources about the movies to be added soon, several contracts has just been signed.[reply]

Keep, but clean up the article (it could be stubbified, for example, to address the verifiability and neutral point of view concerns). Bad writing is not a reason to delete an article. Filtering out the irrelevant hits re. the eponymous Iraqi neighbourhood, there's still considerable news coverage accessible via a Google News archive search - e.g. this article from Ukraine, this one from Pakistan calling her a "pop queen", and this one from Brazil. There appear to be many more news items written in Ukrainian in the Cyrillic script, which I regret I can't read, but which a Google translation seems to indicate are indeed devoted to the article's subject. I'll admit a little skepticism re. some of the coverage she receives in the Kyiv Post, given that she appears to be married to its publisher, but I am still seeing enough coverage to merit a keep. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will clean up the article ASAP. Maksan84 (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I may delete the Articles for Deletion notice?Maksan84 (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. This deletion discussion will go on for one week - though I've said I think the article should be kept, I'm just one user. The Articles for Deletion process (which we're in now) exists to create a consensus on whether an article should stay or be deleted. When the week's up an administrator will review all the comments and determine what the community consensus is. Until then the notice needs to stay on the article. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OKMaksan84 (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added the unreferenced tag to movie star section and ongoing movies — could not find any references for this being NOR. Zhernovoi (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Maksan84 deleted the tag twice. In my opinion, the unreferenced tag was placed properly — the statements about ongoing movie participations are discussable. References needed throughout the whole article! Zhernovoi (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Zhernovoi keeps on placing the tag in the section full of references. How many tags more does he need? Maksan84 (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The removed tag was targeting the following text: “This year the actress and singer will head to Hollywood to play the leading role in the new "The Accident" movie by Kalus Menzel. Kamaliya has also signed contract in Cannes for the romantic comedy "Legal Affairs" by Gabriela Tscherniak. Shooting in NY will start in October 2010”. There is no reference present to confirm this fact. Please, pay attention to the place where a tag is being placed. Zhernovoi (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV is discussable. Author seems to be in formal relationship with the subject. Zhernovoi (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zhernovoi must be kidding. "Seems" is not an argument. Maksan84 (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion that user Zhernovoi has some prejudices against Kamaliya. His changes were made right after a large number of people tried to troll her blog http://kamaliya-zahoor.livejournal.com/14786.html, guided from the ragu.li web site. Maksan84 (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Comment. The discussed article is mostly based on original research. Author refuses to avoid sections, where no references are present to confirm the statements. NPOV is discussable, as the authors actions on dealing with deleting discussion are based on interpersonal issues of the subject itself, and, therefore, author is taking a specific point of view, missing the neutrality point. Author is not accepting the guidelines for citation and V of the content and deleting properly placed notice tags to help him fulfill the wikipedia policies. Zhernovoi (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This debate has become quite personal. I have commented on both users' talk pages; please keep discussion here focused on the notability of the article subject, and assume good faith of each other's contributions. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep ~~Comment~~ I have never heard of this individual before today, and yes the article needs cleanup and sourcing, but such appears to be do-able, even with "only" English sources.[31] For further expansion and sourcing, it is hoped that Ukrainian-reading Wikipedians will look through these, and that Russian-reading Wikipedians will look through these. Yes, while lacking sources is always a concern for a BLP, that there are so many so readily avaialable is a reason to put them in ASAP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have begun some of the much-needed copyedit. With so much with which to work, I'll begin some sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gonzonoir. There appear to be sources to establish notability. The fact that she was Miss World 2008 is quite notable in and of itself. I would, however, recommend moving the article to the subject's full name: Kamaliya Zahoor. This can be done after the AfD closes, assuming the article isn't deleted. SnottyWong talk 02:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The article says "Kamaliya has won Mrs. World international pageant". Sounds like a notable award/accomplishment to me. And you can't win something like that without plenty of news coverage. Plus Google news shows her for other reasons as well. Dream Focus 22:37, 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 speedy merge to Filton and Bradley Stoke (UK Parliament constituency)#Election results. Nom is a sock and all other opinions for merge (non-admin closure) VernoWhitney (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, None Of The Above[edit]

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

My reason is pretty much the same as the previous PROD attempt on the article which stated "Unelected parliamentary candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN; garnered brief human-interest coverage because of his registered name, but I see no evidence of long-term notability." ... Kalakitty _talk 12:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck, sock Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, textbook case of WP:BLP1E - received brief news coverage, but no lasting notability. Robofish (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to agree to a Merge if that's what everyone else wants - there's not much content here to merge anyway. Robofish (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Filton_and_Bradley_Stoke_(UK_Parliament_constituency). I contested because I preferred to see community consensus on that and seek ways to preserve the information, but even as the PROD contester, I may agree it does not manage to deserve a full article unless further coverage that nullifies WP:BLP1E is found --Cyclopia ^talk 12:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Cyclopia says it all. Definitely fails WP:BLP1E but this info is worth noting in the constituency article at Filton and Bradley Stoke (UK Parliament constituency)#Election results and at None of the above#United Kingdom. Fences&Windows 17:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the relevant constituency article per previous practice and WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cyclopia. Made for an entertaining AfD read, though.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cyclopia; the most reasonable outcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 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. This has been open long enough and there has been no activity in almost a week. While a "no consensus" may be justified by a simple vote count, I'm going with keep because nobody has provided a strong counter-argument to any of the keep !votes, which cite both improved sourcing and the record deal with a reputable label. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ASG (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. No charted songs, not signed by a major label or well-recognized indie. Only one independent reference, a very brief mention in a track list for a video game soundtrack, and that single ref was only added after I PRODded the page (the editor adding the ref used that as an excuse to remove the PROD). Every other ref is from their label, the band's own web site, or the band's MySpace page. Sorry, folks, that's not enough. Can't independently verify anything else about this band. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 10 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) 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find significant coverage of the band. No indication of passing WP:MUSIC. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a quite notable band. At least two of their songs have been used on Huevos 9, a very well known and published ATV DVD series. They are far from the "garage band" you mention on your Wikipedia site. Realkyhick, the author of the above "reason" is a non-notable newspaper columist and announcer of low rate sporting events. Hardly someone qualified to critique which bands or musical projects are notable and which are not. ASG's material has also been used as background in Skate 2, as well as many other snowboarding and surfing DVDs. In addition, their music can easily be downloaded from just about any electronic jukebox in the country, as well as the fact that all of their albums are listed for purchase on itunes. These are hardly qualities justifying the label of "garage band". Anyone with the ability to use Google.com or any other search engine with lack luster abilities can easily find and read about this band. Sorry folks, but their biography on Wikipedia is well deserved. If you read the self created Wikipedia biography of the author of the nonsense above, you'll see that they are intent on deleting material concerning bands as a source of entertainment. This is a very poor attempt to bash a group of individuals ilustrating a great deal more talent than the above author. In conclusion, I am not friends with, or in any way personally know any member of ASG. I am nothing more than someone who, although the author above says is impossible, has read about this band on the web, and has taken a liking to their music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.59.211 (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. First we have an anonymous IP editor who engages in personal attacks (prohibited at Wikipedia, by the way). Wow, how brave of you! He or she makes unsubstantiated claims about how anyone can find out about the band through Google, but fails to provide any usable results from such a search. That's a big help. I stand by my assertions that this band does not meet WP:BAND. If you can prove otherwise, do so. Put up or shut up. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. I'm simply bringing up the simple question of whether or not a small time sports castor has any credibility or authority when it comes to rating published music... Seeing as your whole point has to do with "notablility" or "credibility", I think everyone reading would like to know what "credibility" you have to be judging someone's musical material. Are you a writer for Spin Magazine? Do you submit material for Rolling Stone? Does your sports column in a local newpaper have anything to do with music? Do you manage or promote bands? If you are none of the above, then I don't see how you have enough "credibility" to be deleting bands from Wikipedia. The bottom line is, ASG is a very talented band who's material has been used in many well known, copywrited media productions. In your laughable retort, you've failed to acknowledge all the facts I mentioned prior. Non-notable bands don't have labels... Non-notable bands don't sell material to be used on mass produced media. Non-notable bands don't produce four albums that can be bought all around the country. What more "verification" do you need? Go to youtube.com or itunes.com, that's all the verification you need. They have tons of material on both, along with a huge fan base. Your labeling ASG as "non-notable" or "garage band" is absolutely rediculous. As far as me being an "anonymous IP editor"... well, I guess I am. I don't have a Wikipedia sign on, and fortunately for me, I only come to Wikipedia for information, I don't hang out here. I do have other things to do with my time, thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.218.201.11 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you have no clue as to what constitutes a notable band for Wikipedia purposes. Read those words again: for Wikipedia purposes. Those standards are given on this page. I could care less how their music sounds. It doesn't matter. There are many bands on here whose music I would probably find horrible, but if they meet our notability standards, their article stays. Conversely, I can think of two or three artists in my local area that I like, but they also do not meet our standards. Notability has nothing to do with quality. ASG does not meet the criteria we have established. If you look at the criteria, and see one that ASG has met, then please come back here to cite how the band meets that criterion. Non-notable bands do have labels, but those labels are not notable in their own right. Pretty much every non-notable band out there sells "material to be used on mass produced media." Any non-notable band can produce four albums on their own these days. As for albums "that can be bought all around the country," show us proof. And the Internet doesn't count, as pretty much any artist can sign up to have iTunes, Amazon and numerous other online music outlets. And YouTube? Literally anyone can post stuff on there, but that doesn't make them notable. (I have dozens on there, and I'm not notable by Wikipedia standards.) That's not anything close to verification of notability. You must have references from independent, reliable sources (and blogs are not considered to be reliable sources) to prove that the claims made are notable. If you're not interested in doing that, then leave us alone so we can deal with such articles by our long-established policies, and stop making cowardly derogatory remarks about those you disagree with. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For those of you who keep erasing the content of this AfD, it won't make it go away. It just makes you look like a dork. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per Realkyhick, not notable band. No contract , no charted songs. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Just now I've added multiple citations to reliable sources, representing significant coverage, in my view; WP:BAND criterion #1. The band is a "veteran of the Vans Warped Tour" according to one newspaper article I found. And the band meets WP:BAND criterion #5, with multiple albums released on Volcom Entertainment. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I differ with your view of "significant coverage," though it is hard to make a hard-and-fast determination of that because most of the refs are not linkable. (Can these be found online? I tried, and failed.) A good portion of this seems to come from their hometown newspaper, which means it has about as much significance as if I wrote in my newspaper about a band from Gardendale, Alabama - in other words, not much. Better than nothing, I suppose. I've also wondered whether Volcom can be considered a significant indie label. Their own article contains no references whatsoever, except for their own web site. I've seriously considered putting it up for AfD, but I'll tag it first for ((refimprove)). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I am tempted to consider the coverage User:Paul Erik refers to as "significant" (see search), it seems like Volcom Entertainment could be a "significant indie label" ([32]). Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: changed from 'weak keep' to 'keep' per User:Paul Erik and User:J04n below. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (Duplicate vote) Band has many references at this point. Seems to specifically meet two requirements per Paul Erik's entry. Volcom is most definately a successful Indie Label, so they must have a contract. I don't think "significant" coverage is necessary if the current coverage sufficiently includes the band as notable. Also, I'd have to agree with the one "unsigned" comment above. Is this Wikipedia trying to delete this, or just a user taking it upon him/herself? I feel that's a decent question to ask. The band seems solid as far as the references go, what's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.218.201.11 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry, you only get to vote once. Since Whois shows both you and 74.76.59.211 are located in Watervliet, NY, you may have voted twice already. --CliffC (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I'm not sure 74.76.59.211's comment above should be considered a !vote. It seemed a bit more like a personal attack, while this comment above is indicated a !vote by the bold 'keep', and contains less ad hominem. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The anon IP editor evidently does not have a concept of how Wikipedia's deletion process works. "Wikipedia," as an organization, doesn't delete anything. All deletion discussions are instigated by individual editors such as myself, then discussed by other individual editors such as yourself, and finally a determination is made by an administrator - who is simply another editor with slightly greater responsibilities. As for the references and coverage, it's definitely getting better, though I'm still not convinced all the way - yet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This group is of little notability that is for sure, also I have seen, there are three not notable albums that have articles that also need deleting. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few more comments from me... First, to clarify, Volcom Entertainment was a subsidiary of MCA Records, so we're in the realm of major-label. Second, I've added links to some of the articles that are accessible on the Internet (although one is behind a pay wall). Third, I've added some more sources. While it's tempting to dismiss the coverage as "just a local paper writing about its local band", there is coverage beyond that, including in the Richmond Times-Dispatch and in Allmusic. Fourth, there is even more media coverage than this. There is this in Cleveland Scene, a brief album review in Metro Times, a review in Spike Magazine, a review in Hippo Press, a review in Revolver (January 2008), and an interview in Surfing Magazine (May 2005). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming that Volcom is no longer an MCA subsidiary, by your remarks. If it still were, notability would not be in question. As it is, it is likely still notable at least for historical purposes. The additional references are definitely a help. You're starting to bring me around, but I'm still not totally convinced yet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The album review in Allmusic put the article over the top for me, the Warped Tour is a big plus. Plenty of verifiable info for WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 19:14, 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. It's my opinion that nobody provided a sound rationale to counter the concerns of original research. Other concerns such as listcruft and not directory were less convincing, but swayed my analysis towards deletion. All things considered, the list is too poorly defined and too wide in scope to be particularly encyclopaedic and a good number of the keep !votes revolved around weak arguments such as WP:USEFUL. While I'm sure it is useful, as that essay says, almost anything is useful in context, but usefulness is, for better or worse, not the basis on which we decide what to include in Wikipedia. I've a feeling this may be contentious so Deletion Review is that way if anybody wants to appeal this decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional archenemies[edit]

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

This article is full of Original Research and lacks Verifiability. The subject of X (example only) being an archenemy of Y in fiction can be entirely speculative. And if you look in the it's talk page you see it is an mess with links. I used to like an idea of an article about this subject but it's going too far. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - besides being full of WP:OR, this list would end up being utterly unmaintainable. I can't fathom the number of arch-nemeses there are, and who would argue what is and what isn't. --Teancum (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; looks like there are several sources cited. Not everything is cited, granted, but it's certainly possible to restrict the list to only cited examples and still have a reasonably useful list. Powers ^T 20:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list will not be long enough to warrant a separate article once the unsourced material is trimmed. — Hellknowz ▎talk 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dated comment as more and more items in the list become sourced.Trackinfo (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its full of original research Dwanyewest (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, all interpretation of meaning within literature is merely an opinion. However with the number of other sources expressing that same opinion, other people concur. In WP terms we can now call that, sourced.Trackinfo (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You could theoretically write a version of this list that passed all our content policies, but it would suck (especially from a WP:WAF standpoint), and TV Tropes already does it better. Thus, I'd let it fall outside our scope. Nifboy (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is well referenced, with sources including The New York Times and the BBC. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To Joshau Isaac. This article only has an few good reliable sources. Now I know you are the one that seperated this article from the archenemy article with all those examples on there and I really believe that was an good idea. But ever since then this article has been full of IP editors thinking they could put whatever in lately. And that ain't cutting it for Wikipedia. I do recommend if anyone wants this article to stay, keep only the ones that are well sourced and keep an sharp watch or semi-protect this article. It also might work if there is an sandbox or something for this article to use sort of like an recycling center for the rivalries that isn't well sourced until there can be an good source for them. But for right now I think we should probably just start over in the archenemy article since it is basically an small article and TV Tropes already proved you can use lists of rivralies in an article specifically talking about archenemy. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To Joshua Issac. The sourced material should not be deleted, it should be preserved. However, a separate article may not be the best place yet. — Hellknowz ▎talk 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this are is a WP:OR nightmare. We've kicked the subject around on individual cases and it can be a tricky beast (Googling the character and "archenemy") isn't enough as it has to be an authoritative source and such things aren't easy to find, just because someone says X is an archenemy of Y it doesn't mean they are. Also in serial fiction like comics this can change to suit the story and so may not even be fixed (as they aren't real). Add a link from archenemy to the TV Tropes site if anyone wants to read up on such things. (Emperor (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Even though it may be doable to skip around the OR issue in more prominent examples, that's unlikely to be the case the moment you stray from the most obvious examples, it doesn't explain why it's necessary to have a list containing all the big bads from pretty much everything yanked out of context and chucked into a barrel. The concept itself, fair game for an article and some examples would be good, but more specific lists like List of X-Men villains and List of Punisher enemies would do a better job. Truth be told, in most cases categories would be just as effective and require a fraction of the maintainence. Someoneanother 01:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories have no way of placing the enemies and their antagonists together on one page. Polarpanda (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no need to. As a handful of examples on the archenemy article that would work because they would point the reader to articles where they could read-up about those specific examples. Continued across every fiction on a list then the only reason their counterpart's would need to be mentioned is because the list would be too broad by a mile. The categories I was referring to are the likes of Golden Age supervillains, DC Comics supervillains etc (taken from Joker (comics)), or counterparts to List of X-Men villains. The whole idea of rolling-out archnemesis as a meaningful classification is flawed IMO, taking what may or may not be a character's archnemesis and plonking them into a list doesn't tell the reader a damn thing about the fiction they have been removed from. Someone another 16:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An article could be made on this topic, so let it sit until someone whips it into shape. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on this topic is Archenemy. — Hellknowz ▎talk 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons that List of fictional swords has been kept: just because it's a drive-by magnet and a mess, doesn't mean that a well-sourced, non-indiscriminate article on the subject can't exist. Cleanup, obviously, doesn't require deletion. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The List of fictional swords did not have a Fictional sword article and the better entries could only be preserved by keeping the list. This is not the case here. — Hellknowz ▎talk 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unmaintainably large (potentially thousands of entries), and the inclusion criteria is not objectively defined. Archenemies are confused with arch-nemeses and general antagonists. Marasmusine (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, restricting entries to those citing reliable sources will take care of problems of size and indiscriminacy. Polarpanda (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced entries into Archenemy. Most of the list is no more than subjective OR. The few sourced entries can be merged back into Archenemy with no prejudice of recreation should there be enough material. I highly doubt that this list will be long enough to warrant a current separate article after removal of all unsourced and poorly sourced material. I suspect this list ended up from few good entries into "everyone adds their favourite work's archenemy". This is no way to build lists. — Hellknowz ▎talk 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion – would splitting into separate lists by type (e.g. video games, novels, comics, etc.) help reduce the "indiscriminate nature" with one huge list? –MuZemike 17:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I admit. I don't hate the suggestion. It's just that I am not completely sure about it either. Not all of the certain sections are big enough to be an article. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely, there are enough "parent" articles to fit the smaller sections? — Hellknowz ▎talk 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very useful list which I will bookmark. The concept of archenemies is an essential element to the fictional writing I do professionally and this is a valid list to point students to. I support the concept of sub-referencing in that, while perhaps every entry in this article is not individually sourced, if you trace to the referenced internal link, you see the article that DOES reference the information. That discounts the Original Research and Verifiability claim. If the complainants have a problem with fulfilling the laborious requirements of listing a source for every statement, then they can spend their time transferring the sources from all the numerous sub-referenced pages. In the mean time, don't mess with deleting useful articles.Trackinfo (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you already seen in my comment I did like an article about this particular subject and I have had this as my watchlist for quite an while. But fixing it was getting tiresome. I do agree if we just stick to the well sourced ones and leave it to that we should get an halfway decent article. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a pointless article. Is this list even complete? The Pebble Dare (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you actually look at the first part of the article it says it may never be complete. Meaning there can be a always be an new rivalry to add. Jhenderson777 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. It will never be complete, it can only be kept maintained by limiting to sourced entries. — Hellknowz ▎talk 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list of independently notable, duly sourced archenemies. This can be a valuable and interesting list, and it's a good example of the kind of encyclopedic organization that Wikipedia can do better than print media.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only few entries are duly sourced.— Hellknowz ▎talk 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Links to other Wikipedia articles, and is a good category to sort things through. List articles are easier to look through and use than categories though. Other information can perhaps be added as well, such as their first year of conflict, or reasons why they are archenemies. Dream Focus 22:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what the Archenemy article is mainly for. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that article exists to explain the concept of what an archenemy is. It will not be listing all of these things there. They belong in a list article. Just like List of US presidents is separate from US presidents. Dream Focus 23:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes but the article uses examples of reasons why certain characters are archenemies. I also think the article Archenemy can also be good for talking about history of famous rivalries.Something it's lacking of really. I think your idea could work if it was anything like TV Tropes way of doing it. But keep in mind the list article is already long. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The president articles are much, much longer that the article in question. And they are sourced. Every single entry has 4 reliable references. This list is unsourced undue content split. — Hellknowz ▎talk 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - All of these could easily be sourced. All the Marvel comic book characters are listed on the official Marvel site, listing who is who's archenemy in various places. [33] The other comic book companies can be searched as well. You can also search the names of those listed with the word "archenemy" in it, and see what Google news/books/whatever can find. I'll go add a few sources now to demonstrate how easy it is, if anyone actually cared for such things. If you sincerely doubt any of the information provided, then tag it with a citation needed. Dream Focus 15:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't doubt most of it, I doubt that at present there are enough volunteers to properly reference the entries to adhere to verifiability. Also, I am not going to tag every unsourced entry with ((cn)) just to show my point :P. I already expressed that I am happy to keep/merge this into parent article, I just doubt it deserves it's own article. — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:UNDUE. Also, I noticed that all the users saying "keep" are saying so simply because the article is useful. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. — Hellknowz ▎talk 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good many times, I am against deletion of any article because some articles are simply bad becuase of lazy contributors. Here, this would definitely not be the case. Just scanning over the article, it is largely incomplete. I believe it would require the entire population of Wikipedians to even begin to make this article acceptable. First, many rivalries in fiction can get quite confusing. Since it's a topic i'm familiar with, I'll use the Mortal Kombat series as an example.

Noob Saibot is not the archenemy of Scorpion, he is the enemy of the original Sub-Zero, the character Noob Saibot, although a reincarnation of the original Sub-Zero, has not even met Scorpion in the first place to be considered an archenemy.

Confusing right? Cases like this are strewn about the entire Mortal Kombat series, and with a cast of about 60 characters we would have to find a reliable source for each and every rivalry considered to exist within the series. And if that is done so for one section, then it will most likely be done for all sections of the article leading to an unreadable mess. IF the rivalry is notable, and references can be found then place it in the prose of the characters' respective articles (if the characters themselves are even notable to begin with) such as the rivalry between Sherlock Holmes and Professor Moriarty. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: wikipedia is not a directory. having a vague list like this makes it impossible to avoid original research. this list has uncited material, material cited to unreliable sources, and citations that don't even verify "archenemies" at all. That's why we have more specific lists like List of villains in The Batman. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And splitting the list, as you suggest, like folders within categories, makes finding the information that much more difficult without a much more determined and/or informed search. If you can make a subject-specific list, I'm all for that. But a universal list like this serves as another way to make things findable. Whether you feel any individual case is exactly correct, might be a matter of opinion. I've got many additional cases to add to this article, as I'm sure others will too. There is plenty of room for further improvement. A list like this sparks the discussion and with the plethora of internal links, it provides a way for one to carry out further research which gives much greater clarity to each specific situation. Keeping this article hurts nothing. Deleting this article cuts off a useful tool.Trackinfo (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an user draft for this article to save what might be useful information if it gets deleted. If it could possibly go somewhere else here I don't want the useful parts lost forever. You decide where it belongs. It's the least that I could do since some people want it to stay for this reason. Jhenderson777 (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making an effort to save the page--its not an innovation I had previously considered. I'm not sure how it would be found by a member of the public (who would have to know the article exists and that it has been saved elsewhere) without significant effort. What frustrates me by the WP deletionists is why we need to fear their actions; their overzealous efforts to delete potentially useful articles. Without diligent oversight, ANY article can easily disappear in a mere 7 days. Personally, I don't have the time to keep checking that many AfD articles to see what might be under attack. Yet these people scour WP to find anything they can attack and remove. They love to get their brownie points for successfully deleting articles. Once an article is gone--ITS GONE. The public, the world, all but a few super secret elite administrators can never see it, never find it, never improve upon whatever might be wrong with the article. So I noticed this one. I cast my vote. I'm not alone in voting support. You'd think that should be sufficient to save the article, but no. This article could still disappear as soon as somebody, some administrator, decides that consensus has been reached to delete it. A relative handful of deletionists, despite the objections of others, can just make things disappear for everybody far to easily.Trackinfo (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yess.. We deletes the articles for brownie points.. We scours and we seeks for our super secret administrator masters.. WP:USERFY and WP:INCUBATE are not an innovation. WP:AADD arguments are usually ignored and as this is WP:NOTAVOTE. You make it sound like any editor who expresses valid reasons for why the article does not meet WP inclusion criteria is a deletionist. Rather that criticizing methods of others or the system, you should provide valid arguments for inclusion other than WP:ITSUSEFUL. — Hellknowz ▎talk 18:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way since I created the userspace draft for it. Please discuss with what can be done about most of it in the discussion page for it because I won't probably keep the user space draft forever. The only thing that i can think to do is merge the sourced ones on Archenemy but still all opinions welcome, Thank you! Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, #1 is to delete everything without a citation. #2 would be to find (copy from main article or somewhere else) citations for entries we want to keep. #3 would be either update the current list in claim of proper verification or merge into Archenemy where few objections should arise. — Hellknowz ▎talk 21:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got you. Here's where the general discussion of this should be at and here's where it could be fixed any way you like it such as deleting the ones that don't have citations and etc. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Archenemy. Not all of the list is WP:OR as there are reliable sources provided, so at least some of it is verifiable and salvageable (just not the majority of it). There does not appear to be, however, a valid reason for this to have its own article, as it is not independetly notable nor is the parent article so large that it needed split out for readability (in contrast to Dream Focus's presumable example of President of the United States and List of Presidents of the United States above). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- because this encyclopedia is not a directory, because there's hardly any sources and significant original research is needed to bring this up to any sort of useful completeness, and because it's cruft. Reyk _YO! 23:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forty sources are more than just "hardly any". --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of archenemies is already qell covered at Archenemy. As others have noted, this list is primarily WP:OR with only a few actually sourcable examples, and goes against WP:NOT, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:WAF, and WP:UNDUE. Such a list is completely unmaintainable as it is unendinging and inherently indiscriminate. The main article already has appropriate, discrete examples, in context, without excessive detail. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source, trim, and then decide what to do. Looking at the anime and manga section (the area I am most failure with), I do not see a single reliable source. I did see one source to an earlier version of Archenemies, but I've already removed it since it is a circular reference. I also don't see the term "archenemy" used when and I find many of the listings dubious at best. I had to laugh about Bandit Keith being listed as Joey Wheeler's archenemy, the pair only meet once. The list also confuses rivalries with enemies, examples Yugi Mutou and Seto Kaiba, Amuro Ray and Char Aznable, and Goku and Vegeta. —Farix (t | c) 19:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too broad in scope - Per WP:SALAT - "Lists that are [..] too broad in scope have little value." This list is of potentially infinite scope and therefore must be too broad. "List of fictional DC comics archenemies" would be an appropriate list, by comparison. As a side argument, note that a featured list "comprehensively covers the defined scope"; is there any value in permitting a list to remain that is by definition incapable of achieving the featured list criteria? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Archenemy, with some trimming done during the merge. Spidey104^contribs 14:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's see, we can't say its a useful list, even though it is. It would be stupid to merge this to the master article, this list of examples is way too long and would have to be spun off, which somebody already did. It looks like it has plenty of sourcing, especially considering this sort of categorization is all subjective. It might seem like Origninal research, but there are a lot of supporting opinions. Very few Red links, leading to supporting documentation and discussion. And it would be stupid to destroy this much, oh I'm going to say it, useful information. If you have to delete something, do it on a line by line basis.Sarcasto (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if the list is too broad, break it down to a bunch of lists under the categories already in place. I've even got another category that will fill up the page more: in Professional Wrestling. That will be a huge article in itself.Sarcasto (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between including verifiable entries and having it "look plenty sourced considering it is subjective material". What are these supporting opinions you mention? How does redlink absence indicate anything? The list is only this long because poorly sourced OR is constantly added and the meaning of archenemy arbitrarily broadened. "It is useful" is not a valid argument; and this is how the list looks trimmed case-by-case. — Hellknowz ▎talk 01:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy G11 - UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beaux Jangles[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is essentially spam, created by a single purpose account used only for plugging BABCO's products. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure promotion with no content apart from fluff. Fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can find no evidence that the subject's received substantial coverage in reliable sources (nothing at all relevant, for example, in a Google News archive search). The cited source "Babco: Always About Quality" is something I'm unable to find any further details of. It has the ring of promotional material. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:04, 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. There seemed little challenge of the actual notability of the subject and although the majority of sources are behind paywalls or offline, that doesn't diminish their reliability and such is often the way with specialist subjects like law. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weaver v NATFHE[edit]

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

The one reference is "under construction" and does not justify the article.

Also, some people might leave me messages saying that I shouldn't be requesting deletion so early, but this user could have userified it first. No excuses. qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC) qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Another reference has been added - needs verification. qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple hits on Nexis (paywall) and in UK Guardian Newspaper (in digital archive cant link, Tuesday, October 06, 1987) and is mentioned in at least one book on UK labor law. Unless you are challenging the actual notability of the topic AFD is not the place to go. WP:SOFIXIT --Savonneux (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the creator should have included that. qö₮$@37 (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:DEL#REASON It doesnt appear that a "thorough attempt[s] to find reliable sources to verify" has went down.--Savonneux (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article alleges it is a precedent, but without any citation to prove so. Can anyone find such evidence? Bearian (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me, other complaints under WP:SOFIXIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S8333631 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - not notable, no coverage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see any serious coverage available. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 25 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) 10:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep no valid reason for nomination given. riffic (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason for deletion has been provided - sources verify contents. Claritas (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The case apparently existed, but it received zero coverage in WP:Reliable sources that I could find - so it is not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Darrell Hutto[edit]

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

As horrific as these crimes are - This fails WP:BLP1E Codf1977 (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree that news coverage all concerns a single event, so the BLP one-event rule applies. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree, I think the original article was written with the intent of showing his crimes to keep him incarcerated. There is no indication that he is known for more than the one event that sent him to jail. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is neither asserted nor shown. Edward321 (talk) 23:04, 29 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 efforts to find sources are to be commended, as is the desire to preserve content rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. Unfortunately, the links provided in this discussion lack the depth of coverage and/or the reliability to establish the required level of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Having said that, many of the delete !votes were rather weak- "per nom" or some variation of WP:JNN- and I would have hoped for a better quality of discussion, but given the length of time for which this discussion has been open, it's unlikely it will improve and the consensus is very much in favour of deletion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost on mars[edit]

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

Non-notable film? Can't see anything in imdb that woud indicate this film ever did anything. It was made for $100,000 (and looks it), and there is no indication at imdb that it ever made any money. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—It is mentioned at a few sites such as blogs, forums and Sci-Fi fan news, but I had no luck finding a cite for it at a reliable source. Somebody keeps trying to delete the AfD template on the article.—RJH (talk)
- Weak keep—editor added a pair of local news stories that may just barely bump it up into notability.—RJH (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you want? Please be specific there are legitimate news paper articles listed on the page, websites as well. I checked Wikipedia and they state News paper articles are legitimate, so I posted them. Will you please tell me what would make you happy and I will locate it if it I can. I am unsure what you are after, if you would just tell me, but be specific, it might help.
Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sholun (talk • contribs) 02:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NOTE, the sources need to be independent and reliable. It is not clear that the external links meet those criteria. The two "Second Source" links (that were just added yesterday) may satisfy that criteria. I took the liberty of converting them into inline citations.—RJH (talk)

Comment Everard proudfoot put a deletion tag on the page, after he deleted my secondary proof on the page. I had to re edit the page and put the news paper articles back on the page after he removed them. I think he is abusive to other users. One thing I have noticed is he will not be specific about information he wants, he automatically starts putting delete messages on your hard work pages you created. He has been harassing me from day one with threats of deletions. I was trying to add this movie for a friend, but never thought in a million years other users could be so mean. If they would have contacted me with their concerns I would have fixed any problems they had and a simple welcome to the site would have been nice as well. I am new here. Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sholun (talk • contribs) 03:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only edit I have made to the article is this one, adding the afd template. I'll take your apology for your accusation that I have removed anything. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire of Danger which show that Sholun's accusations against me are totally untrue. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, check out the history of this page to see the vandalism that Sholun has done here. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Mike moral ♪♫ 05:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on Here’s the page after he put his deletion tag on, look at the bottom the second source link is gone[34] Now look at this link to the page at bottom of page where source was before he edited it. This proves he did something, or made a mistake and deleted it, but it was there and before he messed around editing with his delete notice. I put it up to show that there where reliable sources and someone took it down and put a deletion notice on the article.[35] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments concerning the above remarks by 99.34.109.238.

99.34.109.238 is probably Sholun. Apart from other evidence, 99.34.109.238 has sometimes posted comments and signed them as Sholun, as for example here.
It is impossible to tell from the above comment what "source" 99.34.109.238 thinks was removed by Everard Proudfoot, but the only difference between the version of the article before Everard Proudfoot edited it and the version after he edited it is the addition of the AfD notice. (See here.) If a source was removed then it wasn't Everard Proudfoot who removed it. (However, I can't see that any source was removed.)
99.34.109.238 has made numerous attempts to disrupt AfD discussions, both this one and another. These edits have included repeatedly removing AfD notices, and blanking AfD discussions (including this one).
Sholun has also been disruptive in AfD discussion, as here. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All true. Note, though, that the disruption you cite is from yesterday, when the (new) editor was in a panic over this deletion. I and other editors are attempting to engage with them to try to a) calm them down, and b) finding some constructive solution. We've been somewhat successful with a), not so much with b) - but actual disruption appears to have ceased yesterday evening. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I hope that progress can continue, and if the editor has now learnt better how to work on Wikipedia then that is great. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Chzz ► 15:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable film that fails WP:N and WP:NF. Two of the sources are simply local interest pieces noting the local woman who was in the film. Local news articles about local people cannot confer notability. The only other reliable source does not give the film significant coverage, it is simply a quick look at various films about Mars. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize for saying Proud foot deliberately removed the resources and that was wrong of me without solid proof to make that statement. I can only hope he works with me to solve these article problems rather than request to delete the articles. I correct my statement by saying the new resources I put up were removed right after he put up another deletion notice, anyone could have removed it after that. I hope that someone will help work out a solution to keep the articles rather than attack me for my ignorance how to use this site. If the articles can’t be redirected or some other alternate solution discovered, then I accept the deletion. I only hope that you see that independent movies without million dollar budgets and revenue should have a place on this website and help me find a place for it. The two news articles I posted from the Times courier are a professional solid news agencies with over fifty years in the business, with ties from Decatur Illinois to Chicago Illinois news agencies. I think they deserve the respect that they are a legitimate news organization. If you’re debating this movie should not be included because it didn’t make millions of dollars, or how many people watched them than this would be an injustice to the true core of any movie. There’s no scale to follow how many have to watch a particular movie to make it notable or not, both of these movies where notable to some extent maybe not by millions, but thousands possibly. I have provided legitimate news articles from reliable sources Times courier, listings from IMDB, the Mars Society among other, all which are notable in their own right. There comes to a point though where you can’t satisfy being listed in every news paper and company article to satisfy everyone. I truly hope you reconsider deleting these articles. comment added by Sholun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is user edited and not a reliable source, nor are inclusions in directories a sign of notability. Also, the Mars Society in the article is not the national society, it is a single branch in a single city and the page listed is not a review, nor significant coverage, it is a listing of titles they watched on movie nights. I'd urge you to read WP:NF and [{WP:N]] to understand why the film is not notable. Time Courier is a reliable source, no one has disputed that, but the articles are local pieces on a local person who happened to be in the films. That does not confer notability on the film nor her (anymore than a story about a business in its local paper makes the business notable). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: IMDB is not "user edited", as users do not have access to the IMDB database editing tools. While certainly anyone can "submit" information which then goes through some sort of vetting process by IMDB staffers, it is the IMDB staffers themselves who are the ones with access to the database editing tools, and the staffers are the ones doing the editing... based upon the information submited and the IMDB vetting processes. That said however, and otherwise in agreement, simply being listed in the database, no matter how the information got there, does not impart any notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see little credibility with any of these sites that I found as references found on the Mission to mars articale. There is synopsis of the movies, reviews, etc, nothing too much different than the references I posted on my articles. What’s the difference other than they spent millions to make it? I see no well known news articles from the New York Times posted. Also they listed rotten tomatoes as a source and so did I but it was moved down on my page like it wasn’t accepted. I am not trying to make anyone mad, but I am trying to show my stuff I have post should count as credibility if the stuff below count as a creditable news sources. These links are the references to the movie Mission to Mars that I looked up from this site. Thanks for all the help, theres an awful lot of stuff to read here. Mission to mars comment added by Sholun

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Mojo is a reliable source for the box office earnings of a film. Rotten Tomatoes critics reviews are reliable sources. They both clearly meet WP:RS. Steven Dillon is not the source, he is the author of a book which is a reliable source. Are you really claiming that you don't think Slant Magazine and the Cannes Film Festival are "credible"?? The Caltech isn't and should be removed. There is a huge difference in those versus "your" article. One, they are all third party sources and except the Caltech source, reliable ones. The Mission to Mars article is in horrible shape, but it is obviously notable from the 100+ critical reviews of the film listed on RT and the significant coverage it received in numerous sources, including the New York Times[36]. Just because the sources are not listed doesn't mean they don't exist. In your film's case, they simply don't exist. This discussion is not JUST about the sources you put in the article, but all available ones. There are none for this film or your other. Throwing sour grapes as another film article of fairly obvious notability is not a good way to try to make your argument that this article is somehow notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy if requested. I made the article prettier... I converted the Wilipedia in-line cites to Wikilinks... I placed the two local news articles into proper ref format... but the majority of the text cannot be properly soucred, and there is no coverage of this film after March 24, 2003. While yes, it exists, and yes it is being distributed... not of the usual sources do anything but repeat what is on IMDB or the production's website. To User:Sholun... all you have shown us is that Mission to Mars has the coverage and notability that Lost on Mars does not. Find us some more coverage of THIS film that is not in blogs or self-published websites. Show us proof that it has screened at a festival anytime after 2007. Show us that schools have included it in the sylabus. Something. Please. Show us how it meets WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Blogs or self-published websites I already posted a bunch, try going to the page and look at the bottom of the page. Rotten tomatoes, the mars society, IMDB, Sci-Fi online, io9, cinemarx, vidoeta, times courier. I see no self published, or blogs, what are you talking about? From what I have read from a few statements above about being reputable, you have to make millions and have thousands of reviews and articles to list a movie here. What happen to the learning portion to the Encyclopedia? These are low budget Independent movies. There are some people who like this stuff and what to learn more about it. You have to look at the budget and be fair about it, without millions of dollars and a fantastic marketing department; you’re not going to get any movie in the New York Times, etc. I have proven without a doubt these movies exist, and they have been distributed by a reputable distributor. These movies have been listed in the news from reputable news agencies, which I provided. You’re never going to be satisfied, and you know these movies haven’t made millions. They are what they are and there are people who like to learn about independent Science fiction, so where do they turn to, the Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia comment added by Sholun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and Self-published sources are NOT reliable sources. An entry in RT, not actual reviews, does not give notability (it is the reviews at RT from actual critics - not users, that do that). IMDB is not a reliable sources. The company itself can not confer notability. Throwing a bunch of links for people related to the film do not add notability. As you already noted, it is a "low budget independent movie" that is apparently completely unnotable. Wikipedia is not a catch all for every film every made, it provides coverage on notable works. There are many low budget, independent and b-movies which are notable without spending millions of dollars, etc, this film isn't one of them. Existence does not make it notable nor noteworthy. If they want to learn about non-notable films, they turn to google, or maybe some Wikia if there is one. Wikipedia isn't for those films. The simple point is - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable topics, with notability determined by significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. You have not shown that this film has any such coverage at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The places I posted are not self published blogs, or Websites. I don’t know where you’re getting that from. I listed them above and they are legitimate business. As far as I know these places will not let anyone just list a movie on their website at will. Rotten tomatoes, the mars society, IMDB, Sci-Fi online, io9, cinemarx, vidoeta, times courier are not self published websites. --99.34.109.238 (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errm, in answer to "I don’t know where you’re getting that from", could it possibly be from your previous comment above, where you wrote "Blogs or self-published websites I already posted a bunch"? Also IMDB certainly does allow anyone to contribute material. I have not checked the others. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the external links:

Neither of the IMDB sources are reliable.
The Westfield Entertainment link is self-promotion and hence is not independent.
The Rotten Tomatoes link is for Empire of Danger. The film "Lost on Mars" is not mentioned. hence it couldn't even be used as a cite to demonstrate the Empire of Danger is the sequel.
The Mars Society link may be reliable, but it is as local as the Journal Gazette and Times Courier cites.
The Io9 site looks like a blog.
As far as I know, the Amazon site does no validation of the reviewers. It only serves as proof that the video exists and can be purchased. Can an Amazon page be considered proof of notability?
I'm not sure about the cinemarx site; it looks to be in romanian.
Sci-fi online is a cult website. I'm not sure that's reliable.
I couldn't find any publication information about the VideoETA site. It is unclear how independent or reliable it should be considered.

These just aren't the types of solid, reliable sites that I would normally use as a source. As MichaelQSchmidt suggested, I would userfy it. Suitable evidence of notability may turn up at a later date.—RJH (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I respect your opinion sir and I am not mad, I am just see things different from you and I am expressing them here. I just don’t understand how you could say that the Mars society is Local, they have chapters all over the world just look at their Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mars_Society it’s a huge organization, very legitimate and well respected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk • contribs)
Here’s the link to lost on mars on rotten tomato’s, it was easy to find http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lost_on_mars/

I don’t think Sci-Fi online is a cult site, but even if it was its reliable. I know it’s been around for over ten years, so it’s not a fly by night organization.

VideoETA site is a reliable source and the movies are listed there. Just because there’s not a big article written about the movies doesn’t mean they are not important. Actually it shows they identified them as creditable movies, so they listed them on their website.

The Imdb is a very well known and powerful entity in the entertainment world, there’s no question about that. Reliable Information that is debatable of any organization, can you honestly believe any organization out there no matter how old or big they are can be reliable (Example New York Times)? Both of these movies passed a very rigorous process to get accepted on the Imdb. This proves that they have some notability or they would have never made it that far. --99.34.109.238 (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB does not have "rigorous" processes, and it is the long standing consensus of Wikipedia's community that IMDB, just like any other user edited site, is NOT a reliable source per WP:RS. Further, IMDb does not show any notability at all, it is a directory service. They list any and every movie made, with no discrimination. VideoETA is not considered a reliable source by the same page. It is a DVD listing site that gives absolutely no information about itself and does NOT meet WP:RS. The RT page for Lost on Mars is, frankly, useless. Without any actual critical reception, it is just one of their directory listings, and again provides no notability. RT itself doesn't confer notability, it just often links to sources (when they exist) for films. And yes, Mars Society is national, but that is irrelevant. The National group isn't saying anything about this film, it is just listed on a long list of films about Mars that a single local chapter watched. That is mere trivia and their short summary is not a review in any real sense. Sci-Fi Online is a cult site, by its own admission[37], and looking at the About Me, it is just another random fansite. The editors are not notable nor industry folks nor known critics. They are just fans. Wikipedia does not consider fansites to be reliable sources nor do they confer any sort of notability to anything. I'm not telling you anything anyone else has already told you, and I hope at some point you will realize that we are simply telling you the way things work at Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are so upset and your opinions are noted. There are many who disagree with you about the IMDB. You are wrong about the IMDB; you cannot just add any movie to their website it’s more than a directory, or list of films. For example if a movie was not distributed by a reputable distributor, than it has no chance of being added to their organization. You make it sound like anyone can just become a member and add their home movies to the IMDB that’s just not the way it works. They will decline any movie or actor if they don’t have a creditable back ground, if you don’t believe me go shoot some footage with a camcorder about anything and try for yourself, it will never get published on the Imdb. It has to meet guide lines and they do have people who review credibility of movies before they add it. I am curious who I am talking back and forth with, are you a user like me, or an official Wikipedia employee. No dis-respect just curious. Thanks --99.34.109.238 (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "upset", that would require me to care one way or another. I am just one of several people trying to explain things to you in a way you might understand, though we all seem to be failing. It is irrelevant what "other people" think about IMDB. Wikipedia consensus on the matter is very clear - IMDB is NOT a reliable source and being listed there is NOT a sign of notability. And sorry, but IMDB will list any film distributed in pretty much any fashion, except home movies of course. They have listings for various self-published random films that have no notability at all, but they were "released" to the internet or what have you. Wikipedia is not a film directory, we have notability guidelines for films and do not host articles for a film simply because it exists. There are no "official Wikipedia employees" in discussions. Editors are editors. There are editors with extra rights, i.e. administrators and crats, who can enforce policies, block editors, deal with page deletions, close these kinds of discussions and determine consensus, etc, but they are also volunteer editors, same as you, me, and everyone else here. Editors who have been here for many years with a lengthy edit history are sometimes considered "experienced" in various matters where they edit frequently and consulted by newer editors working on learning the ropes. Sometimes said editors "adopt" new editors to more formally help them learn how Wikipedia works. The polices and guidelines here reflect the community consensus on common issues. You have been pointed to them repeatedly in this discussion and at the other AfD and on both your user talk pages. Whether any one editor agrees or disagrees with them is irrelevant, if it has the consensus of the larger community. Said editor is expected to abide by consensus, not their personal beliefs. Same as working in a job - whether you like a rule at your company or not, you are expected to follow it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with AnmaFinotera, so I have nothing to add.—RJH (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let's find third party sources rather than deleting the article. This article needs sources, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. After sources are found the article will be fine. See this search. Plenty of sources. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random google hits are not sources. As noted above, multiple editors have already looked through those. The few reliable sources are not usable for establishing notability (you can't make yourself notable by talking about yourself). Fansites, personal websites, and blogs do not establish notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question:: For those voting keep, what criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (films) does this film address? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a fact that the websites that I have posted are not Self-published sources, which eliminates that argument. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This was clearly given by the Tomes courier news article, with over fifty years of news experiences. There is nothing mentioned in Wikipedia that says how the article has to be written in any specific way. It is considered a reliable source. There is no specific set number of sources you have to provide ether. It just asks to be reliable. The website that I have posted are reputable until you can prove they are not. If any websites are questionable they can be challegeged by you, but you must provide proof they are not reliable. I haven’t seen any proof from any articles above that would suggest these are not reputable websites, other than you have a gut feeling they are. The person challenging is not by far excluded from providing proof that these websites are not valid reputable websites. You must show some kind of proof to challenge these websites rather than just saying I know they are I heard it from Joe down the street there not. Why is someone on here taking down all the external web links from these the site? Until this is solved they should stay up for the person who makes the final decision. I will put them up again; please let them stay up so the administrator can look at all the data on the page. Thank You, Kim --99.34.109.238 (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, you get one "Keep". Second, it is not a "fact" and no one, thus far, consensus has agreed that none of the links you have thrown on the article give the topic notability. It has already been repeatedly explained to you. You don't prove sites are unreliable, you must prove they are and you have not done that. You have been left notes on your user talk page as to why some links were removed - that you continue restoring and continue repeating the same arguments here over and over despite everyone's attempt to education you about why you are acting inappropriately is showing a very excessive interest in promoting these films and makes me wonder what relation you have to them. As an aside, please learn how to format you remarks for Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability requirements for films. SnottyWong talk 22:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe I am wrong but I thought this was where you presented your case to keep something from being deleted. Isn’t this what this page is for? The delete tag says “Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry”, so I am sharing my thoughts. If you keep removing the external links from the page then how can the final judge make his decision without all the evidence? I wrote a couple articles and now I am presenting my case through the proper channel on this page, that’s all; if this isn’t the place then I have made a terrible mistake. I hope a solution can be devised to keep the articles and you senior members might step up to bat at the last minute and use your expertise and knowledge to help find alternate solution rather than just delete them. Thanks --99.34.109.238 (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the place to share coments, but there is a preferred manner in which this is done... with "politely" being the formost, and "informed" being a strong second. No one here doubts that the film exists or that it has been screened, and while we are appreciative of your wish to retain the article, there is more required in showing enough notability to merit inclusion other than just in it existing. Please review WP:NF, paying close attention to that guideline's "general principles" and its "other evidence of notability" sections. As for why some external links may have been removed... that would be because there are links that are acceptable and ones that are not. Please review WP:EL, paying close attention to WP:ELYES, WP:ELMAYBE, and most specially to WP:ELNO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering: do you know someone close to production of this film or were you part of the production? How do you know so much about the production, yet there is absolutely no sources that provide any of that information (this goes for the Empire of Danger article too)? Please see WP:COI. Thanks. Mike Allen 01:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability. The only argument is that there are notable sources available, but they have yet to be found and provided. As stated, IMDb does not count. Mike Allen 8:06 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Comment: My older sister was one of the actresses, so I posted this article, that’s why I know so much. But that isn’t the issue here; you are pulling away from the point here. I am proud of my sister and I wanted to post this article, why won’t you help? --Sholun (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, it is an issue. You have a conflict of interest and you're incapable of writing a neutral article.. even if it did have sources. You are the one that pulled away my point. Please don't remove other people's comments. Mike Allen 01:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem like a real gentleman. Thank you for showing that there is still kind individuals in the world such as you. Conflict of interest Please post the Wikipedia article to confirm that it is an issue to post a movie because you know one of the actors please? I posted about the movies, not her silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk • contribs) 22:24, May 21, 2010

She is your sister, you made articles for the movies she is in. That is a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is in one of the movies, not both movies. Anyway I want to redirect or merge the articles to another source. Will you help me do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to prefix every remark with "comment", just indent as illustrated above when you are replying to somewhere. Where would you propose the article's go? I can't think of any appropriate targets for merging within Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any where on the mars society site it could go? You have to understand I am new and I have no idea how this works. Thank you for considering helping if you can. I just don’t understand all this; can I delete the pages myself? I didn’t want all this; I thought I was doing a good thing. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it couldn't go there as the Mars Society had nothing to do with the film itself. To be merged some where, it must directly relate to the target article. As the production company is also unnotable and has no article, there really doesn't seem to be a place for it here on Wikipedia at this time. I looked around Wikia and could not find any active, Mars or Sci Fi oriented Wikia that might be a good place to try. However, you might see if they could be transwikied to the the Movie Wikia[38], as Wikia does not have the same inclusion guidelines as Wikipedia. Only an administrator can delete an article, though if you feel they should be deleted you can just note here and let the AfD run its conclusion. You can also add ((db-author)) at the top of the articles to have them deleted before the AfD concludes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for trying to help. I guess I will just set back and wait to see the outcome. I wish now I hadn’t even posted them on here. When I posted them I had no idea that all this stuff went on. I thought you posted things on here and that was it, boy I was wrong. It was just hard to see someone stomp a big deletion notice on my article that I spent two days working on. I have never been around this kind of thing before, it was scary to me. I was hurt and I tried to do the best I could to defend my article. I know it’s not that good, but it was mine and I was proud of it. --99.34.109.238 (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We all realized that you didn't mean harm, which is why most of us just kept patiently explaining it to you and just making corrections as need. Nothing wrong with being proud of your sister's accomplishment and in your work on the article's, its just Wikipedia was the wrong venue for letting the world know (though in a way, at least you did let a few folks know :-) ). Wikipedia can take awhile to learn the ropes of. I've been here over five years now, and I'm so embarrassed at some of my earlier edits and articles I've made (I've even had some deleted) :-P There is a tutorial thing that helps some, and the welcome links left on your user and IP talk pages might help, if you decide you want to try editing in other areas. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: so we cannot find many google hits right now. So what about 7 or 8 years ago because Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time. This is the problem with articles about older movies. Sources get harder to find, but that does not mean that they are not out there. We should at least spend a little extra time looking for sources before deleting the article, because notability does not degrade over time. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not operate on that concept. There is a difference between sources not existing and their being difficult to find. In this case, they simply don't exist beyond the local paper coverage. We don't keep articles around that have no demonstrable notability just in case a source ever appears. Any editor always has the option of requesting the article be put in their user space to go search for sources at their leisure, but at this point no one has provided any demonstrable evidence that there is even a likelihood of sources exists. So why spend "extra time" on a pointless exercise? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does, the article I cited is an official policy. It does not matter how hard the sources are to find it matters that there are sources. I am sorry if you dislike my defending of this article, but I am an inclusionist (that is why I joined the article rescue squadron

) and firmly believe that there may be sources for this article and they just need finding. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that is not a policy, official or otherwise, Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time is a personal essay with no standing nor meaning. Further, it deals with notability not being lost once established. No notability has been established for this film at all. You nor anyone else has proven that there are sources. By your statement, anyone could basically make up anything, say "the sources exist, I don't know where but they do so you have to keep it". Surely you see the logical problem here? Wikipedia doesn't operate on the crystal ball principle. What matters is some verifiable evidence of significant coverage of this film in independent, reliable sources. There is none. Not all films are notable. Many, in fact, are not. If you want to be a member of ARS, that's well and good. Michael (who stated delete) is a member as well. That is completely irrelevant to the discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary is in the "see also" section of Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time and Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary is a official policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Quadrant (talk • contribs) 09:34, May 24, 2010

And? That does not make it official policy nor give it any special standing. You are also not addressing the fact that no notability has been demonstrated at all. Notability is not temporary does not mean "well, can't find sources, but since I think its notable, it must have been at some point" - it means notability IS demonstrable at some point and thus is still notable. I.E. If there were a ton of actual, independent, third-party reliable sources from when this film was released then it would be notable. There are not, so it is not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://jg-tc.com/search/?q=%22Lost+on+mars%22+%22Eric+Shook%22 and http://media.www.dennews.com/media/storage/paper309/news/2003/04/18/TheVerge/Eastern.Students.Star.In.Movies.Filmed.In.EastCentral.Illinois-420928.shtml have coverage. Dream Focus 02:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage, but not significant coverage. Though that second source is a good start. Mike Allen 02:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Thank You Dream Focus for taking the time to find those articles. I have to say regardless if they help or not, your attempt alone to put up a shield to protect the articles was an honorable attempt and for that I salute you.--99.34.109.238 (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting rationale: Some sources have been found for the article late in the discussion, so it would seem reasonable to reconsider the above arguments in the light of those sources. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just reiterating my delete above. The "sources" are local in scope, and not significant, anymore than they were for the sequel. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a personal opinion I'm going to conjecture that the Wikipedia article was first posted as part of a publicity drive. Video clips of the film/actors has been posted to various sites, even in France. Still nothing of the caliber of a New York Times or a Roger Ebert review though.—RJH (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- the only halfway substantial coverage comes from a newspaper with a circulation of 18,000 (ie. very local news). Reyk _YO! 19:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sources exist, but they will be harder to find. Therefore I once again vote keep. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate "keep" by Alpha Quadrant struck out.

Since you've already said keep, it might be better to say comment as I did. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alpha Quadrant appears to be saying we should keep the article on the basis of sources that he or she guesses probably exist, or have I misunderstood? Wikipedia's notability criteria are based on sources that have been shown to exist, not on ones that we think probably exist, but which we haven't actually seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

Would this count http://wn.com/lost_on_mars_two it’s with world news network a reputable media source.

World news network http://wn.com/world --99.34.109.238 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A web site having a search engine of videos that includes the trailer for the film does not count at all towards notability. It isn't significant coverage either, it isn't coverage at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the concerted efforts of Sholun/99.34.109.238, no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources has been produced. Alpha Quadrant has repeatedly argued on the basis of hypothetical good sources that may exist somewhere, or may perhaps have once existed, but has failed to actually produce any. Dream Focus has produced a couple of sources, but they do not constitute substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked at this link about reliable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources And I can’t find anything specific about Local news papers not being reliable and used as sources. I read they like them to be high end news organizations, but nothing about they have to be High end. I also looked around for anything that said there had to be a specific number of sources you have to have to get accepted. I have found no set number amount written in the rules on how many sources you have to provide. It may be there, but I haven’t found it yet. Where does it talk about how many sources you have to have? There’s three up already and the Mars society is also there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You only get one keep so changed this to a comment again. "significant, third-party coverage" is an issue of notability, not reliable sourcing. Local news articles about local people is not independent, nor is any of the "sources" found significant coverage for the film. I believe I and others have explained the difference above, but please let me know if you need further clarification. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody, so far as I am aware, has suggested that local newspapers are necessarily unreliable or can never be used as sources. It is also not a question of "rules" specifying a particular number of sources, but a question of guidelines giving general guidance as to what sort of evidence is suitable. Clearly extensive reporting in twenty major national and international news media is better evidence of notability than a one sentence mention in one free neighbourhood news-sheet, and in cases which fall between these two extremes it is a question of making a judgement, not a question of finding a "rule" that tells us the correct answer. This discussion will eventually be closed by an administrator who will decide whether notability has been demonstrated on the basis of the arguments advanced here, not on the basis that there is or is not a rule specifying a number of sources. As for the statement "There’s three up already" (referring to news sources cited), two of the three are about another film, and mention that it is a sequel to "Lost on Mars": they do not give substantial coverage of "Lost on Mars". In addition, the title of one of the reports "Local women star in independent film" is in itself an indication of the character of the reporting. The fact that is considered notable enough to report is that people from the local area are to be in a film, not the film itself, in addition to the fact that the film in question is not "Lost on Mars". So the subject of the report is two steps away from "Lost on Mars": from Lost on Mars to another film, and from there to the fact that some of the actors in that second film are "local". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've been searching and found a few things that may be helpful. http://www.coldfusionvideo.com/archives/lost-on-mars-2002/ http://apolloguide.com/mov_fullrev.asp?CId=4612&Specific=5408 http://www.sci-fi-online.com/reviews/video/02-12-23_LostMars.htm Thediva (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People's personally blogs and websites are not reliable sources and do not establish any notability at all. None of those are even remotely close to be reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Shumate is a big time editorial person and a member of the online film critic’s society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Film_Critics_Society Cracknel is also a member, so they are creditable and their articles should count. There not local. --99.34.109.238 (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. That means nothing. Anyone can get in OFCS so long as they are prolific writer with some decent writing skills. That doesn't make them professional critics nor reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I don’t understand is on your page you have an article called Grizzly Rage that apparently you worked on that article, or approve of it. I see no big editorial news from the New York Times, or Roger Ebert. I see a lot of selfpomoted references for this movie and blogs, sites that list it, but don’t talk about it much. What’s the difference? Why did that get accepted? Some of those references don’t even lead to anything about the movie Grizzly they talk about the production company, not the movie. I am curious. --99.34.109.238 (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has asked for reviews from the New York Times nor Ebert, we do require reliable sources. Grizzly Rage has received significant coverage in DVD Talk, Fangoria, Monsters and Critics.com, UGO Entertainment, DVD Verdict, and Bloody-Disgusting.com, all of which meet Wikipedia's criteria for being WP:RS, and as they are third-party sources, establish the film's notability. Regardless, as has already been explained to you once pointing at other articles and saying "well what about that one" does not further your argument at all, and at this point it seems you are grasping at straws and trying anything to "save" this article on this unnotable film. I would highly recommend letting it go. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UGO ENTERTAINMENT http://www.ugo.com/ no coverage posted of grizzly Rage

DVD VERDICT http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/grizzlyrage.php this isn’t any more coverage than the sites I posted About Lost. The reviewer doesn’t even sign his name

DVD TALK http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/33072/grizzly-rage/ List a review on their site and the reviewer is a member of the online film critic’s society, but you pointed out earlier that meant nothing to be a member of that organization.

Fangoria I couldn’t even find the listing on grizzle Rage

BLOODY –disgusting BLOODY –disgusting http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/includes/site_search.php this site is a basic listing.

MOSTERS AND CRITICS http://www.monstersandcritics.com/ Came up empty on that one too.

This Grizzle Rage movie got accepted on some on same kind of sites just like I posted that lost was on and you deleted them as non creditable. Why did Grizzly get accepted, when it’s not even listed on half the sites you listed or it got accepted on a review from a reviewer nobody has even heard about?

--99.34.109.238 (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately it's up to the closing administrator. You have not really helped your "case", especially when you keep bringing up other stuff. Mike Allen 23:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Honestly, at this point this is getting ridiculously pathetic. DVD Verdict Reviewer's name is right at the top. That you are incapable of finding the coverage directly linked from the article is irrelevant. That you are continuing to try to discredit a GA rated article that has demonstrably more significant coverage in actual reliable sources than this film is pathetic. The article has the actual direct links to the coverage. Your inability to find it is not our issue. Your continued random comments and ridiculous attacks are doing nothing but drawing out this AfD that has already run far long than it should. You have been given ample time to find coverage and could not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(remove repetition) Please do not move this and put it at the top. You’re messing up the decision.

So in other words you don’t have an answer why there not listed or have any comments about the reviewer’s creditability about grizzly Rage. Hey you posted them, so you’re the one who should post the direct link to back up your comments when you add examples. And this isn’t ridiculously or pathetic, the administrator gave additional time to add comments and sources to this final determination.--99.34.109.238 (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Properly formatting your badly formatted comments and putting them in their proper place does not mess up anything. Please learn at least the basics of the way a discussion here works and is formatted (see WP:TALK. I already answered your remarks, repeatedly, and am not wasting my time copy/pasting the links from the article here, nor wasting my time justifying this silliness. The discussion was relisted to give additional time for NEW comments and to see if the last comments changed anyone's mind. Not for you to keep making the same pointless attacks against other articles and non-arguments. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here’s another site it’s on. http://www.scifidimensions.com/Mar03/indygiveaway.htm I keep finding them, so there out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the source must be reliable, and being mentioned in a random give away isn't even close to significant coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - How many sources do we need to put in this article before it is considered notable and reliable? The articles for creation guidelines say a minimum of two, but three or more are preferred. This article now has four reliable sources. So why is this notability debate still going on? Notability has been proven. Two sources may be local, but the other two sources are not. I request a speedy close. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close is beyond not an option, and no, notability has not been proven. Random mentions on unreliable personal sites and blogs is not significant coverage and doesn't make it notable. Random appearances of its trailer also do not make it notable. The sources in the article have already been adequately discussed above and its already well explained that they do not give the FILM significant coverage. Tossing them in the article doesn't some how change that. You may wish to better read the basics of WP:N and how an AfD works. You can't just decide that because you personally believe its notable because it got a random mention in three local articles about a local person and is listed on RT like every other film ever made, doesn't make it reality. Reality is, if the only people who care about the film are the local papers of someone in it, and even they talk more about the people and not the film - it isn't notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it meets notability. Nothing in real life is random. News sources do not put topics into a hat and the topics they pull they write about. They look for topics that are important, or notable as we call it here. The video notability requirements are there to keep YouTube videos with no notability off of wikipedia. I believe that if the movie is important enough to have at least significant local coverage then it is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. And we don't know for sure that there are not other sources elsewhere. A topic does not become notable only after a newspaper, such as the New York Times, mentions them. If a topic has had significant coverage then it is considered notable. It does not matter of the coverage is all in one state of the United States (local) or international coverage, the importance of the topic remains the same. Topics do not have to be published by a well known newspaper before notability can be established. Notability is established by the number of people who know or knew about a topic or want(ed) to know about the topic. Just because the movie did not get as much coverage as, say Star Trek (2009) doesn't mean the topic is not notable. Take cities for example. They will not get coverage beyond local coverage, unless something very important happened there or something unique is there. This may not be the official Wikipedia policy, but I am just using WP:COMMONSENSE, if the topic was notable enough to have coverage in at least one region, then why is in not notable enough for Wikipedia? --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, if my local paper mentions my name 2-3 times, I'm notable? No, that is not how it works. And even using your own incorrect argument, the film STILL isn't notable as the local sources didn't give IT significant coverage, they talked about people who happened to be in this film, and the film was only mentioned in that context. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources - local papers talking about local people are not third-party. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Local newspapers are not affiliated with the movie producers. Therefore they are third party. If the newspaper was owned by someone in the movie's friend/relative then it would be first party. The movie did not pay the newspaper to write the article. The newspaper wrote the article of their own free will. Therefore the articles are third party. First party sources come from the creator of the topic. Newspapers report, they do not advertise unless payed. This is why news papers are considered reliable sources. You cannot say that a article is not notable just because a particular newspaper did not write about the topic. A newspaper source, that has a good reputation for being correct, is just as a important of a source as, say the Washington Post. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, LOCAL newspapers talking about LOCAL people are not "first party" - they are covering local news. They may be reliable, but that doesn't make their topics notable when they are the only ones talking about it. Local papers can't make local films notable anymore than they can make local people and companies notable. You are, again, confusing notability with reliability which are two different issues. The film is not notable, and no amount of arguing that they are just because they were briefly mentioned in public interest pieces in local papers talking about the local people in it will change that.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the coverage required in independent reliable sources required to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did not say either "delete" or "keep" in my previous comments, because it seemed to me that editors arguing for "keep" were doing so without an understanding of what Wikipedia's notability criteria are, and perhaps if it was made clear to them they might be able to produce better evidence of notability, and I was willing to allow time for this to be done. However, the criteria have now been explained repeatedly at length, and after thirteen days both Sholun/99.34.109.238 and Alpha Quadrant have continued to argue largely on grounds which do not relate to Wikipedia's notability criteria. Nine days ago Alpha Quadrant said "This article needs sources, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. After sources are found the article will be fine." However, those sources have still not been found. We still have no evidence of notability under Wikipedia's criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It’s funny that you won’t answer to the question. That means that I have a great point. If the Administrator takes down lost, then Grizzle should be taken down also. We have showed you time and time again of the coverage and you denied it all. The same type of coverage Grizzle Rage has, which you approve on your page. It’s still up to the administrator, but I know I am right with this one, Grizzle Rage doesn’t hold anymore coverage than lost dose. It has website listings, a few reviews, nothing that is wide spread coverage like you keep insinuating Lost needs. Even the website that you posted came up with dead ends. . Instead of claiming that there are links, why don’t you post them? I challenged your links above that you posted and they came up negative. Apparently you do not respect me, nor do you respect the administrator who allowed time for more comments and sources. I am presenting my case and I feel I am making good solid points. --99.34.109.238 (talk) 00:44, 31 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) 00:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John B. Biggs[edit]

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

This living person appears to be marketing himself and his books. All other links to this page either do not contribute much to the original page, or appear to be his own theories (which are not necessarily notable enough). He does not seem to be notable enough to have his own page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Linyuwei (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AfD nomination was incomplete: the nominator, User:Linyuwei, did not place an AfD template on the article itself and did not notify the article's creator. I have rectified both points and this AfD listing is currently complete. Nsk92 (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think his small-press novels are enough for WP:AUTHOR, but his educational assessment research has collected enough citations and follow-on reserch to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just click the Google Scholar link and look at the citation counts: 1288, 1177, 381, 336, 310, 260, 646… (all in the field of education so must be the same guy). A highly-cited researcher by any reasonable standard, and the clearest past of WP:PROF #1 i've ever seen. Qwfp (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my view a clear pass of WP:Prof No. 4 - via the fact that Biggs's SOLO taxonomy is very widely cited in the teaching and learning field in UK Higher Education. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. The nominator appears to suggest that this is a WP:COI or WP:AUTO case, but neither WP:COI nor WP:AUTO apply here. The article was created by User:Nesbit, who identifies himself at his userpage as John C. Nesbit, a professor at Simon Fraser University. A review of his CV[39] shows no joint publications with Biggs, so I don't see how WP:COI could be applicable. The citability data mentioned by Qwfp is quite impressive; looks like enough to pass #1 and #4 in WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS h index = 20 giving a clear pass of WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Sufficient publications that people may well be interested in using WP to find out a little background information on the author of X. Since the (weak) biography serves a function, and since it does not seem to be actively selling books (no ISBN numbers is a good sign), no harm, no foul in inclusion. Carrite (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I view ISBN as a matter of verifiability: from the ISBN one can easily link to Google books or worldcat and find out that the book exists and what libraries carry it. No links to Amazon is a good sign, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 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) 04:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Tomlin[edit]

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

Contested prod. Proposed deletion reason: "Fails WP:BIO. The sources given are not about her, they mention her as part of a team. No significant info about her individually is given." Fram (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and WP:SPAM#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual lacks coverage and article seems spammy. Nuttah (talk) 13:00, 30 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 Black Diamond Bay. Article is unsourced. Redirecting to the band he currently plays for per WP:BLP. Please do not undo the redirect without sourcing the article. No prejudice against a speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Donoso[edit]

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

Does not seem notable enough to have his own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 20:58, 17 May 2010

Delete as article fails WP:BAND. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A musician who is not independently notable outside of his work in a notable band may be redirected to his band, but cannot be deleted outright as he is unequivocally and indisputably entitled to be either a standalone article or a redirect. But if he's worked with two independently notable bands, then how do you decide which one is "more" notable than the other for the purposes of redirecting? We can't delete as a musician who's been in a notable band is entitled, with absolutely no exceptions, to be at least a redirect — but how do you decide where to redirect him without violating Wikipedia's traditional proscription against arbitrary dividing lines? Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Diamond Bay as article fails WP:BAND, and add ((redirect|George Donoso|his former band|The Dears)) to the Black Diamond Bay article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:38, 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, Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the argument that The Dears are also a notable band (based on the !vote above I'm assuming Black Diamond Bay is also notable) thus he meets criterion 6 of WP:MUSICBIO. The Dears have a full bio in Allmusic and have been covered in Spin and Billboard. J04n(talk page) 15:07, 28 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) 04:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the Love of Meghan[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable group started on Facebook with grand aspirations but no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Speedy declined (by me) for invalid criteria and PROD tagged but PROD tag removed by author. Dravecky (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Facebook group. --MidnightDesert (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks the coverage required to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 12:58, 30 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. Consensus here, and the broader consensus on such places is that they should be kept - though it would be more useful to put it into context in the parent article - Forlì. SilkTork *^YES! 00:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Villafranca di Forlì[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a hamlet; basic searches failed to find any information (beyond very brief mentions) to indicate notability. Jwoodger (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in accordance with longstanding precedent with regard to verifiable settlements. (Among other things, it was the birthplace of Benito Mussolini's mother.) Deor (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Deor. Joe Chill (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK, I have started to source some stuff, but it still seems like light reading. There may be a lot in Italian that could be translated. Jwoodger (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Deor. Edward321 (talk) 23:42, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global citizenship[edit]

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

This article seems to be an essay, full of non-neutral information and original research - I'm not sure how to clear this up; hence bringing here - is this salvagable? Chzz ► 08:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. Yes, there's a lot of dubious vaporing here. But the phrases "global citizen" and "world citizen" are slogans at least as common as "working families", and likewise require explanation; at a very minimum their meaning is not obvious without clarifying the underlying assumptions. The articles might be merged. Myself, I'm a global refugee. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, improve.andycjp (talk) 01:11, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whatever the NPOV concerns there may be with this or that aspect of the article in its current iteration (and there may be a few turns of phrase that need to be fixed in that regard), the concept is a valid one and the presentation seems an earnest effort at real scholarship. Carrite (talk) 14:51, 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Campus (hentai)[edit]

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

Tagged as unreferenced for over a year, a search for reliable sources turns up only one review. I'm tempted to throw the entire Vanilla Series into this nomination because the series and its sub-articles have the exact same problems, but that would probably be too large. —Farix (t | c) 00:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 00:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a second review from Mania.com of this from when it was rereleased together with another anime from the Vanilla Series [40]. Also, I wouldn't nominate the whole seires, as a few of the titles have reviews from both Mania.com and THEM Anime, which together might allow them to meet the notability guidelines. However, THEM Anime doesn't have a review of Campus, so it may be non-notable if no other sources can be found. Calathan (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Among the many results to sort through, two stand out straight away.

Animefringe: Reviews - Campus (Vanilla Series)

A note of caution: Campus DVD is an adult anime made for adult audiences. If these things offend you, I highly recommend that you do not proceed. ... www.animefringe.com/magazine/02.12/reviews/10/index.php3

Vanilla Series: Campus - Mania.com

Home › Anime/Manga › Vanilla Series: Campus ... only to have things made worse when on campus, his neighborhood friend Mayumi convinces him to let her read ... www.mania.com/vanilla-series-campus_article_74526.html That's enough to convince me. Dream Focus 12:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't realize Animefringe reviewed hentai, but Dream Focus is right that they do have a review of this. I think two reviews by Mania.com and one by Animefringe are enough coverage for this to be considered notable. Calathan (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Porn. Both pieces from Mania are by staff-members, which the anime project says are reliable, as is AnimeFringe. It's not exactly a wealth of information but at least there's enough for some reception and to verify the thing. Someone another 16:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional review from Hentai Jump: http://web.archive.org/web/20060905140941/www.hentaijump.net/index.php?topgroupid=1&groupid=11&subgroupid=&contentid=68. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC; article has no sources, a search doesn't turn up reliable sources, though the album appears to exist; nobody has contested this AfD SilkTork *^YES! 00:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live & Loud at the Wormy Dog Saloon bootleg[edit]

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

Bootlegs are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. I see no significant coverage of this one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Cross Canadian Ragweed - Article contains little more than a track listing and neither the article nor independent searches provide any evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:45, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger W. Pageau[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While going through some old laundry on my talk page I came across this. I closed the first AFD on this subject as "merge" which was followed up by this message on my talk page. Just noticed today that the article is still in limbo.

The article is a poorly sourced BLP, no google news hits, and standard google hits just show announcements of his installation as grand master, directory entries, and blog posts. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are Google News hits, which you can see by simply clicking on the "news" link above. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I need to work on my "google fu". Those weren't there when I did a straight "news" search. Of all the ones found by clicking above, only this one from a local paper is more then a trivial mention. The rest are about other people being appointed to various positions. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since previous merge decision was rejected. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only in England is a Grand Master of Masons notable, and not for that position alone, but because he is a member of the nobility. Most GMs are in a progressive line and serve for a year, but it depends on the jurisdiction. In this case, it's three, but length of term does not indicate notability either. The subject simply does not meet the GNG. MSJapan (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that being Grand Master of a Masonic Grand Lodge is not on its own sufficiently notable. In the US alone there are over 100 Grand Lodges (at least two in each state), each with its own Grand Master. Also, I note that the article in question may be out of date... According to the source, Pageau was Grand Master of GL-Mass in 2007... so he may no longer be in office. A former Grand Master is even more non-notable than one that is in office. Given the more than 200 years of American history, the list of former Grand Masters is in the tens of thousands. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability and verifiability depend on coverage in reliable sources. Such sources don't magically unwrite themselves when an article subject leaves a position. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there was significant content that might be of some use to someone it might be a different story, but an uncategorized orphan stub about nothing needs to be sliced. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the previous AfD. Nothing in the discussion above gives any reason why this content shouldn't be covered in the article about the Grand Lodge, along with any other Grand Masters who are verifiable to have held that position. Notability only applies to article subjects, not to content within articles. If anyone objects to the decision of the previous AfD not yet being implemented then the way to fix that it to use the edit tab and do it yourself rather than to call for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for same reasons mentioned above. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 13:45, 31 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. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC; doesn't have reliable sources, and nobody has contested this AfD. SilkTork *^YES! 00:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2002 Demo[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☯ 03:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Odd Project - Article contains no objective information other than a track listing. No evidence of notability in article and good faith searches were unable to unearth significant coverage. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:22, 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Wigginton[edit]

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

whilst she gets some coverage, I don't believe she meets the specific criteria under WP:PERPETRATOR, she is not notable outside the context of this crime, nor did she generate significant coverage internationally. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, ~~but rename~~ As there doesn't appear to bean article about the murder, and considering the continued coverage of the case, I feel that it should be kept, but the article should be renamed so it is about the murder and not just one person involved. Silver seren^C 10:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the book source presented below, I revise my opinion on the renaming, Tracy does appear to be notable enough on her own to have an article about her. (I still believe there should be an article on the murder though.) Silver seren^C 11:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "nor did she generate significant coverage internationally" - are you sure about that? The first reference in the article is from the Toronto Star! Even just following the links at the top of this AfD (such as Google Books) reveals multiple sources. I am not a big fan of articles about criminals and one-off murderers but the nature of this event and the subsequent publicity, in Australia and elsewhere makes this clearly notable. This really should be a speedy keep. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bantam Books have published a book specifically about the subject of this article[41]. Can we close this now? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no, we don't close it because you want it closed. Please let the AfD run its course. LibStar (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't close it because one editor wants it closed, but how about closing it by nominator withdrawal because incontrovertible evidence of notability has been presented? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments from Matt Satu Suro 04:29, 28 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) 04:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RDA International[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Unreferenced. While I found many sources (not behind pay walls) that mention RDA International, none of the sources directly talk about the company. Usually the subject is the advertisements created by RDA. Millbrooky (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable advertising agency. No significant outside coverage found. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotionally non-neutral in tone: ...specializes in focused, targeted marketing to "Passionistas", audiences who are emotionally involved in their purchase decisions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:20, 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 redirect. I couldn't identify exactly what would be useful to merge into Apple Inc. so I'm leaving that for someone with a better idea; this is a redirect with no deletion, leaving the hisotry intact for any future merge possibilities. — Scientizzle 13:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apple.com[edit]

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

A separate page for Apple's domain name is simply unnecessary. There's no reason to indicate that their web sites are themselves notable, and this could easily be merged with the main Apple, Inc. article. —fetch ·comms 02:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a section any relevant info into Apple Inc. I fail to see how this subject qualifies for a separate article, as the nominator said. Airplaneman ✈ 02:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any content not already in apples article. to help solidify the debate, i checked the category American websites, and almost all the ".com" links were redirects to the correct name of the business/organization. only a few exceptions, like, obviously, amazon.com. I think consensus has it: the website is to be part of the article on the main subject unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. apples website is obviously highly notable itself, so a website can be highly notable, but that doesnt mean it gets a separate article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect — Unlike Google.com, this site itself is not notable. mono 04:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as per above to Apple Inc. - Pmedema (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - Not necessary as a separate article. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 20:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Apple Inc. No stand-alone notability. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 00:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apple Inc. No evidence of stand-alone notability, and content is mostly just a directory of URLs that probably doesn't meet WP:EL and is possibly even listcruft. --Closeapple (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 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. Those arguing "keep" never offered any substantive case counter to those arguing to delete. — Scientizzle 13:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Beck[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable yoga teacher, fails WP:ANYBIO. Citations refer to other people, not the subject of the article. Can find no significant presence on Google etc. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N. Article makes a dubious claim of notability, which is not backed up by sources within the article. Independent good faith searches have failed to uncover significant coverage in reliable independent sources (or, really, any coverage whatsoever). - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She sounds like a wonderful lady and it's sad that she's passed away, but there's nothing in the article or on Google Books, Scholar or News when searching for "Juliana Beck" yoga that would indicate her Wikipedia:Notability. Google Web for same terms brings up this page on tributes.com that bears more than a passing resemblance to the article under discussion, and seems a more suitable home for this material. Qwfp (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as not failing WP:N. Benedetto Croce emphasized that all history is contemporary history, since it is either written by our contemporaries or simply read contemporarily by us today. Croce stressed that this meant that we bring our own limitations, prejudices and preferences with our views of events in the past. In that sense, all history bears the limitations of our praises of the past, our distortions of it, and our errors and omissions concerning it.

It also means that nothing is famous, notable or historic until we either write about it or read about it.

The current definition of “notable” that the entry on Juliana Beck faces unfortunately confuses “notable” with what is the rage today with electronic media, namely “celebrity,” which invariably means “famous,” or as it eventually mutates over time in popular culture to mistakenly pass as “history.”

Juliana Beck’s study of and teaching of yoga was “notable” in that it eschewed celebrity because she, and many others in various parts of the broad spectrum of counter-culture, disagreed with the premise of commercialization that is at the root of a concept as “notable,” as it is currently interpreted by editors of the Wikipedia. The Wiki, is, as many of my undergraduate and graduate students happen to be, bright, eager, but limited in conceptualization, method and scope. (We'll leave the issues of glaring errors out of this discussion, as it is beyond the current subject.) If people in the past would have applied the narrow strictures of the Wiki’s definition of “notable,” we would find that much of what has been written, discussed and passed on as history over the centuries would simply not be. And we would be the poorer and more ignorant because of it.

It is ironic that the Wiki whose original intent was to be free and open to all may become as limiting as that which it purports to replace. Alas, what would Diderot say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco polo 52 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Diderot said was "There are things I can't force. I must adjust. There are times when the greatest change needed is a change of my viewpoint." Perhaps you need to adjust your viewpoint to accept Wikipedia community consensus. WWGB (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as not failing WP:N. per fact.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which "fact" would that be? Nothing is referenced ... WWGB (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another biography with no tenable claim to notability and no real sources, but having "keep" votes based on Special pleading. This trend is becoming more worrisome, especially as more seem to be closed as keeps, e.g. this one from a week or two ago. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete simply no evidence of the independent coverage in reliable sources needed to build an article from. Nuttah (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nsk92 (talk) 23:54, 30 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) 04:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pound ball[edit]

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

New article, new user. Regretfully, we aren't for things that somebody just made up one day if they're not notable, as fun as this game sounds. Hope it becomes notable, but until then, we can't have it here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wish there was a Game-a-pedia where people could submit new sports that they've made up. This one sounds kind of interesting, sounds like rugby with helmets and instead of goal posts, the are five foot wide circles at each end of the field. These would probably work great on YouTube, rather than on Wikipedia. Mandsford 01:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NFT. Toddst1 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - corrected my nomination statement slightly. Oops. Forgot the 'not' preceding 'notable' in the link to WP:NFT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage for reasons provided above. Nuttah (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like a kick ass game :) It's a shame we can't have an article on it. I wonder if the creator has any videos of it being played he can upload to Youtube. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. 02:19, 25 May 2010 Athaenara (talk | contribs) deleted "Victory Carriers" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Carriers[edit]

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

Frankly, I don't believe any of this article. I saw this new article today, and I've done some recent cleanup. However, after looking through the original author's references, I found them all to be bogus. Further, I did some google searches for things, and I cannot verify any of this information about Alexander-Goulandris. The article is oddly written: why is there so much about the owner and not the company?

All I am sure of is that the company exsits. I don't really know if they are notable, because I cannot find any valid sources. Most of the information in the article about Alexander-Goulandris seems like WP:HOAX to me; it leads me to question any of the article at all. For example, I can find no record of this person on the Forbes billionaire list, yet the article says he's on there.

Overall, this nomination is based on lack of reliable third-party sources, and findings of invalid/missourced original information. If someone can prove any of the assertions in the article to be valid, then by all means keep the article. But I had no luck doing so. — Timneu22 · talk 00:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly disappointed at your final decision, but it doesn't leave much room for debate. Had the article been read properly, it clearly shows that Mr. alexander-Goulandris was NOT featured in the Forbes listings. Furthermore, the references were Lloyd's Registry, the benchmark of the shipping industry sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IASONASHIOS (talk • contribs) 01:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will save the trouble and delete this as I am rather angered at the research I've put into this being called. bogus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IASONASHIOS (talk • contribs) 02:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Page delete. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 02:25, 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 withdrawn, WP:NAC —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Algeria earthquake[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

per WP:NOTNEWS. Non-notable earthquake article. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I was too quick with Twinkle there... My apologies. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:48, 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 no consensus. Not really any new arguments as far as I can tell, and consensus neither leans strongly toward retention nor deletion. Juliancolton (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia–Norway relations[edit]

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

noting the current references are all from Norwegian government or royal websites so not totally independent of the subject. there appears to be little to this relationship besides a few visits. the level of mongolian migration is minute, only 20 norwegians in Mongolia. no agreements, no known levels of trade, no embassies. yes there is development assistance but so do many Western countries. the level of development assistance in 2007 is less than USD1 million so not high either. a general lack of coverage of these relations except a few visits. gnews. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I can't see any specific guideline this violates. It passes WP:V. Does WP:N apply for bilateral relations ? Claritas (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N applies for all articles, unless specific criteria exists like WP:BIO for people. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Strong delete—two visits, in one direction, years apart, from a second-rate politician do not qualify this relationship as notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 07:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per my recent close of a similar discussion, I'd like to remind all participants to remain civil and refrain from assumptions of bad faith or personal attacks. Let's see if this one can't be a bit less acrimonious, hm? Shimeru (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In my book, a relationship between two countries who don't have embassies in the other country (as is the case here - Mongolia's is in Belgium whilst Norway's is in China) can't really be described as notable - unless there's some special reason why its like that (as in the case of France and North Korea). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Jess says. They seem to be barely acknowledging each other. The Pebble Dare (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As per sources diplomatic relationships have been intensifying in recent years. Development work sponsored by Norway is helping Mongolia to develop the infrastructure to exploit and trade her rich resources. Its possible extractable rare earths will be found to rival inner Mongolia, which Norway needs for her high tech industrys. Dont seen any benefit from deleting this growing relationship. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
do you have reliable sources to back the claim "Its possible extractable rare earths will be found to rival inner Mongolia, which Norway needs for her high tech industrys." yes it is possible but it's WP:CRYSTAL balling the relationship. It's also possible that these resources may not be highly needed by Norway's industries. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come off it, Feyd. Its [sic] possible extractable rare earths will be found to rival inner Mongolia, which Norway needs for her high tech industrys [sic] – is this desperate three-way flouting of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOR and WP:V really the best you can do? ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 13:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You and LibStar are right TreasuryTag, my argument was a little strained as there was only one independent source at the time and i couldnt find another. Im glad the squad has been able to find a second to improve the notability. As to what more can be done, watch this space, all I'll say for now is Im going to make you famous :-). FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im going to make you famous :-) – would you mind clarifying, please? ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 18:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasure. A centralised discussion has been opened to see if there is consensus for a special guideline that will help secure the survival of these articles, and which may save spare us the unpleasantness that sometimes break out in these debates. Your name is up in lights, I hope deletionists such as SnottyWong continue to find your words persuasive! PS - please let them know that us inclusionists arent fierce, we're gentle as lambs unless we're attacked! FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Norway sent people officially to Mongolia, and have given them funding, and worked with them on various projects. They thus have a relationship. Dream Focus 23:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was born, I am registered to vote in the United Kingdom, therefore I exist. Do I qualify for an article now? No. Norway and Mongolia have interacted, therefore their relations "exist" – does that mean they automatically qualify for an article? No. What do you think the notability policy is for, if mere existence is the only required threshold? ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 13:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the BBC doesn't monitor and report on TreasuryTag. If they did in enough detail we would have an article on him, so long as he is known for more than one event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC didn't monitor and report on this. A particular Mongolian news agency did [42] [43] – ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is the BBC monitoring service. They translate foreign news reports in any native language, that they find notable. They then summarize the foreign news in English. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes they have a relationship but whether or not it passes the bar for notable relations. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no bar. They have a relationship, and it gets news media coverage. All requirements for a Wikipedia article are met. Dream Focus 07:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
then this should pass through with passing colors as all keep. simply having coverage does not guarantee an article. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Shouldn't the information be retained somewhere (at least where the embassies are and the date relations were established). Marge to Foreign relations of Norway and Foreign relations of Mongolia, perhaps? Buddy431 (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a few visits and some aid, but not a notable relation yet. Has received little attention in Norwegian public sphere, for one. Geschichte (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "relations" amount to an occational politician going to the other country, the only non-government reference is a short article on a minor political visit. The countries don't even maintain embassies with each other. Level of coverage and development of relations isn't sufficient to justify an article. Hut 8.5 11:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and work to expand It has good references indicating notability, it just needs more information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever insufficiencies there are in the article, the topic meets WP notability guidelines per se, in my estimation, and the way articles are created on WP is that raw early incarnations are improved and expanded over time. We all waste far too much time debating and redebating bilateral relations articles. There is plenty of garbage than needs to be cleaned up coming through the gates on WP every day. Deletionists should not obsess on articles like this, for which consensus to delete is highly unlikely no matter how many times the AfD pleas are made. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a renomination but the first AfD, "Deletionists should not obsess on articles like this" is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TreasuryTag. Clearly not notable. There have been a lot of these types of random bilateral relations articles lately that have ended up at AfD and are being fiercely defended by the inclusionists. Perhaps we should think about creating specific inclusion guidelines for bilateral relations articles? After all, out of 195 countries, there are 18,915 2-country combinations. Are all of these 18,915 combinations deserving of an article? SnottyWong talk 16:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why not? Since when we have a number limit on pages? --Cyclopia ^talk 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite! Shall we make a page on each of my toes as well? ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 18:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt your toes have been covered by BBC , by national government sources or by any other reliable source. You're not good at sarcasm, Treasury: you always miss the point. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC haven't reported on this...! See my comment above. Nor have they reported on every permutation of bilateral relations, which is what you were referring to. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it's a Mongolian news agency. Ok. What's the difference? Do news agencies talk about your toes? --Cyclopia ^talk 19:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A)The difference is that bandying around 'the BBC' as if it's a deity—a point of view I do tend to sympathise with, but still...—is wrong, if untrue. B)There are combinations of countries about whose relationships no news agency has written. Just like my toes. So they don't get articles, WP:PAPER or WP:NOTPAPER. ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 19:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm and off-topic comments moved to talk ~~See talk page to read the following comment from Cyclopia in full context.~~--Chaser (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC) See talk page for this thread before closing please.--Chaser (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There is a definite case for notability, due to media coverage from BBC and Norwegian news sources, reported in the article. The articles Reciprocal visits between high representative of states mean the relationship is not trivial. A consulate has been recently opened [44]. Article is definitely encyclopedic, providing a structured compendium of notable and verifiable information. Given the reasons above, I see no benefit for the encyclopedia in deleting this article. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Here we go again!): The usual suspects are taking their usual positions, which is fine, of course. Here, the countries don't have embassies in their counterparts, so that prong of "automatic" notability does not exist. There is verified content in the article and some of the sources are to press reports, so its not a completely useless article with no reason for being, either. It falls into the great middle like most of these recent AfDs. What is currently there is not as great as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norway – Sudan relations (which closed as "no consensus" with a 14-6 keep !vote). While the current content is not huge, what is there seems to benefit the project more than it burdens it, and is supported by sources. Whether it satisfies WP:GNG is subject to fair debate. If, however, the outcome is to delete, the relevant content can be copied into both Foreign relations of Mongolia and Foreign relations of Norway. In my view, that's the ONLY question at issue here -- whether for organizational purposes this material should be its own article, or simply be duplicated in the separate articles. There is no reason for the project to say nothing about the relations of these two countries anywhere, even if the relations aren't overwhelming.--Milowent (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially non-existent relations concept. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent 3rd party cites establish notability. Case closed. I see all the usual suspects have shown up. The article looks good. Well done to those who are attempting rescue. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As evidenced by the refs and the text, this is simply not a notable bi-lateral relation. MickMacNee (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a suggestion at the village pump that you have quoted, not a policy. If the suggestion were reflective of current policy, it would not be a suggestion. As our currently policy stands, this article has met .--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly not a ludicrous suggestion though is it? It's the only one recieving any significant support, especially from uninvolved editors, which is a good sign it already does reflect current policy. If it makes you feel any better, I will restate my rationale in terms of current policy - this article is not notable and should be deleted becuase it has zero evidence of significant third party coverage in multiple reliable sources dealing with its actual topic, and not just aspects of it. And this is still the case, despite recent expansion. MickMacNee (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I totally agree with Milowent that " the ONLY question at issue here [is] whether for organizational purposes this material should be its own article, or simply be duplicated in the separate articles. There is no reason for the project to say nothing about the relations of these two countries anywhere, even if the relations aren't overwhelming." GNG is the default standard for a standalone article. This article clearly falls short of that standard, but that doesn't mean that the content of the article doesn't belong anywhere on wikipedia. Rather, it means it should be in other articles, like perhaps "Foreign relations of...." or "List of diplomatic missions of..." type articles. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Addendum, Yilloslime. I think its a good point, and hopefully one that has consensus, that would help defuse this issue a bit.--Milowent (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I knew, WP:SIZE is the only time we would ever keep an article for organisational reasons alone, such as spinning out a sub-range of an alphabetically organized list, and that obviously doesn't apply here. I'd be interest to see evidence of any other genre of articles being kept simply for such organisational reasons. I think this is just another way of expressing the WP:USEFUL / WP:NOTPAPER angle, again without showing why people should simply ignore the inherent weakness of these as arguments. MickMacNee (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not saying organizational considerations should override notability as the criterion for where the content goes. However, whether something has a separate page or not is fought over way too much.--Milowent (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~MMN, you've missed the point.~~The article includes a number of facts, the question is where do we put them--in their own article or into other articles? WP:N is supposed to guide us in making that decision. Consider Bill Clinton's saxophone playing: Thousands of news articles mention it. Should we make an article dedicated to it (Bill Clinton's saxophone playing perhaps?) or is it sufficient to simply mention it in Bill Clinton? It's an organizational issue, not a WP:SIZE one, and it's a decision that WP:N should inform. Yilloslime ^T_C 14:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? I haven't missed your point, I thought I was agreeing with it. There is no way on earth anyone would be able to argue that we should have an article in Bill clinton's saxopohone playing for organisational reasons alone, and WP:N would absolutely come into it. Milowent appeared to me to be saying, (although he now says he wasn't), that the only issue in this Afd was whether it made good organisational sense to have a separate article for this info, or move it to other articles. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, MMN, apparently I've missed the point! My apologies. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably we just all couldn't imagine we would agree on something! Apologies if I added to the confusion.--Milowent (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the same boring pattern playing out yet again: inexperienced editor creates article on topic no one has heard of before, LibStar nominates for deletion, Richard Arthur Norton starts dumping in trivia as part of his ongoing exercise in "watch me do this", Richard Arthur Norton canvasses his allies in the Article Rescue Squadron, who come over and rehash the same stale arguments. Only this time, more editors are seeing through the fog, and hopefully we can eliminate this particular article on this fictitious topic.
So here we go again. Yes, interaction exists between these two states. Not unexpected in an age of globalisation. There are exchanges of dignitaries and cash and goods, tiny migration flows, some pleasant words spoken reciprocally. Fine. But no independent source actually talks about any of this as such, as "Mongolia–Norway relations" or "Mongolia–Norway bilateral ties" or what have you, providing an overview of the topic. If that happens, then we should keep, but it's simply not the case here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, your argument rests on a formality: that we don't have the right name for the subject matter because independent sources haven't used the magic words "Mongolia hyphen Norway relations". Yet despite the fact you acknowledge that interaction exists between the two states and that that interaction has been documented, your solution is "Delete". You don't even consider a possible vote for "Move". Second, your accusation of canvasing against Richard Arthur Norton is unfounded and your attitude is belligerent. RAN is spending his time trying to improve this project with sourced information and enlisting others to help him toward that goal. Since you find such an exercise "boring", I suggest you find a way to make better use of your time than criticizing hard-working wikipedians.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Cdogsimmons, your scolding misses the mark by a mile. First, I actually said that "no independent source actually talks about any of this as such, as 'Mongolia–Norway relations' or 'Mongolia–Norway bilateral ties' or what have you", so your contention that I object to the article because it lacks sources using "the magic words 'Mongolia hyphen Norway relations'" is, well, entirely bogus. Second: you still apparently have not learned that verifiability does not equal notability. Yes, lots of things are documented by newspapers, magazines, books, and so forth. Most of them pass entirely unnoticed by this encyclopedia for a good reason: they fail our notability policy. Similarly with this fictitious topic: yes, interaction between these states has happened, it's been documented, but it's not been treated as a discrete topic by any source - thus, not notable.

As for my views on RAN's actions, come on. He has this odd impulse to cram the project with as much trivia as he can when it comes to articles on these made-up topics. It is, I suppose, an interesting behavioral case study, but it doesn't make for very compelling scholarship, regardless of his intent to "improve" the project, the "sourced" nature of the information (again, verifiability ≠ notability), and the "enlistment" (i.e., canvassing) of like-minded individuals wanting to participate in these silly "rescue" efforts. And yes, the cycle of watching this morass of trivia seep into the project unstopped is indeed very boring and disheartening, but that doesn't mean I won't stop fighting this nonsense. No, sir. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivia" to you perhaps because you don't live in Norway and you don't live in Mongolia, and you don't know anyone from either, and you have no plan on going to either. I don't share your POV that documented foreign relations between nation states is trivia. The closing Admin should take note that this article has been significantly improved with independent 3rd party sources since the nom (then, now). Your statement that you think improving articles on Wikipedia is "silly" I think says it all.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Sorry, but I evaluate articles' notability based on the GNG, not on whom I know or what my travel plans are. 2) It depends on how the documentation is done. If we're talking about, say, this or this, then sure, there's substantive evidence that a scholar has noticed the topic exists, and written about it. But if we're talking about, oh, some foreign aid grant or some charity, then yes, that's trivia not noticed by Wikipedia outside this series of nonsense articles, and it does nothing to validate this fictitious topic. 3) It depends on how one defines "improvement". If by "improvement" we mean the addition of reliable sources revolving around some topic the existence of which has been validated by real-world sources that have noticed the topic's existence, then by all means, that's what we're here for. But if by "improvement" we mean the dumping of trivia in a desperate and single-minded "rescue" effort with no logical basis, then yes, that's silly. Any further points, or have you tired of yours being taken down by my devastating logic yet? - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your "devastating logic" relies on your entirely arbitrary assumption that stuff like foreign aid grants are "trivia" and that this is a series of "nonsense articles". Remove these assumptions, and it all crumbles to pieces. Also, hard to talk "fictitious" something that is backed up by sources, as even you yourself agreed. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to admit, there's not a single source in the article that's actually about the topic of M-N relations... Yilloslime ^T_C 16:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see about 14 sources of this kind in the article. But oh, right, they are not ponderous monographs entitled "The relationships between Norway and Mongolia"... *sigh* --Cyclopia ^talk 16:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Norway apparently has relations with everybody... We need a criteria on this, because otherwise this usual group will continue to try and out !votestack eachother. Delete because nothing in the references convinces me there's a notability sufficient for these sorts of articles. Shadowjams (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norway is such a slut.--Milowent (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation, Shadowjams, is not reflective of the notability policy. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject show notability. There is no requirement that the sources must show a "significance" of these relations above and beyond other relations of Mongolia or Norway. Such a conclusion would be subjective and would violate WP:NPOV.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per sourcing, per notability. Not a delete worthy article.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been significantly improved since it was nominated, which means that the first votes relate to a completely different article than the more recent ones. In fact, the deletion nomination was probably premature, since the article was still in development. Lampman (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has reliable sources, and while that's necessary for an article, it's not sufficient. Our notability requirements are quite clear that if we are to have a stand alone article on a topic, then some of those sources must also be independent of the subject, and they must "address the subject directly in detail." In its current state this article cites no such sources, and I can't find any in my own searches. The majority of sources are webpages from the various Norwegian government agencies--these are not "independent of the subject." The Norwegian Lutheran Mission source[45] isn't about, even tangentially, relations between Norway and Mongolia, it just describes NLM's activities in Mongolia. The UNDP source is no better: In it's 11 pages, the only mention of Norway is "GEF, UNDP Mongolia and the Government of Norway, in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture, promote the commercialization of super-insulating technologies in the housing sector. Together they are providing technical and financial support in building straw bail and other energy efficient houses and refurbishing existing buildings with high insulating materials." That's it. Hardly direct, detailed coverage, and it's actually coverage of UNDP-Norway relations, not coverage of government to government relations. All the other sources are from Montsame News Agency. Setting aside this issue of this source's independence (it's a government news agency), the real problem I have is that none of the cited articles actually cover Norway-Mongolia relations "directly in detail." This one is only 80 words long--it's not detailed coverage of anything, and the topic it addresses is a specific event--the Norwegian crown prince's upcoming to visit Mongolia--not N-M relations. Ditto for this one (90 words) and this one (79 words). That leaves only this source which, at 543 words, is indeed meatier. But WP:GNG requires "sources", i.e. more than one source, and whether this one actually discusses N-M relations "directly, in detail" is doubtful. The primary topic of the article is not the countries' relations but rather a specific meeting between two leaders. Maybe somewhere in those 500+ words, the article steps back and puts the meeting in the context of the countries' relations, but I don't have access to the article so I don't know. But I doubt there's much room in a 500 word article for a digression that addresses the topic "directly in detail." And even if it does, it's just one source; GNG requires multiple. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:19, 28 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Water (programming language)[edit]

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

The InformIT article is the only source that I came across with significant coverage. If someone comes across at least one more, I will be pleased to withdraw. Joe Chill (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Couldn't find anything else after a brief look. mono 04:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a book has been published on it - see [46]. Claritas (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not independent of the subject. "The essential guide to this exciting new programming language and the first book on the topic, written by one of the creators of Water programming". Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any additional reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:17, 31 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 Crass#Live_recordings. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christ: The Bootleg[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☯ 21:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Although originally a bootleg, it does appear to have been later released through official channels -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Despite it's title, this album (as opposed to the original recording) is not a bootleg - it was legitimately released by two different labels and can be bought from shops such as Amazon. Lack of significant coverage, however, may mean that it isn't sufficiently notable for an article. Google Books suggests that The Story of Crass contains something about it but with no preview it's difficult to say what.--Michig (talk) 06:48, 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) 00:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

undefined — Does Michig have an opinion on the article? mono 04:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It probably would have received some coverage (e.g. reviews) when it came out - reviews in print music mags from that time are generally not available online. So it's probably notable, but given that we have little more than a track listing a mention in the Crass article (maybe in the 'Dissolution' section) may suffice.--Michig (talk) 06:00, 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) 04:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Strike (Def Leppard 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☯ 02:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very notable album, more if is EP. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I like the band, I've heard the bootleg, but Factiva and Google Books searches turn up nothing of consequence. Conceivable that it's been treated in a rock music magazine, but good luck finding that needle in a haystack. —Zeagler (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 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) 00:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:59, 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) 04:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vasyl Zhurakivskyy[edit]

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

Yes, this is my own article. But as i nominated Faik Yüksel and Samet Karta for deletion, i have too do the same with this one?

Same reason as the other articles, simply not notable enough. Fis Cup is an amateur cup and not a professional leauge. That dosen't mean it's bad, but a 26th place in a 3rd division, amateur leauge is not notable?

Or is it? I don't know but Samet Karta and Faik is for sure more notable than Vasyl and that's why i also is nominating this article for deletion. KzKrann (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC) KzKrann (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 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) 00:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm rather afraid you're right. The FIS cup admits to being 3rd tier, and as such he doesn't meet notability. Nor does he SEEM to have other news coverage. That's a weird spelling of his name - would there be other transliterations we could look up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David V Houston (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was merge to Afghan cuisine. No consensus to delete. If someone wants to expand/source this article then go ahead and remove the big purple tag I'm slapping on it. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quroot[edit]

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

I can't find much coverage for this food. —fetch ·comms 07:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a specific food (dried, and then reconstituted goat yogurt, with a number of varieties) which is not covered by any other article and doesnt have other common names and deserves a chance to be improved. cf Tabasco sauce. There are sources, even if they dont explain precisely how it is made (Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Redirect to Afghan cuisine. I don't see the level of sourcing we'd need to justify a stand-alone article, though I may be missing something. I've also cleaned up the language and tone of the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 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) 00:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect — to Afghan cuisine. mono 04:13, 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 no consensus. If someone wants to renominate this article in good faith with a rationale based on our inclusion guidelines then be my guest. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EF Education First[edit]

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

Nomination on behalf of User:Daysheads57, who intended to bring it here but prodded it instead. Concern is: "Company is not relevant to an encyclopedia." I declined the speedy yesterday and contested this prod as well (also added sources), but I don't want to exploit my knowledge of WP policies to prove my point. I therefore remain neutral. Pgallert (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't see the relevance of this company to wiki. Content is very poor. Daysheads57 (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Daysheads57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. The sources in the article would seem to be enough for notability, but I also found coverage here and here and a mention here that confirms the subject to be one of the leading operators of student travel programmes. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content of this article is of a low standard. It has been like that for some months now. As to the notability of this company, just because a company exists doesn't mean it should be in wiki. On a side note, the article has been used by some company insiders to try to promote their products, see the history. Luckylou222 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Luckylou222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. Nobody has said that this should be "in wiki" because it exists (and, by the way, this is Wikipedia, not wiki, and you seem to have a very similar use of language to Daysheads57). The reason for inclusion is that it meets Wikipedia's guideline on notability by virtue of the fact that it has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Behavioral issues by editors can be dealt with by blocking and/or article protection if they become disruptive, but they are not a reason for deleting an article, and nor is poor article quality, which can be addressed by the normal editing process. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you're jumping to conclusions due the term wiki, people I work with refer to Wikipedia as wiki. Do a search for wiki on google, the top three results refer to wikipedia. And I had just read and agree with the comments of Daysheads57. Luckylou222 (talk) 20:31, 26 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, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company with a multinational presence and coverage to match. Nuttah (talk) 12:39, 30 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. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James (Nagar Baul)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable, but I didn't want to mark it for speedy deletion just in case. —ems 2 4 00:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 17 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, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I turned up many references in Google News Archive for James "Nagar Baul", and a couple more for Faruk Mahfuz Anam which describe him as among Bangladesh's biggest pop stars. I've added references to the article, which I've also wikified. Seems to me clearly to meet WP:BIO requirements. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources provided by Gonzonoir are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Nice work improving the article. J04n(talk page) 19:27, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZoomInfo[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB, only one reliable source and no indication of notability therein. --Chris (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be a notable people/job candidate search engine that has received significant coverage in third party reliable sources; more than 500 hits at Google News Archives, many of which are PR releases but others appear to be legitimate news coverage including such articles as these.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 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) 00:06, 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) 04:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pierfrancesco Cravel[edit]

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

This page was deleted nine times in its italian version.

Please check why this italian version page was deleted.

After deletion, an english version was uploaded.

In my opinion, this is definitely an ad page. Wildsetup (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the non-autoconfirmed user who wanted it. tedder (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of online sources to back up the contents of the article and to establish notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While I can see that the equivalent article has been deleted 9 times in the Italian Wikipedia, this looks like a repeated recreation of a promotional article, which would suggest a very different situation over there than we have here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 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) 00:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I read it (my Italian consists of interpolating between French and Latin), the page was deleted for being promotional and non-encyclopedic, and re-created multiple times without valid argument why the result should change. Seems to be trying to get away with it here. I'd be tempted to salt this the first time round, given the history in Italian. Given that the user who created the page was "Pierfrancesco", we probably have CoI problems, too. I actually see 9 News hits on his name, so his work does get mentioned a bit, although probably not to the level of notability. David V Houston (talk) 01:22, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Walsh (actor)[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Weak claim of notability. No substantial coverage provided or found. SummerPhD (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angry Kid, which looks like it is just this side of notable. Nothing much to merge. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 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) 00:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -Reconsider ! 11:49, 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 keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kasper "Stranger" Malone[edit]

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

Does not seem notable per WP:BIO. bender235 (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could probably pass A7; As one of the most remarkable musicians in the 20th Century... but never heard of him! — Timneu22 · talk 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL finds plenty of coverage in books and the press, for example [59] and [60]. This is not an ancyclopedia of only the subjects that one editor has heard of, and yes, I would say that he's pretty remarkable by virtue of an 80-year long professional career. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 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) 00:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As already noted, many sources are available. If The Guardian writes an obit about an American musician, the musician is notable. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Guardian obit seals the deal as a heavyweight substantial reference. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 23:25, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator and a blocked sock puppet. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yallwire[edit]

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

This article is about a web site with no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article provides no independent sources. All references in the article are to their own web site. My own search finds only press releases. Although not a reason for deletion, it is worth mentioning that the articles reads like a press release, and there is the possibility of a conflict of interest. Whpq (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 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) 00:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Only because I saw a local source called Times Georgian that made a reference to the website name. ... Kalakitty _talk 19:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck, sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I checked here. Is this the newspaper you are referring to? These three articles mention Yallwire but don't cover it. This may be the strongest statement with it being mentioned as "one of the top three country music and alternative music video sites". But that's still only a passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 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 redirect to Conference Bike. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Party Bike[edit]

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

This article is listed under the category "Cycle Types" but it is NOT about a type of cycle. It is a page about a private bike-tour company in New York City. This particular company ("Party Bike NYC") does not meet any notability standards for inclusion. Regarding the 'merge' notice on the page, this company apparently used Conference Bikes as well as traditional quadrycles in its services ... however, there is nothing to merge as this page doesn't add anything to those topics beyond the fact that this particular company used them. MidnightDesert (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Conference Bike, which this apparently is according to the links. It appears that "party bike" [61] is what this is called by some press accounts, while others refer to the conference bike [62], so it's a legitimate search term. Mandsford 14:07, 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) 00:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Conference Bike as above: I have put a mention in the Conference Bike article, which I have also pruned, depuffed and tided.Springnuts (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect as suggested: this looks the best solution to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 30 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Kerr[edit]

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

Not notable. Yes, her parents are famous (hence the only source). Notability is not inherited. One minor voice role. No other coverage. SummerPhD (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 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) 00:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 5 entries on IMDb.com [63], seems to be a main character on two different TV series (40 and A Bear's Tail). Probably not enough for notability? There's 47 News hits - but if you add -"my rock-star dad", it drops to 11, so most of the coverage seems to be copies of that one piece. David V Houston (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. need significant coverage, IMDB is not good enough. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minarc[edit]

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

Unable to find any third-party coverage or notabiliy about this company. Sure, google hits their website and their facebook, but I see nothing in the way of non-trivial, third-party coverage of this topic. — Timneu22 · talk 16:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Their model house was featured (not just mentioned: i.e. non-trivial) in Dwell (magazine) 02/01/2009 [64]. It appeared in non-periodic books ([65]) although it is too early to make judgements. East of Borschov (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News offers many hits about this company (for example Interior Design magazine) and about projects they have done (for example New York Times). Plus they have won numerous awards. Granted, the article contains an objectionable amount of puffery, but that can be edited out (maybe I'll give it a shot) and references can be added. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There, I added references (there were already quite a few in the article, but they weren't cited properly) and deleted a little of the peacockery. They seem clearly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 05:18, 23 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) 00:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MelanieN's addition of references to substantial coverage in reliable sources. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:17, 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. JForget 14:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial (Canadian band)[edit]

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

Non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 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) 00:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator does not describe what research was done in order to come to the conclusion that this band is "non-notable". As it turns out, with some brief searching I was able to find out that the band meets WP:BAND criterion #1, with coverage in such sources as Allmusic and the Canadian Pop Encyclopedia; and WP:BAND criterion #2 with a charted hit in Canada. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per inclusion of song "Easy Love" on notable chart (Canadian Top 40), meets WP:BAND criterion 2. (Re Paul Erik's sources above, I'm not now, and have never been, convinced that Allmusic falls within Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources or independent sources - but it doesn't matter here for the reasons above.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per DustFormsWords. Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 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.