< 26 May	28 May >

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

The result was keep (WP:SNOW), spurious nom from SPA Chzz ► 19:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newgrounds[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Just because a internet meme came from this website as well as Jeff Weise being a member their does not make the site notable. CuriousDrat (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget about Sirtom, Rig(Of Ugly Shepard), and Photoshop the Rock driving. There's plenty of site less worthy than Newgrounds.

Not Registered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.253.51.90 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete kthxbai: Per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 65.81.143.19 (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NEWGROUNDS = THE BOMB IT WILL BE IN MY HEART. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.188.248 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's more pages here that deserve deletion more than the newgrounds page. Did someone get banned by Poozy?

Hmmm: I see a number of passing references to the site in reliable, independent sources, but I'm not sure that any of it's "significant coverage". The Fox News article is the closest [1]. It's more about a single game, but does have a fair amount of coverage of the site and it's owners. Is that enough to satisfy notability? Probably not. Let's see if any other, better sources are found. Buddy431 (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although I will abstain from !voting due to my involvement with the article, I must point out that this nomination was made by a user with no prior edits. Additionally, I must emphasize the substantial media attention that the website has received, probably the most for any website of its type. Not all of the attention is focused on individual users or submissions; some of it is focused directly at the website itself. It's also received some attention indirectly from The Behemoth. —LedgendGamer 05:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alexa ranking under 1000 worldwide and under 500 for US traffic Alexa Many good RS's from Google News and it appears in books Google Books. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like to refer to it as "the YouTube before YouTube". It's been around for as long as I can remember, and has had coverage in a lot of places over its time. A lot of it is in offline sources, such as "Web site focuses on fun and games" in The Intelligencer, "Pop Quiz" in the San Jose Mercury News, and "NSFW: Newgrounds.com" in The Kansas City Star. Gary King (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, high Alexa ranking and popularity. Request may be vexatious. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The user who posted the deletion tag also posted a thread on the NG Forums bragging about it. [2] It's obvious vandalism. Crimsonedge34 (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Because Poozy said so. Rohedin (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)— Rohedin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Definitely Keep, Newgrounds is a very important part of Internet culture! Just because it isn't "OMGZ THE MOST POPULAR SITE EVAR!!1" doesn't mean we should delete it. So many things came from Newgrounds! And of course, this is an obvious troll since the Newgrounds BBS link pointed out here says it's "for the lulz". Seriously? Does the site have to be extremely notable to get a Wikipedia article? Of course not! Wikipedia should have articles about everything, that's the whole point! Sloshy42 (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, speedy, speedy keep as per Sloshy42 (with exception of the everything part). Also looking at the nominator's contribs and account creation log, the user account was created just before this nomination was made, and the only edits made by the user was this AfD nomination and edits related to this. So based on Crimsonedge34's highlighting on similarly-named user on NG and LedgendGamer, this was either disruption to Wikipedia to prove a point or plain vandalism. Optakeover ^(Talk) 18:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep —fetch ·comms 19:01, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan OS[edit]

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

I believe the subject of this article does not meet the general notability guideline because it provides no significant coverage from reliable sources. Furthermore, I have been unable to find any significant coverage that could be added to the article. Aka042 (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an alpha level OS based on Ubuntu which has no coverage in reliable sources.-- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe keep when the beta comes out.RussianReversal (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that because this project is so new that it does not need a wiki article? Drtaylor175 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I nominated the article for deletion because I do not believe it meets the general notability guideline. This is a Wikipedia policy that governs which subjects should be included in the project. If you read through that guideline, you may get a better picture of why I do not believe the subject should have a wikipedia article. Specifically, as I said in my nomination, I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources, which is a/the requirement of the GNG. --Aka042 (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for responding to me. I am new to Wikipedia. I am the webmaster for Manhattan's website. One of our fans originally made us this page as we are so new to this. As for sources the only thing I personally can think of is/would be our website. However the revised site won't be live until the end of next week. I know from Googleing Manhattan OS there are blog reviews of the Alphas of the OS out there. Our current time table is a full release by 7/8/2010. In saying that I would be hoping for a stay of deletion of the page and maybe some guidance as to how I could bring it up to par to meet the guidelines. Also I will try to reach out to our community for assicance in updating and maintaining the wiki article so it will be better sourced. Thank you. Drtaylor175 (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The general notability guideline also requires that the sources be independent of the subject, which would exclude the web site made for the OS. Furthermore, blogs are generally considered unacceptable. I would encourage you to read over Wikipedia's verifiability and notability policies to get a better understanding of what is acceptable; you may also find the guideline on reliable sources helpful. Furthermore, since you stated that you are affiliated with the subject, you may want to check out Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy as well.

As far as retaining the article, you are able to userfy it, which consists of making a copy in your userspace so even if this one is deleted you retain the content and can continue to work on it until it is ready for inclusion in mainspace. You can find instructions on how to do that through that userfy link. Those policy pages should give you a good idea of what is expected for an article in mainspace, however it may be that there is just not enough coverage from independent sources yet to allow for the subject's inclusion at this time.

P.S. I added an extra indentation to your response so it is easier to find, I hope you dont mind. --Aka042 (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'd be fine with a keep if reliable sources were added Doc Quintana (talk) 17:24, 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) 02:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hits (2004) (South America)[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no assertion of notability, and no sources provided. There's not even infromation like the record label that put this out to aid in a search. A compilation of its from various artists for a year are generally not notable, and I don't see how this one is. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 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) 02:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historia de Amor VI[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation, Google shows nothing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources, even with album in the the search box. Joe Chill (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Various artists compilation albums generally aren't notable. I can find no coverage that would indicate this album is an exception. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 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 merge to Minor characters of Days of our Lives. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Donovan[edit]

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

Article is a stub, containg no worthy information. There's not even a source for the stubby information. The whole article is two lines. Sami50421 (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Looks like it has a reference now, but there's nothing said in this article that couldn't be merged into a character list. No individual notability is asserted, but the show is notable. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't feel like improving it much, but this character is actually notable.[3] I added one (very) crappy ref to back up my keep. Also, the actor went on to star in The Nanny, so they'll be lots of interviews and whatnot with the actor discussing the character after he stopped working on Days. Soap Opera stuff needs massive cleanup, but you picked the wrong character. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:27, 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, Shimeru (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Days of our Lives characters or Minor characters of Days of our Lives (not sure which is more appropriate). There doesn't seem to be enough info at this time for a stand alone article.--Pink Bull 23:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per user:PinkBull. --MidnightDesert (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this minor character of Days of Our Lives into Minor characters of Days of our Lives per Pink Bull. First Light (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems like a good compromise. Not enough reliable/verifiable info for a stand alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:19, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Age Music & New Sounds Vol. 67 – "Liberty"[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To be fair, it has a pretty complicated name which will confuse search engines however you try to search for it. The various searches I have tried have not returned a great deal yet, though, admittedly --Jubilee ♫clipman 01:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a sampler album which is really just another word for compilation. I can find no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage of this, and couldn't find anything on the first 66 volumes either. First Light (talk) 05:32, 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) 02:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamiltons sweet shop[edit]

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

Not notable, looks like advertising Sadads (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: found no source for notability according to WP:N or WP:ORG. Dewritech (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article indicates that this is a chain with more than one location. However, I can find no coverage to indicate it is a notable chain of sweet shops. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 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) 05:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jase Harper[edit]

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

This seemed just over the line from speedy A7, but I really don't see any third-party coverage or notability on this topic. — Timneu22 · talk 13:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, going to go with "not notable" at this time. I thought that the Ledger Awards might get him over the line, but I can't find any reliable reference to him winning them, and the award's page (ledgerawards.org) seems to be down. There's nothing else in the rest of the article as far as I can see which would have Harper meeting WP:CREATIVE, but I'd be happy to be contradicted on that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I haven't created this page lightly - Jase Harper seems to me to be a locally significant, if emerging, Australian comics (and media) artist. While the ongoing merit of The Ledger Awards may be debated, Harper won over a large field for "best comic" for a commercially published work. He has been interviewed in various media, but finding and adding those references could be difficult. I'd strongly argue to retain this profile for an Australian comics artist who is very active in all areas of the field.Ian T (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs demonstrating using reliable sources - if you can dig out the media interviews and add them then that'd be a big help with notability. (Emperor (talk) 00:54, 15 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, 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, Shimeru (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Second relist since it's a BLP. Shimeru (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources for the main claim to notability, that he won the Ledger Wards. Also, very little Googlehits in general. --Pink Bull 22:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. If as noted above that is an "emerging" talent, then I've certainly no prejudice to recreation when he has emerged. But at this point, he doesn't meet the notability guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 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) 02:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilt and Grime[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gilt and Grime

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

Don't think this passes notability and appears to be a publicity stuntSadads (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don'ty understand why the nominator beleives it is a publicity stunt. It appears that this theatre company is simply not notable as they have no coverage in reliable sources that I can find. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a startup theater group, might become notable in the future, could be recreated then. For now the only reviews are on blogs; no Reliable Sources found. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 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 delete. The consensus in favour of deletion is, unfortunately, near unanimous and it appears the subject doesn't meet our current guidelines on notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klemens Murańka[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass WP:ATHLETE. delete UtherSRG (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not familiar very much with the inclusion criteria for ski jumpers, however, the Polish article suggests notability of this young competitor. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each different language 'pedia has different inclusion criteria. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but the article seems to be well developed and referenced, without questioning of the notability. Btw, I think that the inclusion criteria for each Wiki should not differ substantially. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATHLETE, says that for amateur athletes, the competition level has to be world class - Olympics, for instance. Doing a Google translate of the Polish article, it looks like he's one full step below that. Quite able to compete at the national level, but hasn't won any national titles, nor competed in Olympics or World Championships. Whether English Wiki ought to be QUITE so strict with amateurs is a good question, but that's the current standard, and I'm afraid this guy doesn't meet them. Unless I missed something, which I might have. David V Houston (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. World Cup is the highest level of Ski jumping and as Muranka has competed in World Cup he passes WP:ATHLETE. KzKrann (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ – has seemed to have generated quite a bit of coverage in Poland As shown in the second largest daily paper ,in Poland, Gazeta Wyborcza – also the Fakt the largest selling daily newspaper in Poland. Additional coverage by Wirtualna Polska – Interia, all references shown here [4]. My problem is my Polish is none existent and cannot verify in-depth coverage versus just mentioning. If however, the articles are in-depth coverage, though specific to his homeland, he would pass our notability guidelines. Thanks, ShoesssS ^Talk 14:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Changed to keep based on current discussions, but let comments stand. Thanks.ShoesssS ^Talk 20:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the common English speaker wouldn't be able to check the source at all, one of the reasons non-English language sources can't (? can't or shouldn't - dunno) be used for notability verification on en-wiki. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree there. Notability is established if an individual has generated enough independent – 3 party sourcing – that is creditable. I do not believe we distinguish between English written sources or articles written in other languages, only that they be independent – 3 party sourcing – that is creditable. One of the reasons people use encyclopedias is to garner additional information about a subject – individual – place or thing that they are unfamiliar with or want to gain more in-depth knowledge of and not everything happens in just English speaking areas. If we limit the sourcing to only English sources would we actually have articles on Freud, in that his writings are all in German , that are used in reference material for modern psychoanalysis. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only talking about for establishing notability. I don't mind other sources being not accessible to all readers, but the first sources for an article should be on notability, and those should be accessible to a wide audience. There's plenty of English sources showing notability for Freud, even though all of his work is in German. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is not the ski jump world cup considered a sufficiently high level of competition for wp:Athlete? And sources establishing notability certainly don't need to be in English (though if available, those are preferred). On the other hand, I think he'd have a hard time passing our General Notability Guidelines; most of the articles Shoessss linked to appear to have merely passing mentions (his distance at a particular meet, for example). Buddy431 (talk) 20:57, 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, Shimeru (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He participated in the FIS Ski Jumping World Cup, the highest level competition in this sport, so passes WP:ATHLETE criteria. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sorry, I double-checked now; he only participated in the qualifiying round in Zakopane 2010 and did not qualify. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Can somebody point me to the source that identifies him as having competed in FIS World Cup ski jumping? Looking at his FIS stats, I see FIS Cup, and Continental Cup along with World Juniors. But I don't see anything for a World Cup. What this tells me is that he is a very promising Junior who has competed at just below (Continental Cup) the top level of his sport. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zakopane 2010? KzKrann (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Zakopane was not a World Cup event. It was the Conteninental Cup~~. This person may well end up competing in th World Cup in the future, but right now, he is competing at one level below the top level of competition (World Cup). As such, he fails meet WP:ATHLETE. If somebody can pint out some significant coverage, then perhaps he meets WP:GNG, but I didn't see such coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My apologies, I missed the entry for the qualifier. He competed in the qualifiers for the World Cup. That's still below actually qualifying and competing at the World Cup so my opinion is not changed. -- Whpq (talk) 13:04, 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. The consensus would seem to say that, although there is at least one decent source in the article, there are not sufficient other sources to make the subject notable at this time. She may well be notable in a few months' time, but that is beyond the scope of AfD. As a side note, i would advise the experienced editors who participated here to make more effort to help those less experienced rather than nitpicking arguments and bombarding them with alphabet soup acronyms. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julin Jean[edit]

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

Speedy quite decently contested, but still has questionable notability. delete UtherSRG (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Refs are questionable as to reliability. #1 is passing mention on a blog; #2 is a Facebook page; #3 is a in-depth promotional interview on a website; #4 is a Vimeo page; #5 is a promotional interview on a different website; #6-8 are blogs; #9 is Amazon.com site for one of her CDs; and #10 is the same as #5. Since blogs, video hosting sites, social networking sites, and on-line stores are not suitable references, you are left with 2 promotional interviews on websites. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:ENT. (GregJackP (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - All the overzealous people on this site are such a detriment to the wikipedia community at large. I thought the idea of wikipedia was to share information that people would want to know, not repress it. I've adequately demonstrated that Julin Jean is "notable," and even if the references aren't the NY Times and Reuters, they are all legitimate, verifiable sources. It's not like I'm using somebody's personal blog as a reference. These are INDUSTRY BLOGS that are set up almost entirely to disseminate industry NEWS. Eatmocake (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I would suggest you be careful when pointing a finger at others when referring to their "overzealous" actions, that finger could be equally pointed at your actions. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide access to information that is verifiable using Wikipedia specific criteria. It is not an avenue to present non-notable people, bands, ideas, etc. I suggest you read reliable source for information about what is acceptable as a source. In addition, I suggest you also review WP:NOTE. ttonyb (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Okay, playing devil's advocate, why is my page being targeted so aggressively when a site like Jenn Sterger has been up since 2008 and has fewer references than mine, and of equal or lesser reliability?Eatmocake (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Eatmorecake, given your use of the terms "my page" and "mine", you may want to read WP:OWNERSHIP. ttonyb (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It would be really nice if someone would post something helpful instead of nitpicking everything to death and telling me to read endless pages of rules. Yes, I know I don't OWN the article. I was using those words to indicate that I had originally posted the page. Sorry for misspeaking.Eatmocake (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. As a sidenote, I looked at the other article in the same manner I did yours. While there are not what I consider sufficient references on the Jenn Sterger page itself, there are clearly sufficient references that could be added, including from the NY Daily News, ESPN, SI, Newsday (and that is from just the 1st page of GHits). Julin Jean did not have the same number of sources available. GregJackP (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is a prime case of WP:ATA. But thank you for finding an article that needs AFD's attention. It's now listed. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for mentioning WP:ATA. I had never read this page until I saw your reference to it. I discovered some areas for improvement in my own contributions here, always a good thing. I suggest that others who have not yet visited this page do so ASAP. Evalpor (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Doesn't the Houston Chronicle link qualify under WP:BAND as a reliable and independent source? Its not a reprint of a press release. Its not from a student paper. Its not trivial coverage such as announcing tour dates. RedRaiderG —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Per reasons stated by UtherSRG and GregJackP. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 16:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GregJackP. As to the Houston Chronicle article, it does establish the existence of the album, but as it is stated to be 'independently' released (i.e. self-published) rather more is needed to show that it has notability. Her parts seem to be fairly minor in fairly minor films. I've de-linked one that went to a disambig page which didn't include the film in question. Peridon (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, most of those are leading roles in independent films. It's a little frustrating how much subjectivity people seem to be attaching to the word "notability." If something isn't notable, a major paper like the Chronicle isn't going to waste space on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatmocake (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having just read WP:ATA earlier today, I am going to agree with Eatmocake in regard to the "subjectivity" issue. The article in the the Houston Chronicle is adequately in-depth, and establishes notability, IMO. The subject may not strike everyone in here as an artist to be taken seriously, but I have to come down on the side of notability having been established, per the various references cited by GregJackP. I am in disagreement with Peridon vis-a-vis the characterization of the Houston Chronicle. Evalpor (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not demeaning the Houston Chronicle. I am saying that as this is a self-released album I would need to see more evidence than one article to believe there was any importance to it. This is the only review of the album that I can find outside the world of blogs - and there's not a vast amount there from what I can see. (The number of Julins involved with transitions in the scientific sense is amazing...) Otherwise, her 'main' film appears to be 'Cherry Bomb', and I quote: "Principal photography began on March 2nd, 2010 and wrapped March 28, 2010". This doesn't seem much time, and "On April 30th, 2010, the first official trailer was released on the Cherry Bomb website via YouTube" so it isn't even out yet. I regard the article as promotional, especially in view of the timing. If the film is a success, OK. An article may be merited. Here and now, I can't see much for it to stand on. Peridon (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Chronical coverage is good enough for me to establish notability: it's a reliable, independent source that covers the subject in depth. Another source like it would be preferable, but I'm willing to accept notability based on just that one. Buddy431 (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Chronicle is a reliable and verifiable source, however one article does not establish WP:NOTE which states: "Multiple sources are generally expected.", and WP:BIO, see fn7 which states: "An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers." Likewise WP:MUSICBIO states: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works." The article now has one reliable, verifiable source, clearly not enough to establish general notability, much less the requirements of either WP:ENT or WP:MUSICBIO. GregJackP (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was looking at the basic criteria at wp:BIO, which seems to indicate that multiple sources are only required if "the depth of coverage is not substantial". If it's the norm to require multiple sources to establish notability, than this person does not seem to meet that threshold, at least with the current sources. Buddy431 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not willing to accept single articles such as the one given here as notability for media or media figures--only a very few internationally important sources can do that. Additionally I am not sure of the accuracy of the article; "Two recent films in which Julin had leading roles, Sweatshop and Up & Down, will be screened at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival. " The Festival finished yesterday, and it does not seem that the films were shown. From the refs given, they were actually shown --if even that can be verified-- at the Festival's "Le Marché du Film" , where any professional can show a film. if Cherry Bomb (film) becomes notable, then she might have a notable role. Basically, "Not Yet Notable" DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Marché du Film site appears to be inaccessible at present, and I can't find elsewhere any evidence of the films referred to being shown. There are 'going to be' refs, but no 'shown' ones I can find. Peridon (talk) 19:41, 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, Shimeru (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reliable source is the Houston Chronicle review of her album. And if one examines the context of the album review, it is in a section titled "Local Bands" which is fairly typical for any newspaper covering a local music scene. As such, this album review, by itself does not represent the significant coverage that is needed to establish notability. If I were to pin notability on a single sources, that single source would need to be at least national in scope (not a local band section of a newspaper), and would need to treat the person as the primary subject of the article and be in depth (not an album review). -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. My boyfriend the producer went to the 63rd Cannes Film Festival and all I got was a cute blue watch. His boyfriend is a sysop at Wikiepdia and he does not get an article. Not every film screened at Cannes is notable. That is why we have WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 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) 02:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarannau Aberystwyth[edit]

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

British university sports teams are rarely notable, even within their own university (my friend goes to university in Lancaster, and she didn't even know they had a American football team until a couple or so weeks ago). This one is no different - and I can't find anything to suggest otherwise. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, like almost all UK university sports teams. The only mention on the university's website of this team is the inclusion of American football in a bare list of sports you can play at the uni, and I think the bit at the top saying "Sport at Aberystwyth University is a big deal and irrespective of your ability you are encouraged to give it ago (sic) by joining the University's sports clubs" sums up nicely how seriously university sport is taken in the UK....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and per ChrisTheDude. This team does not appear to be one of those rare notable UK university sports teams. Pfainuk talk 16:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above. Article is also unreferenced. Since Google returns little beyond sites related to the team and its rivals, there is little chance of being able to reference the article due to the lack of independent sources on the team. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete no independent sources cited.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:56, 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 no consensus. I hate to leave it hanging, but there have been 2 comments in 16 days and it doesn't look like it will get any less stale if relisted again. No objection to another nom in the near future, though HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hathor Exploration[edit]

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

An article that is of high technical quality, always hard to present something like this to AfD. However, the notability claim essentially is: "sixth most significant exploration project in Saskatchewan (based on expenditures) and the 51st out of 100 in Canada." According to my reading of WP:CORP this is not sufficient. As for the General notability guideline: Some sources are self-published, some of the business directory type, the rest are passing mentions. I also question the independence of the sources, for instance of the Ministry brochures. Some do not contain the word "Hathor", especially the one supposed to back up the thin notability claim quoted above. Pgallert (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Their public relations people have obviously been studying Wikipedia and know how to make a superficially plausible looking article. But being 51st out of 100 in Canada suggests that this is an average business in a crowded industry, and not the sort of thing that has lasting historical significance. References are mostly to financial statements and routine announcements in trade papers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but wonder how many articles would be in Wikipedia if we restricted ourselves to historically at least marginally significant entries. Sorry for the off-topic comment. I fully agree with you. --Pgallert (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looked through 10 pages of Google News. found [5] from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix (the biggest newspaper in the province, I believe). Also [6] from the 'Canadian Mining Journal'. Most of the news hits were from Marketwire.com, which seems to basically post press releases. That's not a lot. David V Houston (talk) 16:39, 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, Shimeru (talk) 22:16, 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 redirect to Ellen Degeneres#Eleveneleven. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eleveneleven[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements for a corporation. TheRingess (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ellen Degeneres#Record label. Not everything a celebrity does needs a separate article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but this is a record label, its important. 24.77.173.236 (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ellen Degeneres#Eleveneleven. An article could be justified if more artists are signed and the record label gains notability werldwayd (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The label is just starting, evreything has a beggining, so, of course, now, the article is small (as small as MANY other articles), but it can be worked on. --Tucayo (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ellen Degeneres#Eleveneleven. I suspect that in time this entry will need its own page, but at present an almost utter lack of business dealings makes eleveneleven more of an idea than an active business or corporation. Cgweeks (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The label just started, honestly. She has signed Greyson Chance and will continue to sign people. There are ways to expand this. 24.77.173.236 (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability has nothing to do with the length of the article.TheRingess (talk) 03:31, 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 no consensus. Many of those !voting delete make considerably stronger arguments than most of the keep !voters (far too many "per such and such" drive-by comments for my liking) yet Bearian and one or two others make strong arguments that were not countered. One or two more strong arguments and this could easily have been conclusive one way or the other, but as it is, there is no firm consensu in favour of or in opposition to deletion, so "no consensus" it must be HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article improved, clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaja Bordevich Ballo[edit]

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

The story did happen, and it was in the news at the time, but I don't see how having your death related to scientology warrants an article, which will linger as a part of the "sum of human knowledge" forever. Fails WP:ONEEVENT, and having an article on this should be considered in light of the event being a suicide. Geschichte (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Received significant coverage in secondary sources [7]. In addition, she was the daughter of a notable individual, a politician and MP in Norway, Olav Gunnar Ballo. I will work to further improve the article. Afterwards, I will make a note here. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons stated. While it does mostly consist of one event, that event is still receiving notice by secondary sources (in three languages, see the link provided by Cirt) two years after event. Event used as a current significant rhetorical trope by people protesting the church, and one which the church is defending itself against. While I agree that the article itself needs some work, and I look forward to seeing what Curt puts together, it does not deserve to be deleted.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lisa McPherson's death was a one event (deaths usually are) and she died of an embolism. Was this death a suicide or an "induced" suicide? If you are concerned with her family, by all means contact her father. If he doesn't want an article about his daughter up, that would carry considerable weight in this discussion. Keith Henson (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have done some significant improvements to the article, adding information from over 20 sources [8]. There are many additional independent reliable secondary sources to be utilized still. A search for the individual yields over 50 results in secondary source coverage. The secondary source coverage is in multiple different language publications, including English, Norwegian, and French. Her father, Norwegian Parliament member Olav Gunnar Ballo, wrote a book about her, titled: Kaja: 1988-2008, which itself was the subject of secondary source coverage - and this also focused on the individual as well. Note: further improvement, expansion, and quality work on the article will still be ongoing. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is permanent, and the amount of time since then is irrelevant. This was rightly or wrongly considered of important significance in Norway, and it remains so. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Although we might think of renaming the article to "Suicide of Kaja Bordevich Ballo" or some such title, given that it is not so much a biography as an article on her suicide (compare Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy, which also started out as Nikki Catsouras). --JN 466 01:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Scientology/AFD. —-- Coffeepusher (talk) 06:15, 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. MelanieN put it well, I think. The problem here is that while Mr Vaultonburg has written, he has yet to be written about to the extent that makes him notable by Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I actually found some of the arguments made by Mr Vaultonburg in this discussion to be quite compelling, unfortunately Wikipedia requires not only that the subjects of its articles are notable but that the information in their articles is verifiable. the first line of that policy is particualrly relevant here- the threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. In order for information to be verfiable, it must be published in a reliable source first and it is extremely difficult to write an article on a person when basic biographical information is not verifiable. This closure should not be seen as a judgement that Mr Vaultonburg is not "worthy" of inclusion in an encyclopaedia, merely that his entry does not comply with our policies and guidelines at present. He may well gain notability sufficient for inclusion here in the future, but we cannot, unfortunately, write about subjects that may be notable in the future for the same reasons we can;t write about events that have yet to occur. Should Mr Vaultonburg gain sufficient coverage in reliable sources tomorrow, next week, next year or whenever, this entry may be re-created and I hope to see a respectable article there in the not-too-distant future, but for now, as an administrator, I'm bound by consensus and the current guidelines as they are written. Apologies for the length of the rationale, but I don't believe that either the subject or the article should merely be dismissed out of hand and forgotten about. Mr Vaultonburg or the authors of this article may contact me via Wikipedia's email system or on my talk page if they would like me to email them a copy of the source and I'll be happy to oblige. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas L. Vaultonburg[edit]

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

Self-published writer of questionable notability. Provided references are either primary of user-submitted - no significant coverage from independent third party sources. Possible COI from several editors, one of whom appears to be the subject himself. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Earlier discussion states "You don't get into Poets and Writers just by asking. You have to earn your way in and there are less than 5,000 American poets listed." What is the criteria for earning one's way? It shouldn't be subjective. Thomas L. Vaultonburg is a working, published and notable poet. When a poet is published, notable and their full time occupation is poetry, they should be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.167.131 (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC) — 98.196.167.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I AM the subject of this page, Thomas L. Vaultonburg. I did not create this page. I discovered it and made a minor edit of a poet's name that had been misspelled. In terms of what this editor has said, I would simply ask anyone familiar with the subject to confirm I am a member of Poets and Writers, an organization one must qualify to join through publication in respected journals. The listing of my periodical and book publications seems to be correct, but is not exhaustive, and most definitely demonstrates my wide publication in respected journals of American literature.

I would also add my publication in the anthology Thus Spake the Corpse, a major American anthology published by Black Sparrow Press.

The rest of the information contained in the article appears to be true, and is referenced in noteworthy American newspapers. There are no unsourced or factually incorrect assertions in this article, nor did I create it. In fact, I researched the topic and found that many subjects of a page eventually make edits to those pages to correct either factual or sourcing errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaulto (talk • contribs) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "emerging" is not "emerged". There is a lack of non-trivial independent reliable sources primarily about the subject, and the article is written, albeit not by the subject, in a florid and promotional style (it is almost certainly the "my friend Jenny" the subject notes in various social media). The article is the work of these two apparent friends with no other significant contributions. It is also largely comprised of laundry lists. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those "laundry lists" are publication credits. In respected American journals, both academic and small press. You don't get into Poets and Writers just by asking. You have to earn your way in and there are less than 5,000 American poets listed. It's by merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaulto (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable., based on the lack of third party publications--and consistent with the over-personal nature of the article DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are mostly self-published and I have been unable to find substantial reliable third-party coverage. --Deskford (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the independent coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure if those proposing deletion realize that lists of publications, such as Mr. Vaultonburg's list, are not mere "laundry lists." As someone who has been a poetry editor for over twenty years (Kumquat Meringue, The Rockford Review, Darklands, etc.), I can say that lists like this are part of the standard way poets and other writers establish their credentials when submitting their work to other publications. Even the most widely known (and notable) small press and academic press poets don't get paid for their work, so there's no way to claim financial success, and even the most notable poets are not often written up in "non-trivial independent reliable sources." This is all part of being a poet. So I think it's only fair to judge the validity of Vaultonburg's Wikipedia entry by the quality of his publication list, and his list shows that his work has been accepted for publication in some of the best poetry journals in the country. Journals such as "Exquisite Corpse," "Chiron Review," "Minotaur," "Rockford Review," and "Lilliput Review" have high standards for acceptance, and typically accept fewer than five percent of the thousands of submissions they receive every year. By this one criterion alone, Vaultonburg's Wikipedia page is valid. And the fact that the prestigious organization, Poets&Writers, includes him in their "Directory of Writers" is an important consideration. Here's a link to Poets&Writers' "Criteria for Listing." Poets&Writers Criteria for Listing in Directory of Writers. This list of criteria is deceptive in that it gives the appearance of being "not a big deal," but the tens of thousands of poets and writers who have applied to the listing and been rejected know that acceptance into the listing requires other intangibles not listed there. Vaultonburg's appearance in the Poets&Writers Directory of Writers carries substantial weight. Deleting Mr. Vaultonburg's Wikipedia entry would be not only an injustice to a widely known and respected poet, who actually "lives the life he writes about"...but would also do a disservice to Wikipedia readers who would be deprived of a listing for an important contemporary poet. SpyPlane (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC) — SpyPlane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia has its own standards for inclusion. If you would like to learn about these standards, see WP:NOTABILITY and WP:AUTHOR. You might also want to read WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Dlabtot (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried looking around for stuff about this guy and I really couldn't find anything. LinkedIn, Amazon and MySpace, sure, but nothing reliable. As such, the article fails WP:AUTHOR. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I think this process is useful. I appreciate it. I have a couple of points I'd like to make about this article and the concept of "notability" in general.

If editors use too high of a standard to apply to notability, or confuse notability with either fame or notoriety, they may make exclusions of articles which are completely noteworthy within the context of the milieu they were submitted. If your threshold of proving notability involves mentions in People or Time then all you're really doing is compiling an index of what is being written about in pop culture. But this is an encyclopedia. And the nature of an encyclopedia is a certain level of inclusiveness. If you're comparing poets to actors or even novelists, or just the most famous, writers, you're excluding a great deal of entries that have achieved a level of notability that would be perfectly acceptable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It's not just an encyclopedia of the rich and famous, or merely of those who have been reported on in mainstream media, it's an encyclopedia that should and ought to include those who have made valid contributions and are respected in their field of endeavor.

Further, I think exclusion of articles like this that those who are not overly familiar with a profession or endeavor might not be bowled over by denies an article to those who would find it useful. I may not think someone who is noted for having a cooking show (random example) is useful to me, but I would want that article in the encyclopedia for those who might. If an article is about a topic that isn't your cup of tea that doesn't mean it isn't someone else's.

Also, I'm not convinced those who are merely making one line statements about the lack of citations are even bothering to look at the article and follow those links. True, they don't go to The New York Times, but they go to the places that every other poet listed in here as noteworthy do (forgive me for that sentence). I think it's fair to compare poets to poets, not poets to Brad Pitt.

Once again, I appreciate this process. My word of caution is perhaps some people are being too stringent and trying to apply a standard of notability that would limit the nuanced entries that make a data base like this useful. If I just wanted a Who's Who or to be shown only those topics that were available everywhere else I'd go somewhere else. Isn't it better for someone to look for an article that may be slightly obscure and find it than go away wondering why it's not included.?

Thank you. Tvaulto (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As one of those who made a one-line statement, let me reassure you that I spent some time checking and searching for references. Most editors are very careful about this and don't make a "delete" statement casually. You make some good points above: an encyclopedia should not just reflect popular culture, but this is why we ask for reliable sources from respected third-party publications. If you could find some detailed coverage in a specialist poetry journal with which you have no connection that would help in verifying the article, for example. --Deskford (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be redundant about this, but there are dozens of poetry journals listed which have done that. It's not common for poetry journals to publish exposes or "detailed" columns about poets. They publish poetry. For instance, you're not likely to find "detailed" coverage of ANY poet, aside from a few exceptions like Maya Angelou or Billy Collins. A poet's resume IS his/her publication credits. There are very, very few poets who achieve substantial press coverage, and those who do are usually celebrity poets like Jewel. Every source listed in that article is "reliable." There are no third rate publications there.

And I'm sort of mystified by this continuing demand for sources "I am not involved with." I am not involved with ANY of these publications aside from my literary press, which is one source amongst dozens. I have no connection with these sources other than being published there. I self publish because it is financially beneficial for me to do so. The nature of self-publishing has changed since my last book (1997). There was no Lulu or print-on-demand then. It was a laborious process and thought of quite differently even a decade ago. None of my work needs to be self-published, I do so because I value keeping all rights to the intellectual property and since most volumes of poetry are published in such small runs that there's no benefit for me to assign any kind of rights to anyone else when my product is already selling.

Finally (maybe, I have done a cursory search of American poets listed in Wikipedia, and can assert my level of notability is commenserate or exceeds many, if not most, of those entries of modern American poets. If you want to be fair, you should apply the editorial standard that is already in place, de facto, rather than refer to some ideal standard that is not being applied. The standard being used currently at Wikipedia to include modern American poets would have me well within the continuum of poets that have been included.

If you can honestly tell me you are applying the same editorial standard to my article which you have demonstrated in the past is the standard for inclusion in the category, then I say "good day." I wouldn't believe you, but at that point I am helpless to tilt at windmills. Just be fair.

Again, appreciation for the time people are taking. Tvaulto (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt your intentions are honorable, but you don't seem to be understanding the issue. You're typing lengthy responses, but nothing you've said has any relevance to the question of whether or not this article should be deleted. Please review WP:Notability (people). Those are the criteria we use to determine notability. If the article doesn't meet that criteria, it gets deleted. Period. Dlabtot (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for your point about other poets that you don't believe are as notable as yourself, please review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dlabtot (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have missed the spirit of the point I was trying to make. My point WASN'T that those other poets weren't notable, my point was that they already have been deemed to be notable by their inclusion in Wikipedia, and because that is the standard being applied to constitute notability, I am asserting this article is well within that standard. It's a different assertion than the guideline you're quoting, the spirit of which seems to be "These articles are bad, therefore I deserve to get in." I'm saying these articles have passed muster and my article is reasonably and comfortably within that standard. I'm using the standard that exists to gauge the parameters of the standard at the high and low end and I'm asserting the article is comfortably within the standard already being used for inclusion, perhaps even right in the middle. Yes, other stuff exists, because editorial decisions were made that allowed it to exist, and a reader can only assume what does exist reflects the editorial policy of those who are editing. Quoting some rule then saying something like "And that's the way it is because Stone Cold says so. Period.," is sort of ridiculous. That's why a process like this is in place, so gradients on a continuum of possibilities can be weighed and assessed. You have to consider the possible ridiculousness of a single standard that comprises notability, like having a bar that only has pretty waitresses... period. In the literary community this article has gravity and is of use to people who might want to seek it out. Maybe it's not pretty to you, that's your choice. But you want to make that choice for everyone and I think you haven't proven it's not notable. All you've done is assert it's not notable. I say the Earth's not round. I haven't proven it, but I can say it. You've proven nothing. Tvaulto (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that you haven't reviewed WP:Notability (people)... you might want to also check out WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Dlabtot (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't agree with you. That's allowed, right? Honestly, what have YOU said? You keep putting up this link as if it ends debate. And I'm saying it doesn't. I'm saying I contest that it's not notable and offer the references to respected journals within the discipline as evidence. Then you offer a link about "I didn't hear that" which also presupposes that YOU have the last word and after you have spoken (or laid down a link) that debate is over. That's not how life works. As far as I can tell that's not how this process works, either. If you have an assertion of non-notability, go ahead and offer evidence. Go into the references and either dispute them or explain why they are not notable. Those references exist. Dispute them. Then, after you dispute them, go ahead and explain why those very same third party publications are sufficient to prove notability for others, but not me. Tvaulto (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you are 'allowed' to disagree with the WP:Notability (people) guideline about what are the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Such a disagreement is not likely to affect the outcome of this deletion debate, however. I've tried to offer advice; clearly it's not wanted, so no more will be forthcoming. Dlabtot (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My position remains the same after taking your links into consideration. The original request for deletion was done in opposition to those very guidelines you seem to place such credence in. And it seems to have been done capriciously and without any opportunity to make any sort of changes to the page, which had been there a while and visited by other Wiki editors. The request is also factually inaccurate in that I am NOT a self-published author. My last full collection of poems is self-published, which is not uncommon even amongst very famous poets. The rest of those citations are third party publications. I will beat this horse until it mooes because I believe I am stating a valid case. What advice are you referring to, specifically? I find NO constructive advice or attempt to work with me in any way from anyone who has spoken here. Quote it. I find there's a lot of selective quoting of rules here, but a whole lot of ignoring other guidelines and rules. "Callin' it your job Hoss don't make it right." And you'll be back, because I'm offering legitimate and well-reasoned points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaulto (talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There still is, and always has been, opportunity to make changes to the page. The best way to ensure the page is not deleted would be to add reliable third-party references to the article, or, so as not to be accused of conflict of interest, add them to the talk page of the article and ask others to include them in the article itself. --Deskford (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've added a tag concerning reliability of sources. Would you be kind enough to describe those sources? Or are you merely hoping whoever reads this won't do the due diligence of looking? You could remove half the sources on that page right now and it would still demonstrate a level of notability in my opinion. You have my permission (though it's been demonstrated claw law prevails here) to go in there and remove any damn reference you find doesn't meet your standards. Just show your work and sign it. I'm not sure some of you are acting in good faith here. So far, three main editors raising their objections, but when asked to show examples clap their hands like black-jack dealers and disappear. Your tag is meaningless unless you support it with examples and evidence. The other crap is sort of opinion. Who's notable and who's not but challenging sources is sort of like questioning someone's honesty. When you do that, you offer evidence, or you retract your statement. Go get the sources that are in question and show them. Or retract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaulto (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Tvaulto (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been repeatedly told that independent sources are required to establish notability. You've chosen to ignore that. You've been pointed to guidelines such as WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Notability (people) and you've chosen to ignore that. Fine. If you want to ignore the advice you've been given - that's your choice. However, you should be aware that accusations of bad faith are prohibited at Wikipedia and could lead to sanctions, so you probably should refrain from such. Dlabtot (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm going to go ahead and stand by that, citing that repeated requests for examples were ignored. And that editors appear to be acting in concert to make it appear consensus is being reached when all that seems to be occurring is three or four editors showing a pattern of behavior. I could go and ask a bunch of people to come in here, too, but I'm not going to. I went to your discussion pages and names pop up over and over. You can't make the kind of source accusations you made in an academic setting and you shouldn't be able to here. For all your quoting of rules it's that type of intellectually dishonest behavior that keeps this from being used as a reliable source. No go tell the hall monitor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaulto (talk • contribs) 01:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks as self promotion.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just being a writer, author, poet etc. is not enough to get a page in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, and there has to be third-party, independent information from reliable sources as defined here. Mr. Vaultonburg has published things, yes, but nobody has written ABOUT him - no scholarly evaluations, no reviews, nothing at all that I could find. And that is what is missing to establish him as "notable". --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 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 no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cosimo Filane[edit]

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

Businessman and musician of strictly local small-town notability; no sources to demonstrate notability. Article was previously prodded in 2009, but the prod template was removed by an anonymous IP with no rationale or article improvement. I should note as well that the IP resolves to Shaw Cable — a company whose service area just happens to include the town Mr. Filane lives in — on a DNS search; although this doesn't definitively prove WP:COI involvement by itself, it certainly points that way when you combine it with everything else. Delete it. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite well known as a "personality" in northwestern Ontario. Certainly as notable as the many, many punk rockers and their albums that have Wikipedia entries. Enough on Google books list to show notability and give a road-map to improve article. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reasons listed above. WikiManOne (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is apparently notable enough to have been written about in these books [9], [10], and his composition mentioned here. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I mean by being an extremely well-known "character" in his region. I doubt the local and regional newspapers archives are available on the Internet but I know this guy is famous in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario, does a lot of telethons, etc., and has a sort of cult following. This article simply needs work, not deletion.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Famous in Thunder Bay" isn't the baseline standard for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think we should start sorting through all of these one-CD punk bands, subway station entries and other trivial entries, based on your patronizing remark.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, go for it, you'll get all the support I can offer. But read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS first. Bearcat (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to see you address the material that has shown up in the books found on Google, rather than engage in Wikilawyering.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to a policy statement is not "wikilawyering". And the books you found mention the topic under discussion here only in passing, which means they fail the requirement that sources demonstrate substantial coverage that's specifically about him — a person is not notable just because they garner a couple of trivial passing mentions in a couple of articles or books about something else. I've been mentioned by name in as many published works as this, and that doesn't make me notable. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting awfully emotional about this. Maybe you are notable. maybe you are just too modest. The books do talk about place Filane's place in the local lore and culture. I have traveled in that part of the country and you really can't miss the guy -- the signs, his records in local stores, his book on minor hockey, etc. Don't get too worked up if this afd doesn't fly and don't put yourself down.Spoonkymonkey (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The books demonstrate sufficient coverage by reliable, independent sources to be notable under the GNG. Local characters can indeed be notable enough for an international encyclopedia, provided that there is extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources about them. Buddy431 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also featured on an episode of Out Your Way, a nationaly broadcat tv series (ref The Globe and Mail, 8 October 1987, "Memo sets target of 95 per cent More Canadian content CBC goal" by Hohn Haslett Cuff). duffbeerforme (talk)
Delete no coverage in citations, clearly not notable for wikipedia. I see he is mentioned in a book, sorry but minor mentions in minor publications doesn't assert notability imo. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 27 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) 21:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this relisted? The consensus seems clear to me.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is uncited with no assertion of notablility. Do you have any intention of improving it? Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already started to improve it, and I believe the books on Google do show notability. As well, despite what you've said, he's been written up in more than one book and had a TV documentary done on him.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus isn't a "first past the post" vote. Generally, you can't close a discussion as either a keep or a delete until that option has at least two-thirds support; anything less than that, the options are to close as "no consensus" or to relist. Four keeps to three deletes isn't two-thirds. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SpoonkMonkey, you say you have already started to improve the BLP but you appear to have only added two uncited comments to the article? 12:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

I haven't had time to do much more. I've been extremely busy these past few days. Don't forget, I am a volunteer.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:54, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sortfix[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. I am unable to find any significant independent coverage. Furthermore, the article has no indication of the subject's notability and reads as an advertisement. Aka042 (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finecure[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. Article has no assertion of the subject's notability, and I am unable to find any significant coverage in secondary sources. Aka042 (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is this one back yet again? As per both the other times this has been deleted, this manages the pretty much unique achievement, for a pharmaceutical company, of zero news hits, only a single Scholar hit, and that's just as the manufacturer of a product in a trial (the others are false-positive hits on misscans of "sinecure"), and zero gBooks hits. To double check that this isn't just Google-bias, have run the same search on the Times of India news archive; again, they've never once been mentioned. – iride scent 22:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - non notable company.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, no significant coverage, no notability. First Light (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arusiyyah-Qadiriyyah[edit]

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

This has all the hallmarks of a follower setting out the stall. It lacks sources, is barely comprehensible in parts and contains elements of howto and fairly generic $DOCTRINE. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Half-translated from the Arabic, basically unreadable as it stands. Maybe the comprehensible parts could be merged to Qadiriyyah. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 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 Delete. However, I will userfy it as requested. Shimeru (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Akers[edit]

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

The article gives no indication that Keith Akers meets WP:BIO. There's no indication that he's been the "subject of published secondary source material", that he "has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times", that he "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field", that he "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" or "is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" or "has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", or that his "work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". +An gr 21:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. +An gr 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. +An gr 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is notable as an author according to WP:CREATIVE. The author's published books are well-known and have been the subject of an independent reviews. Moorsmur (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article provides no evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria at WP:CREATIVE, nor do the criteria there say that having one's books be independently reviewed is sufficient. +Angr 21:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The person has created, ... a significant or well-known work, ..., that has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Rich Farmbrough, 09:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - no evidence that as an author he is widely cited, or that his work involves a significant new concept. Sure, what he says might be different, even original, but this falls short of WP:CREATIVE. Just saying "Jesus was a vegetarian" doesn't make you notable. St Anselm (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, not enough sources to assert notability currently, but it could become a good article. I will host it if you wish. Samwb123^{T (R)-C-E} 23:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm torn on this one. His books are published by a legitimate though minor publisher, and he once got quoted in the Washington Post. But I can't find any mainstream reviews of his books, or citations of his work by others. If User:Moorsmur or User:Rich Farmbrough would provide links to three or four of those "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," I could change my opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, I don't think Rich Farmbrough was claiming that such articles or reviews exist, he was merely correcting me regarding what WP:CREATIVE says. +An gr 07:41, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CD Gold 2[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blin Blin Vol. 1[edit]

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

Barely a stub and no assertion of notabliity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 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 Userfied by User:JzG. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Elgamal[edit]

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

Not notable. Possible autobiography. One GNews hit in a local paper. No GBooks/Scholar hits. Most GHits are from self-published or social networking sites. GregJackP (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Millennial Boomer[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEO. Some use on the web (c. 500-600 Google hits), but no clear acceptance or definition. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Everything on Google about this phrase seems to trace back to one person, a marketing consultant named Patty Rappa, who is apparently writing a book about the Millennial Boomer. Maybe if it comes out and becomes a best seller, or puts the phrase on everyone's lips, the article could be recreated. But for now, it's just an expression, and not a very widespread one at that. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 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 redirect to Daniel Berrigan. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berrigan Brothers[edit]

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

Not sure what this is supposed to be, a dab page or just a very short summary of the two articles. —fetch ·comms 20:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It goes to show that fame is fleeting [11], but I think that this should be redirected to Daniel Berrigan (since it can't be redirected to both). Redirects are cheap, and it's a legitimate search term, particularly for people who recall "Berrigan Brothers" but can't tell you what their first names were. I imagine that there are lots of people who don't know that Orville and Wilbur were the first names of the Wright Brothers either. Mandsford 20:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It's a logical search/article term - at least I knew who it was referring to and I'm sure others might search that way. First Light (talk) 05:43, 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. Speedy Keep as nominator has withdrawn and there are no arguments for deletion remaining. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Molecular Matter[edit]

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

Very little information, only one reference and overall, the article is in a complete mess. I'm surprised it wasn't nominated a long time ago. I would withdraw this request if somebody knew about the engines development, license etc. Treylander 20:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References have been added and details of technology have been updated. The article contains as much if not more information than articles about similar physics engines now. Discussion should be marked closed. User:ice99 16:02, 27 May 2010 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.180.30 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: The article still needs some improvement IMO. I suggest keeping the discussion open for now and I will still vote Delete. Treylander 15:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not my field, and I am not a gamer, the article is weak, but a quick google search indicates the technology is real. There are a number of prominent technology partner companies, and it is used (perhaps) widely in the gaming industry. It does not take much effort to locate an abundance of notable sources. Impressive companies have integrated it into their technology offer. I believe the principle holds that if there's good, sourceable, content available, the article should be developed and improved, not deleted.AWHS (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had no problem finding and adding 4 notable refs. to the article. Strong Keep AWHS (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep, this was sent to Afd. This is what there is now. I know think that the article can be kept and therefore, I change my vote to a snow keep as the nominator. Treylander 17:21, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Estes[edit]

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

Prod contested on the basis that mother of the subject was a civil rights leader. Notability is not inherited. Subject fails WP:ATHLETE. GregJackP (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and every other notability guideline. Angryapathy (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's the first contribution from someone new to Wikipedia, and although I appreciate that quite a bit of work has been done on this article, Mr. Estes would not be considered notable (by Wikipedia's rules) as an athlete or a businessman. I know that a click of the random article button can lead to the belief that anyone can qualify as notable, but if an article gets nominated, it comes down to the opinions of the persons who weight in. Mandsford 20:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking non-trivial independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that you should keep this page about Samuel Estes. First of all I do not believe the premise that "notability is not inherited". Everyone in this country knows who Michael Jackson's, Elvis', Brad Pitts', and Will Smith's children are. Why should we not know who Rora Ann Murphy - Estes' children are. Maybe you want this page deleted because you don't know who Rora Ann was and still is to the African American community in and out of North Carolina. Maybe you do know and just don't care!! I do not see what the harm is in keeping th page up. I will tell you this and I do not mean it as a threat, but if this page is deleted you might as well as delete me as an annual patron because I will not be comming back to your website! I am tired of people down playing and wanting to delete major figures in my life and community because they are BLACK!!! Yes I said it! But hey maybe you don't want black people visiting your site anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.242.78 (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —99.67.242.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

See WP:NOTINHERITED in arguments to avoid. BTW, you only get to !vote once, so I have struck the 2nd !keep. GregJackP (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~!Keep~~ I agree with everything that the last person posted on this page. I want to go one step further. Samuel Estes was one heck of a football player. People don't know this but Sam was an honorable mentioned All American his senior year of high school. Why are all of the players in the NFL on Wiki? Because they reached some high level of achievement! Well sorry to let you in on this but Sam reached a high level of achievement himself. He earned a Master's Degree. That might not mean a whole lot to some people, but that means a lot in my community. It gives our youth something and someone to look up to besides Hip Hop Stars and Pro Atheletes. Don't judge this book by the cover, try opening up the book and reading the story before you try and delete this IMPORTANT part of history!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.242.78 (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC) — 99.67.242.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
Comment The two votes above came from the same IP address, and have only made edits to this article. Angryapathy (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The second vote draws on another ATA, VALINFO. RussianReversal (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the two !votes cancel each other out, with one being "Keep" and the other being "!Keep" (that is, "not-keep"), what's the purpose of striking one? Why not just allow the two to void one another? Heather (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not acquainted with that rule of two keeps cancelling out each other. Mandsford 02:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second "keep" had an exclamation point in front of it--thus, "not-keep". Heather (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How bizarre! (and no, I don't mean, "How bizarre-- not.") In three years, I've never seen someone precede their vote with an exclamation point, so I would have been surprised if a new editor had been aware of such a rule. I wasn't surprised that I might have missed it the first time around, since I'm not that observant. I mean this sincerely when I say that I believe you when you say that it's in Wikipedia-- now I know why they call these "!votes"-- but still, don't you think that something like that is idiotic? Anyway, no surprise here, 99.67.242.78 didn't precede his statement with "!" The weird little punctuation was added in by someone else [12], who later (wisely) decided to simply strike the second vote instead. Mandsford 12:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced and written article--so poorly produced that I believe that it does more harm than good. Subject may one day be notable due to any number of activities, but until that happens the decision is clear. Children of notable people are not necessarily notable themselves. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:59, 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 redirect to List_of_characters_in_Elfquest#Glider_Elves. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aroree[edit]

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

This Elfquest character fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is one of the major characters in the ElfQuest universe, so I don't think the article should be deleted. The article might need a rewrite to become acceptable, I would like to hear suggestions to how. --KRISTAGA^α-ω 08:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the article is not that it is poorly written but that the subject is not sufficiently notable to merit an article. Being the most prominent of characters in a franchise does not guarantee this kind of notability; characters who are major within their franchises but are not independently notable include Homestar Runner of Homestar Runner, Ben Matlock of Matlock, and Nemo of Finding Nemo. Neither of those characters have their own articles, and neither of them should. Unless secondary sources can be produced that demonstrate Aroree's independent notability, this article should be deleted. Neelix (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of characters or an article on the series... build up the section in another article and spin it out once it meets WP:N. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:28, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Roving Crows[edit]

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

A "nearly but not yet" band (e.g. no chart hits, first album only just released), article started with an obvious COI. Claims to notability by association from having recorded at the same studio as someone famous, typical resume-padding for this kind of article. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, plain and simple. Angryapathy (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 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. No consensus to delete. The cheap shots at the nominator were not necessary. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to reply here for your comments. I didn't get any other means to reply you. There were not any cheap shots at the nominator in the discussion. The nominator had used cheap words to describe the article. If you are supporting him, then I will decide you are also of the same kind. (Kannadakumara (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Karnataka State Film Awards[edit]

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

These are awards which apply only to one state in India. The article has no sources. The text reads largely as personal opinion, in as much as there is any text. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This one state in India has a larger population than Spain, Argentina, South Africa, South Korea, Australia or Canada (I think I've covered all the continents there), so the weasel-word "only" in the nomination is clearly inappropriate. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Karnataka is a state of 52.8 million people. Salih (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - A state in India is not comparable to a state in say America or Canada. India is a federation of ethnic/linguistic states. There at atleast seven major regional language film industries in India of which Bollywood is the biggest and most well known. For the rest of regional language film industries (all huge and release hundreds of films every year), it is the state that is the highest award giver. There is a National film award in India, but it awards only one award in the best film category for every language. Thus State Film Awards are the highest awards for the specific language films. Thus Karnataka's film industry's highest awards are Karnataka State Film Awards. And as Phil Bridger points out Karanataka is a huge state with about 70 million population now. Same is the case for Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Bengali, Marathi, Bhojpuri film industries as well. Hope we can rest the case here and not question the notability of the state awards of all these as well.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film industry here is a cheap clone of Bollywood and the article on the industry is peppered with redlinks and questionable notability. This seems to be a discussion about where notability-by-inheritance runs out. USA is notable, president of USA is notable, president os USA's dog is probably not notable, president's dog's vet definitely not. That kind of thing. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

huh? cheap clone of Bollywood?. That article is in a bad shape yes. But that doesnt mean that the subject of the article is not notable. Look regional film industries are big in India. This is not the President of US of A's dog's vet case. To give a better analogy, if the European Union become a single political entity, you can't say that for all EU there should be only one "film award" article. The highest awards for French Films, German Films, Spanish Films will all be equally notable. Same as the case of India. Every regional film industry in India is different and unique. You are comparing a state with 70 million population and its film industry that churns out a hundred films a year, with a revenue of hundreds of crores of Rupees with the American President's dog and his vet?. Even if you are not swayed by the "notability" argument, there is the case of WP:GNG. The links i have added are from Indian mainstream newspapers with circulation in millions. --Sodabottle (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's ignorance, and his refusal to recognise it, are breathtaking. Who needs vandals when we have administrators with such a mission to destroy? So the premier awards of a film industry with an audience of dozens of millions of brown people are to be equated with the vet of the dog of the president of a Western nation? Shame on you. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added reliable sources now.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though the article is currently just a stub, it certainly meets notability criteria and must not be deleted. Shivashree (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the nom has mistaken a notable film award for the USA President's dog's vet. Salih (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. "Needs cleanup" or "Needs sources" is not same as "Needs deletion" -- appropriate maintenance templates can be used instead. Over 8000 Google results excluding Wikipedia mirrors -- many more can be found in Kannada language sources. Kannada speakers number over 35 million, and the Kannada film industry is quite notable, at least in India. utcursch | talk 14:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Repeated and significant coverage in mainstream India newspapers means keep. First Light (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this guy don't know about anything related to India. First of all I want to know whats the purpose to delete a article which has created just before 1 week or 1 month. A single person can't edit with full details. Please go through the links given in the article. So you can understand the purpose of the article. I think you are not eligible for wiki. Please quit and save our time. And please give me details about higher authorities to complain about you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.242.47 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil and dont make any personal threats. We are here to discuss this thing rationally. Not threaten others. This is not how wikipedia works. If you want to prove the nom wrong, edit the article and make it better.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not threatening any one. You know? he has nominated and deleted one of my article within one day after I have created it. I am not an expert in editing wikipedia, so I need more time to complete a article with more details. If anybody delete the article without any notice, we have to write everything from the begining. Is it not waste of time?. OK when will this resolve?. Who will come to remove the notice in the article?. Shall I remove? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannadakumara (talk • contribs) 17:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No dont remove the notice. This discussion will be closed in seven days (around 2 june) from the initiation. It looks like the article will be kept. The editor closing the discussion will remove the notice as well. In the meanwhile you can edit the article - the afd notice does not prevent us from editing it.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK :) (Kannadakumara (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Comparing this to the vet of a President's dog? And we wonder why editors leave Wikipedia. —SpacemanSpiff 09:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Per minimal WP:AFTER, notability in India and in an Indian state of 52.8 million is plenty notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 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 keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Paterson[edit]

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

Article concerning an author of children's books, which does not seem to meet WP:AUTHOR. I can't find any sources which provide enough coverage to verify any of the biographical claims of the article, or (surprisingly) any reviews of his work. Claritas (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the orginator of the page. If you do a Google search on 'Foxwood Tales' you will find over 10,000 references. They mostly relate to legacy items that reflect the huge merchandising industry that grew up around the stories. These stories dominated the children's book market in the mid and late 1980s. They pre-dated the Internet and are currently out of print, which may explain why you have not easily found a review. At the time the works were favourably compared to those of Beatrix Potter. Brian Paterson certainly has a major place in the history of children's books and the works may well be 're-discovered' in the future.Tomintoul (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits doesn't demonstrate notability : see WP:GHITS. Claritas (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a one-paragraph review here. Someone might want to ask a children's librarian for help locating one or more reviews from sources not available for free online. The licensing agent claims that "The Foxwood Tales series has sold over 1.3 million copies worldwide and published in 18 countries," so it ought to be possible to find some documentation of this. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WorldCat Identities listing gives 119 works in 239 publications in 16 languages and 4,644 library holdings. Scroll down to any of the Foxwood titles and you will see multiple editions and languages listed. Subject clearly meets WP:GNG. I've added the Children's Literature Project template to the talk page and posted a note at the Project suggesting that someone there takes an interest. The article needs expansion and proper references, not deletion. Given that it has only just been created, it seems premature to send it to AfD.--Plad2 (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly seem like a very notable author of children's books based on both Zigby and Foxwood Tales. These are fairly popular series, with the occasional review. First Light (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plad2, can you point out the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to me ? There's significant coverage on his work, but not on him, and notability is not automatically inherited. Claritas § 12:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Claritas, I do not understand why you are so keen on deleting this, all Plad2's points are well made. How can an author not be notable if he is extensively published? The lack of online reviews reflect the fact that Foxwood had its heyday in the 1980s before the age of the web.Tomintoul (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An author is notable, if they have had significant coverage in reliable sources, or meet any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR, not simply if they have been extensively published. Claritas § 18:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is some coverage that points to notability: Australian network TV series on Zigby, based on the books by Brian Paterson[13] ; same in Canada, "based on the bestselling book series by Brian Paterson"[14] ; book review in the Liverpool Echo[15] ; article mostly about Paterson, along with his creation Zigby, who is "starring in a BBC series"[16]. And multiple independent reviews of his work (by Publisher's Weekly, School Library Journal, The Horn Book Magazine review, Kirkus Reviews).[17][18] First Light (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Plad2. Authors who are listed extensively in important databases are invariably notable, even for kids' books. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 3 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. No prejudice to recreation if sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Newton Kinity[edit]

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

On the heels of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diaspora Movement of Kenya & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robinson Gichuhi, this is the bio of a non-notable individual. The article lists a series of public service jobs and I haven't found any evidence that Mr. Kinity has achieved any noteworthy coverage for claims as diverse as "elected Secretary of the Undergraduate Student Government Association" or "Mr. Kinity also wrote a letter to the United States Congress [and others]...His contribution was acknowledged and had an impact on the debate and hence halted the privatization of Social Security" or the various alleged threats on his life. The bio reads more like self-promotion.— Scientizzle 19:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted[edit]

This article and other articles were meant to detail certain bio or historical events and not intended to be self-promoting articles. We are re-writing them for re-submission. Kenyaverification (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever the article is "meant" to do, it is about as unambiguously promotional as any I have seen for a long time. The whole thing is designed to promote a person and a point of view. I am not sure how anyone can write such things as the following and not see that they are promotional:

"...a relentless human rights activist who will stop at nothing while demanding justice"
"Their mission to threaten Mr. Kinity to submission and layoff of the demands on the government were unsuccessful. Mr. Kinity, as usual, did not let up."
"Advocacy by sincerely patriotic persons is seen as the key since they (patriotic) Kenyans, are apt to safeguard the country's interest. At the end of this debate, active participation becomes the key word."

and so on and so on... The whole article is written in this spirit. However, before Kenyaverification (and whoever else is included in "we") spends time on rewriting for resubmission I suggest reading WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, because no matter how much an article is rewritten it is likely to be deleted if the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria.

At present the sourcing of the article is totally inadequate. Most of the citations given do not support the statements to which they are attached, or do not mention Kinity, or both. For example, we have the statement that he is a member of "Kenya Community Abroad", but the reference is simply an external link to the web site of that organisation, and does not confirm that Kinity is a member of it. In fact scarcely any of the content is actually cited to sources, and even less content about Isaac Newton Kinity is sourced. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This will need some major rewriting to be acceptable. I think the subject is probably notable, but if so there ought to be some actual 3rd party sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while the current article is a mess, Kinity seems to have some notability as a labor union leader, shown by the newspaper article image. Huon (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you're referring to the claim, "Secretary General of the Kenya Civil Servants Union in the period 1995 through 1998"? I tried to find good sources on that. This source discusses the President Moi's deregistering of the Kenya Civil Servants Union, its restart, and subsequently Moi's rescinding of the approval. This might be useful, but it's behind a subscriber wall. I'll keep looking. — Scientizzle 16:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two articles may exist behind this subscriber wall (one is probably a repeat of one mentioned immediately above). — Scientizzle 16:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was referring to this image, which seems to be a reproduction of a 1997 newspaper article mentioning Kinity as secretary-general of the Kenya Civil Servants Union. While I wonder whether the image's licensing is correct, we don't require our sources to be available online, and the November 9, 1997 edition of the Sunday Nation seems a reliable source we could use. Huon (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article linked by Huon does indeed mention Kinity as the interim secretary-general, and gives a few sentences about things he had said about the issue which is the topic of the article. However, I cannot see that this can possibly be regarded as substantial coverage of Kinity. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obviously promotional and lacks sources devoted to the subject. There's an outside chance he's notable, and I'd acknowledge that if this were written in neutral fashion from reliable, independent sources providing in-depth coverage of Kinity, but we may as well scrap this version. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability has been found. The only "keep" is based on one newspaper article in which Kinity is mentioned but not given significant coverage. DGG says "I think the subject is probably notable", and he may well be right, which is why I did not say "delete" earlier: I was willing to allow time for sources to be found. However, they haven't been found, and we can't presume notability without evidence. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 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) 02:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Hilton III[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR, and not otherwise notable per WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What the article refers to as the subject's most popular book appears to be very limited in its distribution ( approximately 10 hits, via Google ) and to have received no coverage in secondary sources independent of the publisher. And although he completed his Ph.D. last month, I see no evidence that he's a professor at BYU, as was claimed in a previous version of the article. A 2008 Mormon Times article about him (same publisher as his books, Deseret) introduces him as a "religious instructor" and "religious educator". Ohiostandard (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as an academic or as an author. No reliable sources about him as an individual. He only just got his PhD. His articles at Google Scholar are not cited by others. His books do not seem to be generally available, and Google references to them are totally incestuous, copied from each other. --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ohiostandard. Where is the source for the claim that the book in question is his "most popular book", anyway? Stonemason89 (talk) 20:39, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linux For You[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. Despite being over four years old, the article has only two refs - the website for the publication itself and one RedHat interview that just mentions the magazine in passing. With no indication at all of notability the article seems to be nothing more than spam. Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The references currently listed on the article are not sufficient to demonstrate notability, but doing a brief search, I see several others that could be included: [19], [20], [21], [22]. Neelix (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you can find refs then by all means feel free to add them to the article . I have reviewed the four you list above and they are only the very briefest mentions in passing and don't establish notability. - Ahunt (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not satisified with the ones I listed above, here are some more: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], and [32]. This is a notable publication. Neelix (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a claim to notability in the article, which really should have been followed up on prior to nomination here per Neelix. AfD is not cleanup; most of our free software articles have serious notability problems in their present state, but not always because they aren't notable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with above. A more thorough check should have been done WP:BEFORE condemning this article to deletion. -- œ ^™ 08:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all of the references supplied seem to be trivial mentions. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the sources presented, the Linux Journal source is all about an expo organised by the magazine and the Indian Television source suggests that the magazine is responsible for the largest Linux lab in India. That's at least a demonstration that the subject has had a notable impact, with what seems to have been a very quick search for references. It is perhaps worth considering upmerging to Electronics For You (the parent publication, which also has a non-article at this point) until better referencing can be found for both. It's really a pity that we don't have a task force for finding references in local-language sources for this kind of thing, because this is an identifiable gap in our global coverage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This magazine is popular in India, as it is unique in serving Free software space. It's frequent update through CDs reach lot of users across India. Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References in the sources given by Neelix show notability. First Light (talk) 06:05, 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) 02:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magna Publishing Group[edit]

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

Article does not appear to meet requirements of WP:ORG. While a number of google results are returned, they appear to be small contact profiles with little or no information on the company itself (other then phone number, address, etc.) and some or all may have been created by the company itself. A google news search returns 1 result in the past ten years. ialsoagree (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of any significant coverage in any reliable sources. EuroPride (talk) 08:45, 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 SNOW delete Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish pacifists, peace activists and supporters ‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Jewish pacifists, peace activists and supporters

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

Unreferenced page for over a year. Does not seem to list any criteria for being included, and what would the criteria be? For example, Norman Finkelstein is not a peace activist under my definition of the term. He has been known to support Palestinian causes (including terrorist organizations, which isn't very peaceful, in my opinion), but so what? Unless someone can clarify and clean up this article, it's not helpful to the encyclopedia as currently constituted. Enigma^msg 17:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not referenced, but even if it was, this is a list of persons who are described as "peace activists" and who also happen to be Jewish, and it's an intersection of two unrelated qualities (I'd analogize it to a list of Roman Catholic NRA members). As Enigma Man points out, it really comes down to a point of view of whether someone is a "pacifist" or is supporting "peace". I'd add that "activist" is also a judgment call. Mandsford 21:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP applies to lists that include living persons per WP:Source list so all claims would have to be sourced, and not all sources that use the word pacifist might have the same definition. Peace activist is also broad. Everyone could be potential peace activist even Carl von Clausewitz. On the other side; is it supposed to be Jews in general, Israelites, only people who practice Judaism, self identified people? It's just the intersection of two random criteria. The first section of Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia is Lists are not a place to make value judgements of people or organizations. Any criteria that would sufficiently define this list to a single topic would have to be arbitrary to the point of making a value judgement.--Savonneux (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, serious BLP implications from the lack of citations. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of references, and lack of any real definition of who should be included ("supporters"?) First Light (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no inherent or other connection between being "Jewish" and a "pacifist" or "peace activist" or of a "supporter" of such things which is not defined here whether it includes "Jewish" or "non-Jewish" "supporters" therefore making this list very poorly thought through, see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:LISTCRUFT. IZAK (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 02:49, 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 List of dog hybrids. JohnCD (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ShiChi[edit]

Made up dog breed. Several deletion precedents for similar "designer dog" pages Rootsie (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is pure (and lengthy) WP:Original Research. The sole reliable mention of this cross I could find is Dogs by Design: How to Find the Right Mixed Breed for You‎ by Ilene Hochberg 2007 in which it looks like the author is listing crosses and their names without any analysis. Does the nominator have a preferred redirect target? Abductive (reasoning) 18:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Any relevant information needs to be merged into List of dog hybrids. Miyagawa (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect There are an almost infinite number of combinations of dog breeds along with made-up portmanteau names. Suggest redirect rather than merge because if even a portion of them are included the page will be huge. Thanks 64.5.236.254 (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of web links, but I couldn't find a single Reliable Source on this. The article certainly doesn't have any. First Light (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This particular cross is not notable. None of the information in the article is confirmed by secondary sources, and List of dog hybrids already has an entry for it. Abductive (reasoning) 08:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of dog hybrids. Article lacks multiple reliable sources to establish notability of this crossbreed. Coaster1983 (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP 'There is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. '--From Wikipedia's "What Wikipedia Is Not" section. Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia.

I would like to improve this page and of course, and would prefer not to remove it. Therefore, I humbly request your help to better this page and make it a coherent and viable article.

As far as the comment about an "infinite number of names for crosses": There are not an infinite number of crosses. There are not really a "nearly infinite" number of crosses unless one's definition of "nearly infinite" is somewhere close to 50. Simply because there are many of a type of things does not mean lumping them all together into one instead of defining each is the best way to understand them. There are several "varieties" of humans, yet we bother to distinguish between Canadian, American, and Hispanic, though you can find all of them on one continent, and they are all one species. Even within American, we distinguish between New Yorker and Californian and Texan, because the backgrounds and sometimes the thought processes and behaviors and even the way people look due to the way they dress, is different. Even amongst people in one state, there are other classification systems in place based on a whole plethora of information. These classification systems give us some information about the individual at hand. I believe that information about something is good, as long as the information is reliable; I think that ShiChi is a useful classification because the health and personality issues associated with ShiChis come from their Shih-Tzu and Chihuahuan parents, and that their particular quirks are rather different from say, a Labrador x Poodle crossbred's.

While it may become more cumbersome to figure out a ShiChi x Maltipoo, there are certain names to the offspring of purebreds. Maltese x Poodle = Maltipoo, for example, not "Pootese". Similar rules apply with the naming of other purebred x purebred dogs.

On verification of the name for this particular type of cross...A ShiChi is a crossbreed and it exists and is recognized by the International Designer Canine Registry http://www.designercanineregistry.com I'm not entirely sure what you would like as evidence? There are PureX, PureY, but when you mix the two, you no longer have PureX or PureY and so it cannot be called either anymore, but a XYMix. If it is traditionally called an XYMix and you even managed to find it listed as XYMix in a book, then is XYMix not sufficient? An XYMix is still different from an ABMix in phenotype and historical origin. http://wapedia.mobi/en/Crossbreed

ShiChis are not a "madeup dog breed." It is a term to further specify within the general group of "dog." If you are going by a biological definition only, the purebred dogs are not a different species from any other dogs; they can still mate and produce viable offspring with any other type of dog; therefore they are one species. The "breeds" of dogs that people classify things as are just that; classification. Even within "purebred" there are "standard" and "toy" poodles, because the classification system is trying to describe something. The same with the classification of designer dogs; a Maltipoo looks very different from a Snorkie and behaves quite differently.

I will try to shorten and clean up the article, but I need suggestions on what parts to clear up. I would like help and ideas on how to improve this article.

None of this is original research in that I did not synthesize ideas that were not already in books or on AKC sites or other official websites. The only "original" thing is possibly the interviews, but those I still have notes on and can give you the word for word responses if you'd like, along with the questions. I just didn't add those as attachments because I'm not sure how to tack on notebook paper attachments or where I'd put them exactly.

If what you mean is I need to specify which reference source gave which piece of information, I haven't done that yet because I don't really know how to make the little numbered buttons appear. I don't know what the tiny number things are called, so am not sure how to look it up to make it right.

On notability of the crossbreed: If it was on the list of hybrids, why is it not notable? This crossbreed is unlikely to disappear because it is the F1 generation of two very old lines, and as long as those two breeds exist, it is likely that there will continue to be ShiChis in the future. So, this information is not just a passing thing. Oh! Also, I am the article's starter? (was told to put this somewhere but not sure where)

Kelidimari ^Talk^♂

Keep. This article simply needs to be revised for content. There is valuable and pertinent information contained within.Garyjwu (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)— Garyjwu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I recently adopted a ShiChi puppy. This article was very helpful in understanding this specific breed as I begin to nurture and care for my puppy. Renizenz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC). — Renizenz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete or redirect. I very much regret the vote, since the article's creator obviously put a lot of work into it and tried hard to do everything right with respect to Wikipedia's polices. It's a strong attempt coming from someone with limited experience in article creation. Unfortunately, the cross fails to meet Wikipedia's rather exacting notability standards: I searched multiple proprietary databases (GeneralOneFile, ProQuest, etc.) that collectively reference over 100,000,000 mostly offline articles from magazines, newspaper, etc. and found not even a single reference to this named cross, despite using several different search strings to do so. I think, in this case, that we have no choice but to congratulate the author on a very fine effort, hope the experience won't discourage her (him?) from creating more articles in the future, and suggest that she carefully review notability and reliable source standards before choosing another topic for an article. Ohiostandard (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think google is one of the largest or most commonly used search engines out there?...If you go to google.com and type in "shichi" you will obtain approximately 804,000 results. How is it not notable at all if there are that many sites on it? Puggles are similar, with about 500,000 results. "Dalmation" pulls up about 830,000. I read over the section about notability, but do not see why a breed is not notable when it is not something that will vanish anytime soon, and when there are quite a lot of results for the breed on google. I'm not sure what a propretary database is, nor have I heard of GeneralOneFile or ProQuest. So, I'm not sure what to make of it when you tell me that you can't find information on ShiChi on those.Kelidimari (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I understand what you're saying, Kelidimari, although I note that if you perform a google search that excludes words like "t-shirt", "for sale", "cafepress", "zazzle", (to exclude coffee mugs and such for sale, and the numerous puppy breeders who are offering the dogs) and "Japan" (it's evidently a prominent family name or something in Japan), etc. that you'll find you get around 4,000 hits, and that only the first five or six pages of those results relate to the dog. Further, the remaining hits that do apply to the dog are almost all things like blog comments about someone's pet, which aren't admissable on Wikipedia to establish notability.

What's needed are articles in which the ShiChi cross is the primary subject, published by independent, well-established news/media/publishing outlets that meet Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source. I repeat that I'm sorry about it, but whether the breed is popular has no bearing at all on its notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. That popularity has to translate into articles from reliable sources on the breed. Finally, the proprietary databases I mentioned above are fee-based indexes that have been created by private companies of pretty much every newspaper or magazine article that's been written in English, sometimes going back 50 or more years, but more typically 20 or so years. Reference librarians use them all the time and ( if you have a library card for any large public or University library system) you can probably access them yourself, at no charge, starting from your library's web pages.

Wikipedia's admittedly rather exacting definition of what constitutes "notability", and the principle that notability only derives from a particular kind of media source trips up almost all first attempts to create an article. It's the main reason that the great majority of first-attempt articles end up being deleted, eventually. I'm sorry your article got caught up in that very common misunderstanding; it's not your fault, of course, i.e. it's natural to think that something that's reasonably popular would be "notable", but that's just not so with respect to Wikipedia. I'll not reply further here, since it's not the best place for such an extended discussion, but I'd be glad to briefly point you to more info if you post a query on your talk page, where I've already posted a related comment. Best, Ohiostandard (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure what people are asking for, I guess. Are you asking for something that is in say, a journal, a book, something that could go into a research paper, which states what?... That ShiChis are a breed? There will not be that, because they are not a breed, nor am I claiming that they are a breed. Or, is it that you're asking I find something that is published that includes ShiChis? What if it is intermingled with other puppies? Is that ok? And if so, how many sources do you need that list ShiChis explicitly? I'm just not entirely sure what it is you are asking for, and also I do not believe there are many books that cover non-pure-breds to begin with, because purebreds are the more easily identifiable. Kelidimari (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links that will help you over time with editing Wikipedia. This article breaks most/all of these policies:

WP:Verify, WP:Reliable Sources, WP:Original Research, WP:External Links, WP:Notability, WP:Notamanual

Before writing an article, you'll find it helpful to read WP:Your first article.

You'll find that the responsibility is mostly on you to learn Wikipedia policies, though most editors are happy to answer specific questions once someone has familiarized themselves with those policies. I also think that this article reads more like a how-to or a blog post. I suggest that you copy and paste it to your computer - that way if it's deleted here, you can make it into a blog post. You've obviously worked hard on it, and if you posted it as a blog somewhere, then you could still point other ShiChi fans to it. First Light (talk) 15:19, 3 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whidden Hall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm nominating this for deletion because it is completely uncited, refers to living people. The article is skimpy at best. In addition, at least half of the article refers to a dormitory cheers in language that appears to be patent nonsense. I originally used the PROD template, but an IP user deleted it without improving the article, and I was advised to follow this route.Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Everything is "rumored" and "purported" and "said to be." My kingdom for one valid footnote... Carrite (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article appears to be based (mostly) on this Easter Egg (!!!) post here (reliability?) and the university's webpage here, which one hopes is reliable. My interpretation of this is that we should incorporate the reliable information from the university site into the university's article and delete this one. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, initially everything was stated as "fact" and the article was listed in an old clean up for the Guild of Copy Editors. I added "purported" "rumored" etc. because nothing was cited and several of the people mentioned in the article are living. I've added one sentence to the university article re Whidden Hall, and cited it to the University website. Otherwise, I doubt there is anything in this article that survives notability, much less reliable source test. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a fun article to read, but all the fun stuff is unverified and some of it is demonstrably false. For instance, it claims John Candy as one of the party-hearty types, but biographies of John Candy say nothing about him having attended McMaster. The legend that Whidden inspired Animal House is widespread on the net but, again, unverified. At best it may have been one of several inspirations in the lives of several of the writers. "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story" is a good attitude for storytelling, but not for an encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slimband[edit]

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

unreferenced promotional article; I deleted via speedy but the contributor has asked for a review. The nearest thing I can find to a usable reference is [33], in a newspaper but appears a reprint of their press release . Perhaps someone can find better. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt- non-notable (no coverage outside self-published sources) and promotional. Reposted and speedily deleted multiple times. Claritas (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - same reason as above. Article started as promotional article and has not improved much. Netalarmpoke 17:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adjustable gastric band and full-protect the redirect. The page is nothing more than an advert for a specific brand of gastric band. --Orlady (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be an inappropriate redirect per WP:REDIRECT#DELETE - A redirect may be deleted] "if the redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam." I don't see "slimband" being a plausible search term, seeing the company's lack of notability, so I'm still strongly in favour of deletion. Claritas (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion was inspired by the fact that I didn't know what the generic term for this kind of band is, but found the appropriate article largely because "Lap Band" and "Lap-band" both redirect to adjustable gastric band. "Lap-Band", is a registered trademark for a particular brand of gastric band, and is identified in that article as an alternative term for the topic. If one brand name for this product redirects to that article, shouldn't competing brand names also direct there? --Orlady (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not necessarily, it appears that lap-band, despite being an actual brand, is also a common name for the procedure: 1, 2, 3 and others confirm this assessment and can be found with a google search of "adjustable gastric band" (without quotes). None of these sites appear to be affiliated with the brand lap-band either. So the redirect for lap-band makes sense because the procedure could easily be confused with this term, and doesn't serve as promotion for the brand. Maintaining this article, based on lack of notoriety, seems like it would serve primarily to promote the product. Further, the argument to redirect seems to be a WP:WAX argument. As was stated previously by Claritas, people aren't likely to search for something that is not well known to begin with. Lap-band is well known (if not for being a product, than for being a common nickname for the procedure), slimband doesn't share this justification for being a redirect. ialsoagree (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like promotional material to me... I can find nothing to support notability for this specific brand. I note that Adjustable gastric band has a section for specific trade names, all of which are well referenced, so if citations can be found perhaps an appropriate sentence could be added to that article. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:21, 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} 15:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All time highest gross receipts at the Malayalam box office[edit]

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

Unreliable and unnecessary page. Sreejith K (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Unreliable? Yes, because it's unsourced, although it easily could be. But unnecessary? Why is that? I think that the idea is a list of the most popular (in terms of revenues) films where the dialogue is in the Malayalam language (spoken in India and understood by "only" 35,000,000 people), and it's a natural spinoff from Malayalam cinema. If no sources are added, I won't care if it's deleted, since I've not got the time nor the interest in doing the necessary work. Mandsford 21:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Such a list can never be sourced consistently, because Indian film companies dont give out correct gross or net numbers. Different newspapers/magazines will put out different numbers (one will say the film was a hit and others will say it was a flop).--Sodabottle (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sodabottle. Unmaintainable list due to lack of reliable sourcing. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 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 disambiguate. JohnCD (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire derby[edit]

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

Fails notability because there is no single "Lancashire derby". There are a number of teams in Lancashire, and while the East Lancashire derby and West Lancashire derby are both notable rivalries, this one is not. Furthermore, Wigan Athletic did not become a league club until the late 1970s, by which time Bolton and Wigan were both part of Greater Manchester, so the term "Lancashire derby" would never have applied, even historically. Jameboy (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thinking about it, Lancashire derby should be a disambiguation page for East Lancashire derby and West Lancashire derby, as well as mentioning that it could be applied as a general term for a match between any two teams that are or were in Lancashire. --Jameboy (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate into East Lancashire derby and West Lancashire derby, as suggested by the nominator. Giant Snowman 18:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should these even disambiguate into East Lancs and West Lancs? If all we have is a one liner saying this is a derby between Wigan and Bolton does it deserve an article or should it just be relegated into Local derbies in the United Kingdom. NtheP (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per nom. I'm a Bolton fan but even I can't find a good reason to keep this. On the other hand it's a valid enough search term that a disambig page feels like a good idea. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some results —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muur (talk • contribs) 20:21, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Morass[edit]

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

(No CSD reason for movies?) This nomination is based on complete lack of external sources (as well as seemingly no relevant google hits) and no indication of its importance. This doesn't ultimately read like WP:ADVERT but there seems to be no valid third-party source about this movie. The only link is from BritFilms.com, but it just lists the movie: no reviews, interviews, etc. Just a complete lack of notability. — Timneu22 · talk 16:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TOOSOON. This film-in-progress currently fails WP:NF.[34] Consider recreation if or when it can meet guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls way short of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, lack of source and falls way short of notability. --MovieMayhem (talk) 2 June 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Teaser trailers are about - but WP:CRYSTAL is still applicable as it wasn't produced by Polanski starring Winslet (or similar). (How do you do a trailer for something shot in five days?) No-budget? Who pays for the electricity? References: discount the official site; the two van Ommen links give a one sentence mention. Come back when (if) it's a runaway hit or a 10 year old underground cult. Peridon (talk) 21:44, 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 Delete. I'll userfy it for the author and coach a bit, since it looks like nobody answered his question. Shimeru (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modelio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely no indication of the topic's importance. Possibly some google hits but hard to find third-party, non-trivial coverage; also, no third-party non-trivial coverage included in the article. This article, based on its stable release from last week and the three links (support, official website twice) smells an awful lot like WP:ADVERT. It may be notable, but there are no links here to prove it. — Timneu22 · talk 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that this could be ((db-g4)), however it's not clear to me what the previous content was. Was it significantly rewritten? I did add the g4 tag so someone else can make the g4 determination or not. — Timneu22 · talk 16:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last stable release dates from last week but this tool exists since last year. A list of releases has been added. A Modelio article has been deleted last year because it was a new tool. Now it is more and more used. If I understand, references to sites talking about this tool must be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.166.85.10 (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you indicate me how to improve this article? I don't know content what the previous version was. Should I remove features list? Should I keep introduction text only? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titchagui (talk • contribs) 08:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reliable third-party sources are not provided and cannot be found. Article is promotional in tone and intent. Abductive (reasoning) 04:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hallowell[edit]

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

Blogger lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is the case -- a simple Google search shows he's widely recognized. Also, there are NYTimes articles (among other outlets) documenting some other controversies, etc. Hallowell is widely mentioned. Again, do a Google search. - Amanda

Comment – There is a difference between "non-trivial" coverage and just being mentioned. Please see WP:BIO and reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, where do you see "non-trivial"? Hallowell has bios on The Huffington Post, Big Journalism, Big Government, etc. There are NY Times stories written exclusively about him as well. What is your/Wikipedia's definition of "non-trivial?" Again, he writes for prominent outlets and is a columnist. Don't get your thought process here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandastone (talk • contribs) 22:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A paragraph or two quick bio is trivial, a quote or two in an article not about him is trivial, his name on a list of columnists is trivial. If there are NYTimes articles about him (not just articles that mention him in passing) they should be added to the article. Writing "for prominent outlets and is a columnist" is not part of the criteria in WP:BIO to establish notability. ttonyb (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 16:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not everyone who writes for a living is notable, and there is nowhere near enough reliable sourcing about this guy to qualify him. Sources cited are peripheral at best, some are a real stretch. Example: a cited CBS News story about an open letter about the presidential debates; Hallowell's only connection is that he was one of several dozen people who signed the letter. --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor player with mentions but no secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 04:09, 4 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) 02:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rouss[edit]

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

Non-notable band that appears to be unsigned. None of the albums listed (or the compilation they appeared on) appear to be notable either. Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only self-released. Geschichte (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. However, I note that, as it stands, this article is almost an exact recreation of information present in the director's article. Unless this article can be developed in a separate direction using the sources at hand, a redirect might be the best option for now. Shimeru (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I went ahead and edited the articles a bit to differentiate them. They needed the cleanup anyway. Merge can still be discussed, of course. Shimeru (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cul-de-sac 2010[edit]

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

No indication whatsoever that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NF. This article was speedied once, and PROD'd twice, but an IP user removed the prod tags. Time to just take to AFD. — Timneu22 · talk 14:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The single reference, despite being from a notable source, makes only a trivial mention to the film at best. There doesn't seem to be an ImDB entry for it either, and a google search seems to only produce hits for the 1966 Cul-de-Sac. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I googled the name kiana firouz (The subject of the film) and found several pages about her and quite a few of these reference the movie.

Thediva (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind per Thediva: Keep. The Kiana Firouz article has several references which appear to make reference to the film, which could benefit this article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note though, I'm not sure of the convention here, but I think the article should be moved: perhaps "Cul-de-sac (2010 film)" would be more suitable? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this case, as the film title appears to be Cul-de-sac 2010.[35] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake, sorry. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a sensible question to ask. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but consider Merge with Kiana Firouz. There are plenty of sources available (see that article), but I don't think there's a need for two articles here on the same topic - the film arguably isn't notable independent of its filmmaker, and vice versa. Robofish (talk) 14:37, 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) 02:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Hallam Warriors[edit]

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

Not notable. British University sports teams are rarely notable within their own institution never mind in the wider world. Sheffield Hallam Warriors do not appear to be one of the mere handful of exceptions to this rule. A search for any mention on the Internet returns only sites directly related to the team and its rivals. Those who are unsure of the level of interest in the team might like to check the team's Flickr stream noting the number spectators at their matches. Article is also completely unreferenced. Given the lack of independent sources on the team, I don't see any prospect that the article can be referenced. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This team, like others recently nominated, does not appear to be one of the very few UK university sports teams that meet our notability criteria. Pfainuk talk 18:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability standards.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's only a few notable uni teams in the United Kingdom. This isn't one of them. (Especially since a Google search only brings up their pages and those of their rivals.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BNU Buccaneers[edit]

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

Not notable. British university sports teams for mainstream British sports are rarely notable even within their own institution, never mind in the real world. This team isn't one of the mere handful of exceptions to this rule. A quick google returns nothing beyond sites related to the team's rivals (the team doesn't appear to have it own site). Article is also unreferenced. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's very rare for a British university sports team to be notable, and like other university American football teams recently nominated, this one does not appear to be an exception to this rule. Pfainuk talk 18:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, no article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's only a few notable uni teams in the United Kingdom. This isn't one of them. (Especially since a Google search only brings up their pages and those of their rivals.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Olaf Davis (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoodyBurrett[edit]

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

Salt requested. This version of this page has been speedy deleted twice and has now reappeared a third time. A prior version, GoodyBurrett LLP, had to be salted after similar behavior. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - page speedy deleted and salted by sysop while AfD nomination was in progress. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Jeon Moo Sool[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 22nd April 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been tagged since 2007 for no sources, notability, clean-up, and COI. I can't find any independent sources about this art. Astudent0 (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has a lot of problems. The biggest issue is that I couldn't find 3rd party sources to show notability. I'm a bit confused because I found a site that described this art as over 70 years old, but the article says the art was founded in 1972. Papaursa (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. Janggeom (talk) 05:24, 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) 02:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hinigaran Arnis de Mano[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 22nd April 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article and I can't find independent sources that show this style is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not evident, nor could I find third party sources. This appears to be another martial art "created" by combining existing arts. Doesn't seem to pass WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. Janggeom (talk) 05:23, 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) 02:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto (Gil) Diaz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 22nd April 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable kickboxer. I can't find independent sources and he fails WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been deleted two years ago on a first nom.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability and has almost no ghits, if you remove "Van Damme" from the search. Papaursa (talk) 18:27, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gajanand Rajput[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 22nd April 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no evidence that shows this person passes WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find sources to show subject meets WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 18:25, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fu Wing Fay[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 22nd April 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I see in the article are references to family members. Notability is not inherited. No verifiable claims of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent sources that show notability. Every mention, both in my search and the article, focuses on family connections. Papaursa (talk) 15:47, 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 redirect to List of numbered roads in Oxford County. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford County Road 35[edit]

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

A non-notable unsourced road article. No prejudice against recreation with a proper intersection table (per WP:RJL) and infobox, and some sources. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'll confess that I would be prejudiced against having an article about every five kilometer long "numbered road" in the world, regardless of whatever notability guidelines may have been concocted in the name of entitlement to its own special little page. Mention the damn thing in a list of roads in Oxford County, Ontario. Mandsford 21:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many Ontario roads have long detailed histories that date back to colonial times. If a sourced history is possible, why is it less notable than any other topic that is covered by reliable sources? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because nearly everything has been "covered by reliable sources", and Wikipedia is not a directory of "everything that exists or has existed". Some roads are notable (I didn't see anything about county road 35 dating back to colonial times), but most are here because of the attitude of entitlement that typified Wikipedia in its early years of building. When people started making thousands of little stubby articles about their favorite things-- roads, Pokemon characters, TV episodes, athletes, bus routes, airplane incidents, etc-- there was a backlash against the product of unreasonable expectations, and people are starting to question things that were once taken for granted. Mandsford 01:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The base of notability is coverage by multiple reliable, preferably secondary, sources. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but don't forget the first part of WP:N which is that it's not just coverage, it's "significant coverage". If someone can find a newspaper article, section of a book, etc. that describes the significance (as opposed to merely mentions) "County Road 35", then there's a presumption of notability there. Most county roads would not be able to demonstrate significant coverage. A whole lot of these were created in the years 2006 and 2007, usually with the same format ("Road #___ is in _____ and it runs from here to here, bye now"). More recently, we've been watching these individual articles getting consolidated into a page about the streets and roads in the area, such as in Streets of St. Louis, Missouri. Ideally, the minimal information in this and the other "road stubs" would get put into List of numbered roads in Oxford County. I may just take the initiative to add good ol' Route 35 in there myself. Mandsford 12:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to List of numbered roads in Oxford County. If substantial material is added it can be reverted to a substantive article. Many A-class roads in England have their own articles but not minor roads. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 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 keep. Courcelles (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View Ridge, Seattle[edit]

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

No assertion or evidence of notability of this suburban Seattle neighborhood; has remained wholly unsourced since creation. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expanded the article to include the neighborhood's history and several references. The neighborhood appears to be a distinct neighborhood of Seattle with a significant history, and it was profiled in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer several years ago. Since most significant neighborhoods of large cities are considered notable, this should be notable based on the references provided. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Cat's good work. The points in its favor is that its boundaries are defined by the City Clerk's office, and it's one of about 100 such neighborhoods in a city of 600,000. Mandsford 21:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Nice rescue job, Catalyst. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 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 keep. Those do look like reliable sources, if a little on the light side. Objections seem to be addressed. Shimeru (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Los Dynamite[edit]

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

Band not notable per WP:BAND. Not the subject of multiple non-trivial sources; mention in NYT not significant; sole album did not make a chart. Lionelt (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. --MidnightDesert (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know anything about La Cronica De Hoy, but if it is a reliable source then the two articles from it certainly qualify as significant coverage.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the answer depends on whether or not La Cronica is an RS, but the Spanish version (edit:of Los Dynamite) has been deleted es:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Los Dynamite Polarpanda (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if La Cronica was deleted, what more needs to be said about it's reliability? Lionelt (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant the Spanish version of Los Dynamite, not the Spanish version of La Cronica De Hoy, which never seems to have existed. Polarpanda (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! The link did point to Los Dynamite, didn't it. I wonder if we could get any of the Spanish WP editors to participate here. Lionelt (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just put a "Please see" on the talk pages of 3 editors at Spanish WP. That's cool! The trick is to use :en:. Interestingly I was denied edit access to 3 talk pages. I don't speak Spanish, but the message said something about permissionorriooo or some such. I hope those edits count here on :en: - I'm trying to get to my 1000th edit. Lionelt (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep three paragraphs in The New York Times, 13 May 2007, "Mexico City's Indie Rock, Now Playing To the World" by Josh Kun and many Spanish language sources such as; El Norte, 25 August 2008, "Sacan la vuelta a sonido étnico" by Fabián Riquejo; Agencia Mexicana de Noticias, NOTIMEX (The Notimex Newswire Service carries the major political and economic news stories from Mexico. Country of origin: Mexico), 22 March 2008, "Hacen vibrar Los Dynamite con su música al público de la Cumbre Tajín." by Manuel Bello Hernandez; Agencia Mexicana de Noticias, NOTIMEX, 21 September 2007, "Se unirán Porter, Los Dynamite y Le Barón en una velada rockera"; Agencia Mexicana de Noticias, NOTIMEX, 24 April 2007, "Prepara el grupo Los Dynamite nuevo material discográfico"; Agencia Mexicana de Noticias, NOTIMEX, 22 August 2006, "Rompen Los Dynamite el viejo tabú de hacer "Rock en tu idioma".* La banda..." by Juan Carlos Castellanos C.; Reforma, 17 June 2006, "Trae Dynamite 'Grandes Éxitos' en su debut" by Juan Carlos García; Reforma, 7 July 2006, "Hacen explosión" by Luis Felipe Castañeda duffbeerforme (talk)

Only 2 of the 3 paragraphs are about the band. The third is about Mexico's new wave of indie musicians of which Los Dynamite is one. Their only album is available ONLY via Myspace and local shops in Mexico City. Are the Spanish sources mainstream? I do not think they would pass muster at RS/N, especially since the Spanish version of this article was deleted on that wiki. Keeping this article sets the bar for inclusion of bands very low. Lionelt (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Norte, Reforma, Notimex. duffbeerforme (talk)

Keep. La Cronica De Hoy is apparently a major paper in Mexico City; I found a note in Americas Review indicating it is one of the "most influential" Spanish-language dailies in the region. As such the two articles from it, supported by the New York Times reference, are enough to establish notability. On top of this the album was released by Noiselab, described by The New York Times as "Mexico City's top indie label". I think it's just the English Wikipedia's systemic bias against non-English sources and topics that makes this appear less notable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Spanish Wikipedia article was deleted in April 2007, before two of the three sources cited here were written.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:35, 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT slogans[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Tagged not notable since 7/09. Lionelt (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand I've added references for most of the slogans. The topic itself is notable enough and it should be reformatted so that it is written in the style of Anti-LGBT slogans. Silver seren^C 11:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with Silver Seren. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the references, the article right now does look like listcruft and trivia, so it should possibly be rewritten, but it does pass WP:GNG. By the way, the nominator seems to have a history of problems with LGBT-related articles. Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second the need to rewrite. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm, kinda looks like we're having trouble coming to a consensus. Lionelt (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh...no, we don't. Everyone but you says it should be kept. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming good faith and think that he was making a joke. Silver seren^C 06:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. *pokes* Should we just let it snow and be done? Silver seren^C 03:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some contributors might think documenting slogans like this are beneath notice. But this kind of information is considered important by historians and is routinely lost due to notions it is beneath notice. Congratulations to the individuals who provided the referencing. Geo Swan (talk) 23:30, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons Training[edit]

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

Has been completely unreferenced for a couple of years, a target for vandalism, and entirely comprised of original research. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 10:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, being a vandalism target is not a reason to delete. The OR and the lack of sourcing are an issue but they can be overcome. The poem is a common part of the Australian high school curriculum in most states and as such there will be many, many sources available should someone care to look. A simple google search under Weapons Training Bruce Dawe shows how ubiquitous it is in Australian classrooms. Needs fixing, yes. Needs deleting, no. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See the coverage at Google Books. Clearly notable subject. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above - there appears to be sufficient coverage to warrant an article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:01, 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 Userfied. In this case i would point to the notability guideline that states that an article is notable if "A topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". In this case i would argue that the added sources only include a brief mention of the company or related personell before moving on to other subjects. The fx-mm article makes a brief mention before changing into an essay written by the company director. The microsoft case only includes a brief mention before it starts discussing the merits of microsoft products. Therefor i believe that the "Significant coverage" part is lacking. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornhill Consulting[edit]

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

Contested speedy, elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strongly. This is a risk management consultancy. Absolutely no showing that this business has any kind of historical, technical, or cultural significance, which is what a business needs to show to meet the general notability guideline and rate an encyclopedia article. "References" supplied are articles by business personnel in online trade papers, not about the business itself. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. An independent third-party reference (Microsoft case study) is also included which shows the business as an innovator. Happy to amend the article to meet the criteria, but still looking for some tips as to what would be permissible? Would references to awards won for innovation help? Jamesedwardnicholls (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC) — Jamesedwardnicholls (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Big-business bias? - it is naturally difficult to find external sources of information about small businesses - but I note that one of the principles of Wikipedia is that this should not lead to a bias against small businesses. Jamesedwardnicholls (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability - within the field of risk management, in particular liquidity risk, the work which Cornhill is doing is notable. The firm has held conferences on the subject and - as shown in the references - is beginning to publish comments in trade journals. These contributions are important to the development of best practice in the industry and, therefore, I believe are notable in their own right. Small businesses are never going to be "notable" in the sense of mass market consumer interest, but the same could be said to apply to many aspects science, which Wikipedia often covers in extreme detail. Jamesedwardnicholls (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC) — Jamesedwardnicholls (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Delete~~ Small businesses can be notable - but there's no indication in the article of this one being so. The references are to the company site, articles authored by James Nicholls, to a listing of companies involved in a discussion, and to the Microsoft thing. I will quote from that: "we have included some relevant small business case studies". Not a great indicator of notability, especially when it says " Cornhill Consulting is a growing company with big ambitions." Having big ambitions is good for a business - within reason. Having an article on Wikipedia is also a good thing, but it requires much better referencing than this has to show clearly the importance of the business. In a Google search for "Cornhill Consulting" I found many PR references in the usual places (LinkedIn etc - but strangely apparently not aboutus.com) but few links that I considered worth opening - and those were just the same stuff or not mentioning Cornhill when you got in. It is hard lines on small businesses in some ways, but remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a directory or free web space. Indicators of notability vary from subject area to subject area. I don't believe they have been met here. Prove me wrong..... (BTW I do wish Cornhill success and an article in the future.) Peridon (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per request from article's creator. Peridon (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One for later I can see that I'm tacking against the wind here, so perhaps the article could be moved to a user space (correct terminology?) until the business has achieved some more "notability"...? Can anybody help me understand why this article Algorithmics Inc. is acceptable? Is it just that Algorithmics has been listed in a couple of magazines (Risk and Waters)? Jamesedwardnicholls (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see that I had proposed Algorithmics Inc. for deletion some time ago, and never followed up after the PROD was removed. That has been remedied: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algorithmics Inc. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops Smerdis really takes this stuff to heart! Jamesedwardnicholls (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. It's sometimes the only way we can find the ones that slip through the net. There are so many articles to watch. Most of us regular editors stick to our own areas, others monitor certain pages only. Peridon (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that the topic of risk management in banking is timely and interesting, and I'm glad to greet a new editor who's published serious work on the subject. It's just that interested parties writing about the businesses they own or who employ them pose a number of issues, mostly focused on the difficulty interested parties have in being objective. There is also the issue of whether they are significant enough subjects that ought to be covered in an encyclopedia, and again, interested parties tend to choose... unwisely. (Frankly, to the extent that your job relates to managing other people's money, the kind of notoriety that gets you remembered in encyclopedias is probably the last thing I would wish for your firm.) I would be happy to see this article sent to a user page, at any rate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/userfy Maybe later, when/if the company generates some coverage by third parties. Note: press releases and such don't count. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim of notability in article, no information of encyclopedic value. Abductive (reasoning) 04:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compline Choir[edit]

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

Speedy contested. Elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the case for deletion? Notability has been established through these news articles which are linked from the article:

Here are several more:

Similar choirs acknowledge that they were founded in response to the St. Mark's Compline Choir:

http://www.minnesotacompline.org/page/pageShow.html?About_the_Choir

Charles Parsons, then Director of Music for Central Lutheran, traveled to St. Mark’s Cathedral in Seattle in order to explore the possibility of implementing a Compline liturgy. St. Mark’s had begun its Compline service in 1954 under the direction of Peter Hallock. The St. Mark’s Compline was perhaps the first modern offering of a Compline liturgy in the twentieth century. Although the initial beginnings of that group evolved from a chant study group, the St. Mark’s expression quickly found its niche as a spiritual refuge for the many young people of Seattle’s Capitol Hill. Routinely, the nave of St. Mark’s Cathedral is packed each Sunday night at 9:30PM with a congregation made up of students from the nearby University of Washington, parishioners, and worshippers who have become devotees of the Compline service.
Following Parson’s study of the Seattle experience, Central Lutheran launched its Compline services in 1992 under the leadership of then Senior Pastor Steve Cornils.

I think the article could use some cleanup and better documentation of this significance, but the choir is clearly notable. --67.183.140.229 (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment The NYTimes article is about the service as a whole, and only peripherally mentions the choir. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This may not be immediately obvious, but the choir created the service and runs it. The choir *is* the service as a whole. The entire service consists of the choir singing and chanting. The linked articles confirm this. Full disclosure: I am a member of this choir. --67.183.140.229 (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page should not be deleted. Compline has been around for well over 50 years and is an important part of Seattle (and its surrounding areas) culture. There is much more that can and should be added to the page (such as more in depth history, compositions by Peter Hallock and others, and additional information about St. Marks and the compline service to name a few) and I think that this choir is a very important musical, spiritual, and community group for Seattleites and the beyond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.144.122 (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - probably the first American compline choir, replicated in many cathedrals. I added two more cites. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Powers and abilities of Jesus[edit]

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

Page that treats a religious figure as a comic book figure, closely matching the text and structure of Powers and abilities of Superman c.s. Could perhaps be speedy deleted as vandalism, but as we have to assume good faith, I have brought it here. Fram (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced. Seems trivial. Lionelt (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a joke, and is somewhat humorous. It's possible this was written by a Christian in order to tell people about Jesus in an indirect way, rather than being written by a non-beliver in order to mock other people's beliefs. But still delete since WP should strive for serious treatment of topics. I'm sure the information is already given in other articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Steve Dufour. I'm unsure whether this article is intended as a joke or as a bit of "marketing" on the part of a Christian trying to sell Christianity to a younger/new audience. Either way, I don't think the style of writing is compatible with a serious encyclopaedia. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced joke article. (Jesus was not invulnerable. Even if you want to treat Jesus as a fictional character, his vulnerability is a major plot point. Not sure if healing leprosy counts as "cure light wounds" either; I'd argue that the source material treats it more like "remove curse". It's kind of fun to think about Jesus' power set in this way, but that kind of geekery isn't what Wikipedia is for. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Humorous, obviously not a serious article. Judicatus (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious joke page. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Joke article. Joe Chill (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I did enjoy reading it. I recognize the "Dungeons and Dragons" references in this explanation of the "superpowers" of Jesus. Mandsford 21:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although somewhat funny, it seems both inaccurate and inconsistent. There was no evidence of invulnerability. On the contrary, he was stabbed and nailed to a cross. Also, the need for "mana" and the obvious reference to Dungeons & Dragons jargon such as "cure light wounds" suggests that these are not Super Powers in the sense that most people would understand. Super Heroes have Super Powers, e.g., invisibility, ability to fly, super strength, etc. Video game characters have mana and D&D characters can cast spells such as "Charm" and "Cure light wounds". If it referenced biblical passages and was internally consistent, it might have some merit as satire, but probably not fit for a home at wikipedia.

It's clear that it wasn't intended to be taken seriously. It's one of the better joke articles that I've seen, and as a Christian, I thought it was humorous without making fun of my Lord and Savior. Definitely not a keeper in an encyclopedia, but fun during the 24 hours or so that it was up. Mandsford 00:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — obviously intended as a joke; if we still had BJAODN I'd propose moving it there. *** Crotalus *** 18:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But needs cleanup and references. In particular, the "fictional" tag is somewhat objectionable. There is no reason it should be treated as non-factual and have to be written in the "in-universe" form. - Nyet (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- In a sense I like the content, but dislike the tone, which is that of a discussion of fictional super-heroes, whereas Jesus is a historical person who had (indeed has) supernatural powers, because he is God. That is of course an expression of my POV. I am not sure how we place a NPOV on somethign like this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main articles on both Jesus and Christianity should tell readers about Jesus' supernatural powers as described in the Bible. See, that's how you do it. Say "the Bible says..." then you don't have to say if you think it really happened or not. Preachers do it all the time. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good laugh and Delete.— Hellknowz ▎talk 00:48, 3 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. Despite the presence of a number of keep !votes that are accorded no weight whatsoever. Tim Song (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Suburbs (Arcade Fire album)[edit]

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

Apart from two track titles a release date, very little else is known about this future album. No reliable sources discuss, fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER JD554 (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Remove expeditiously, please. Lionelt (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As of today the album has been announced and there are lots of sources discussing it. There may be some confusion in that both the song and the announced album are called "The Suburbs".--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While a lot of sources appear to be discussing the album, are they discussing it in detail as required by WP:N and WP:NALBUMS? I'm not convinced, looking at those articles (and the two which have been added to the article) they simply mention the release date, the name and the co-producer: they are all almost identical in their brevity. Not what I'd call detailed discussion. --JD554 (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say so at this point... Though it doesn't quite pass the WP:NALBUMS acid test of having a track listing, I think there is enough other material (and potential sources containing other material) to justify an article independent of the band's article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is being updated rapidly, because the news was just announced. It will develop into a reliable article very shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.108.16.34 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is confirmed as coming out. Giant Snowman 18:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Arcade Fire themselves have confirmed its existence and it has also been reported by numerous third-party sources.
Ishwasafish^{click here!!!}
20:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Obviously this should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.199.2 (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why would this be deleted? It has been stated as a new album and several songs are already available. --Elixer022 (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An album being confirmed as being released does not make it notable. Both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS require that the album be discussed in detail by mulitple reliable sources. While this album has been discussed by multiple reliable sources, simply confirming the album's title, release date and co-producer doesn't meet with the detail required in my opinion. Do we have any early feedback from sources on the songs that have been released that can be added? Or anything that can be added beyond a release date and track listing? I've not seen anything. That level of detail may be forthcoming in the following weeks, but it isn't there yet. The article can always be re-created when the ablum is notable. --JD554 (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Could someone please explain to me the logic of deleting an article that would clearly be reinstated very shortly afterwards and will undoubtedly receive a significant amount of attention due to the profile of the act involved? While the details available are obviously limited (the release only having been announced yesterday), the coverage already is immense. Has anyone checked how many hits this page has gotten? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicell (talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obvously, it is a well layed out page that if deleted my be replaced by an inferior one, plus given the bands popularity and the anticipation surrounding the band, the article would be reinstated within a month anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashman1992 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the very worst (considering there are multiple reliable sources confirming its existence) this ought to be a redirect so why was it nominated for deletion? --candle•wicke 20:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it was also nominated within minutes of creation. --candle•wicke 20:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominated it for deletion because it was obvious that it would simply be reverted if I attempted to redirect without an Afd. Also there is no conspiracy with regard to the speed with which I nominated the article, I had already looked into creating an article following the announcement before realising it was notable. --JD554 (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as mentioned above this does not yet satisfy WP:NALBUMS (nor WP:CRYSTAL), specifically because the track listing is unknown. Until the track listing, in addition to the title and release date, has been verified by reliable sources, information about this album should remain at the artist's article. Cliff smith ^talk 08:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Contrary to the last contributor, the article now contains the track listing. Edit: scratch that, got reverted due to lack of reliable sources for the track list. It seems that while there are track listing floating about, none of them have yet been confirmed. I withdraw my opinion.--99.253.247.155 (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this album has enough notable sources to stay. --⌘ torpy (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, based on information and sources added by Cúchullain. --JD554 (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or if that is found to be disagreeable by an administrator Incubate the article so it may be recalled in it's present form at such a time as when there is a confirmed track listing. While policy does seem quite clear in it's desire to have a full and confirmed track listing this particular record seems to have a big enough swath of other details available to justify it's inclusion; not least among which is the fact that single(s) have already been made available along with fair use cover artwork which will be deleted from Wikipedia without this article being kept. Aricci526 09:06, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boys Over Flowers (Philippine TV Series)[edit]

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

Declining speedy (TV shows not eligible for A7). delete UtherSRG (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable future television series. No significant coverage in any reliable, third-party sources. If/when does air, should first be part of Boys Over Flowers - per usual methods of dealing with these live-action remarks - then split off only if it because independently notable. For now, delete, as not a good redirect either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was previously created at Boys Over Flowers (Philippine TV series), which was made into a redirect to Boys Over Flowers (TV series). If this is deleted instead of being redirected, then that redirect should also probably be deleted. On the other hand, if this is kept, then that version should probably be changed back from being a redirect and this version should be merged into it. Calathan (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article creator is now vandalizing various articles by copy/pasting the article into various other articles, including Microbiology [36] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant hoax. --Bluemask (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to prove that it will happen, so fails WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate when more sources are found and if it will actually happen. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable sources discussing a Philippine remake of this series. As I mentioned above, I think the previous version of this article at Boys Over Flowers (Philippine TV series), which was redirected, should also be deleted, as I don't see it as a useful redirect and I don't think the target article mentions the Philippine TV series. Calathan (talk) 07:07, 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} 15:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climbing to New Lows[edit]

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

Per WP:NMUSIC, demo albums are presumed non-notable, unless significant third-party coverage exists. A quick google search reveals a plethora of file sharing sites, but not much in the way of independent coverage by reliable sources. Therefore I do not see why this demo album merits its own page. Imperatore (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
Delete, then Redirect. It's true, demo tapes (and similar) are almost never notable enough for articles, but a redirect to MGMT discography would be harmless enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has one reliable source with significant coverage, but that isn't enough and I can't find anymore. Joe Chill (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As far as I can see from a quick skim, the said reliable source only has that one sentence about this demo quoted in the article. Therefore it is by no means significant coverage. Imperatore (talk) 18:00, 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 no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Turner[edit]

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

Article on a candidate that fails to establish notability via WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. No reliable sources apart from his running for governor most of which are simple name checks in lists of candidates. Not enough independent, reliable sources for an article. If he becomes the party nominee (or ultimately wins the race) this can be recreated but until either of those things happens, or he gets more coverage for another reason the article should go. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a major player in the New Mexico Gubernatorial race previously established in a number of political positions, sources exist to substantiate.
- "Doug Turner, Republican for governor". KRQE.
- Doland, Gwyneth (5/12/1). "Turner supports comprehensive sex-ed, would sell his company if elected". The New Mexico Independent.
- Steckbauer, Frances (4/26/10). "Turner gets know the East side of New Mexico". The Chase.
- Terrell, Steve (5/8/2010 ). "Public-relations pro Turner tries to avoid labels". The New Mexican.

These and a number of others are turned up by Google News. Akirn (talk) previously User:Icewedge 07:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noting the fact that he managed former NM Gov. Gary Johnson's campaigns [37], was endorsed by him, and his advertisement recently was featured on FOX News [38] Nhprman
Delete or redirect to New Mexico gubernatorial election, 2010 as is the general rule for unelected candidates prescribed by WP:POLITICIAN. Nothing about this candidate seems out of the ordinary - the coverage is all campaign-related and he does not appear to have verifiable claims to notability aside from his candidacy - so the general rule should apply. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is only prescribed for candidates that are non-notable, not ones that are unelected. It is quite possible to be notable without yet being elected. Turner clearly passes the GNG. Akirn (talk) previously User:Icewedge 19:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Akirn that this guy appears to be notable under the GNG: the news articles are sufficient for this, in my opinion. Buddy431 (talk) 22:03, 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, Shimeru (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Republican & Democratic nominees will be notable regardless of which one wins . The people merely running for their party's nomination are not, unless they would be otherwise. I'm a little surprised we don;t adopt this formally--it's such a simple rule. Going into the 2010 and 2012 elections, it will eliminate a few thousand articles without much need to discuss them, and establish a few hundred, again without the need for debates. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Gage (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He is notable, but just barely. Mere candidates are not notable, but his work with Johnson seems to just get him over the line. Please note that he lost the primary election to Susana Martinez who was clear eligible for an article before the election and is even more so now that she is the first Latina nominated by a major party for the position of governor nominee. She didn't get an article until after she won. Turner is a PR guy so someone from that campaign created this article may be a bit prematurely. But nonetheless I vote a weak keep.--InaMaka (talk) 13:51, 3 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. In order for demos to be considered notable in and of themselves, notability needs to be established through extensive coverage in reliable sources. The sources given here are not sufficient in that. Should anyone want I am more than willing to userfy the page so that it can be worked on or the material can be merged to a more appropriate article, just ask me.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infernal Death[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC, with only a passing mention in one book, this does not establish notability. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have already started inserting references that show this is a notable, internationally-traded tape, heralding a unique period in heavy metal music that gave birth to the death metal genre. I can see the point of deleting the demo Infernal Live, as there is very little written about it, but Death's Reign of Terror, Infernal Death and Mutilation tapes were tantamount to independent releases because of their widely-duplicated and distributed nature, mentioned in published works as critical to the development of the genre. I would also note that the user nominating the article for deletion missed that there are already two mentions in published works sourced, not one. Best, A Sniper (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability claimed, but the two sources provided do not establish the significant coverage required to support an article. Rehevkor ✉ 18:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would point out a couple of things - these demos have all been distributed as independent releases (individually and as part of the Zero Tolerance CD, 2004), and secondly they are all being included on an upcoming Relapse Records/Sony CD. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That the tracks on this demo are on or will be on another compliation does not make this demo notable. Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources would. - SummerPhD (talk)

Keep, the demo is good edited, unlike others. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Your opinion of the quality of the editing on this demo is immaterial. It simply is not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Demos are not notable without significant coverage in independent relaible sources. The coverage provided is clearly not significant. I am unable to find sufficient coverage. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy There seems to be grounds to continue work on this article. I think that given the current rash of demo tape AfDs there would seem to be a general consensus leaning toward deletion of all such albums. There seems little doubt that Death are a very significant band within their genre. Though insufficiently sourced at the moment, there appears to be a significantly greater chance of this article being able to pass the required notability guidelines if expanded (particularly if international notability can be better established. Though i think this should be done on a user page to avoid potentially unnecessary discussion such as this. Fenix down (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for that constructive comment. If I had more time, I'd dig through piles of old mags to get the references. They are indeed out there - just needs to be expanded. There is no clear consensus to delete, but an obvious need to expand the articles. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it might be useful to get some of the wikiproject:metal people to comment on this. I think this would provide a more informed consensus. Fenix down (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band Death were pioneers in the death metal scene, and Chuck Schuldiner is often referred to as "the father of death metal". I realise that demos, generally speaking, are not notable, but I believe that this one warrants an exception, as it is arguably the first ever release of "death metal".Mk5384 (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Death and Schuldiner are notable. That is not at issue here. The claim that this demo is notable is up for discussion as independent reliable sources have not established this, including the claim that this was "arguably the first ever release of 'death metal'."

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back of the Throat[edit]

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

Declining speedy A7 (not eligible), but this does seem to be a non-notable play. delete UtherSRG (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], and [48]. Joe Chill (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD, and you get results straight away, reviewing the play. Dream Focus 01:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Strong Keep: OK, I did the heavy lifting and added the sources and additional content. Close this sucker.--Milowent (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:04, 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 keep. Courcelles (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hill (chemist)[edit]

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

Nomination withdrawn - see below There is no evidence of notability. The account in the article is consistent with his being a fairly ordinary academic, and no independent sources are cited. Searching is difficult, since "Anthony" and "Hill" are both quite common names, but I have made some efforts and found no evidence of substantial independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"~~Keep~~" ~~The sources should be fine considering they are reliable...being the Australian National University, as such it can be accepted though it is a primary~~. The subject would be of interest due to his publications and contributions to his field. Judicatus (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no problem at all with the reliability of the sources, but they are all either from the institution he comes from or his own publications, so they are not independent of him. He has an impressive number of publications, but so do many academics who have been around for some years, and simple number of publications is no guarantee of notability. How important his contributions are within their field is the essential issue, and it is not clear from the evidence available so far how important they are. However, the existence of a book, rather than just papers, is encouraging, so I may yet be persuaded. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: His contributions in that field seem established, but I do yield on the issue of how important they are. Any suggestions on figuring out that aspect? Judicatus (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" Reviewed WP:PROF, doesn't meet criteria, changed support to deletion. Judicatus (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "...fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry" is sufficient to meet inclusion criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Other biographic material in the intro alone provides additional indication of sufficient notability. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think FRSC is sufficient for notability, but his editorship of Advances in Organometallic Chemistry passes it for me: an influential review journal (although published in book form). [COI disclaimer: he once refused a paper of mine; I published it in Chemical Reviews instead... YAH BOO SUCKS!] Physchim62 (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that FRSC is not sufficient for notability. The number of people that are FRSC is very large and includes me. However, I think his publications and being editor of an important review is notable enough. ANU Research School of Chemistry is a very important department also. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've been trying to tell you you're notable for years now. But I won't make a POINT of it by pushing an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. His citation counts on Google Scholar don't look particularly impressive to me, considering he's been an academic since 1988. However, according to Journal Citation Reports, Adv Organomet Chem is ranked 3rd for Article Influence Score in both the 'Chemistry, Organic' and 'Chemistry, Inorganic and Nuclear' categories, and as he's been one of the two editors since 1995, that seems to pass WP:ACADEMIC criterion 8 "an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area". —Qwfp (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unmistakable clear keep as ed. in chief of one of the most important review publications. And as author or 181 publications in Scopus (much more reliable than Google Scholar for mainstream academic science if the career goes back before 2000 or so), with citation counts for the highest of 121, 112, 62, 61; h = 25. very few academics no matter how long they have been around get anywhere that number of papers, or anywhere near that many citations to them. The citations prove the importance. A higher standard for notability of academics seems to correspond with what most of us would call famous. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right—just checked Web of Science (using its 'author finder' to distinguish from other AF Hills), which gave him an h-index of 28 with highest counts 130, 121, 99, 72. Changing my 'weak keep' to 'keep' above. Qwfp (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The biopage does not link to any wikipedia article that cites one of his publications. As far as wikipedia is concerned Hill's contributions are irrelevant (in other words if the work is relevant there should be an article on it). The author of the biopage should have considered writing an article on a topic relevant to Hill's work first and then create a biopage. Too many biopages on chemists exist that are effectively orphaned. Examples Stuart Warren and Mark S. Workentin should also be deleted unless some relevant context is presented. Also a good way to attract the professionals to contribute content. V8rik (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the view that notability of a person consists of being cited in an article on the topic is not our standard--and a very good thing too. It is the WP:Walled Garden approach--magnify the importance of a person by creating separate articles for everything they did and everything they wrote, and justify each of the articles by their links to the others. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, FRSC, an editor-in-chief of an important journal, fairly impressive citability data. Passes WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since I made the nomination a good deal of evidence of notability has been unearthed, both noted above and listed in the article, and I now have no doubt at all that the article should be kept. Thanks to those who have found this evidence. As for the one remaining "delete" argument (from V8rik), I agree completely with DGG's answer to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 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 merge to Ledbury#Recreation. Shimeru (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Market Theatre (Ledbury)[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. Does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY - there is no independent coverage in reliable sources. Much of the article is a direct copyright violations of the official website [49] - see the link to the amateur dramatic society. Claritas (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A small local theatre, but the information is verifiable through reliable sources. See Hereford Times, Ledbury Reporter. The copyvio issue is fixable.

--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NLI - "In order for a local interest to be notable, it must, to a very high standard, have multiple reliable sources independent from the subject that provide in-depth, non-trivial coverage pertaining to the subject itself." I don't see that here, although WP:NLI is still under development. Claritas (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, Claritas. In this case, I can imagine a well-written and informative article, enriching this project. It is just my opinion, perhaps influenced by WP:NOTPAPER. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that some topics of local interest should have articles about them, but there simply isn't enough independent coverage on the subject. Claritas (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, let's wait what others will say. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superstevegs (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I've added an earlier reference to the Hereford Times having found an article in its archives of the Design Award the theatre won in 2000. This is more relevant than those listed earlier on this page, and should address Lord Pistachio's concerns. There is no copyright issue with www.themarkettheatre.com since I maintain that website.[reply]

Concerning copyright issues, you (or whoever owns copyright on that website) would have to license the text under the Creative Commons license in order for Wikipedia to accept it. Note that, by doing so, you also would be giving permission for anyone else to redistribute or modify the text as they see fit. However, this article you have just quoted is unlikely to move much difference to the deletion outcome - it merely adds to the handful of local references cited (normally we would expect the subject of an article to have received some coverage in national sources), and the award mentioned seems to be a very local award restricted to organisations within the town - not exactly the Tony awards. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I think you misunderstand: the award was for the building - not a theatrical one. Please answer this - how does the Market Theatre (Ledbury) article differ in 'notability' from that for the Lace Market Theatre in Nottingham? (I pick this one since, if one looks for 'Market Theatre' in Wikipaedia, that is one of the three choices.) The latter has 8 references (I can only find two suitable independent ones for us), but of these; one is in German, one is to the Charity Commission (we also have one to that body), one (no. 5) doesn't work and the others are only to local newspapers etc. I cannot find a reference to a national body (I class BBC Nottingham as being 'local'). The Lace Market Theatre is a listed building, but has only been a theatre since the 1970's. The Market Theatre in Ledbury isn't listed: it was built in 1999 but we have claimed it was the first theatre in the world to open in 2000 (on January 19th). Although we cannot substantiate that claim, we made it in 2003 and it has not been challenged. If you Google for "first theatre in the world to open" (within quotes), most of the results point to the Market Theatre in Ledbury - so if another theatre opened between 1st and 18th January 2000, we would have heard of it by now.

The third 'Market Theatre' in Wikipaedia's listing - that in Johannesburg - has no references at all. My point is - if you are going to apply rules of 'notability' etc, the same rules should be applied in all cases. Superstevegs (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ALLORNOTHING. If someone nominates Lace Market Theatre for deletion, I would probably say the same thing. The only claim unique to the Market Theatre is being the first to open after turn of the millennium. Being the first amateur theatre in the Midlands to open might be enough to establish notability, but being the first to open after after 1st January 2000 (which is an arbitrary point in time) is a tenuous claim. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Wikipaedia is an electronic encylopaedia, you might have a point. I would expect to find (for example) the pin assignments for an HDMI connector or the habitat of a Song Thrush here - and indeed I can. That's where Wikipaedia is a tremendously useful resource. If the Market Theatre in Ledbury has no place here, then I suggest that no other theatre does - unless it has a real claim to fame, such as The Theatre of Small Convenience in nearby Malvern, which is the world's smallest. Apart from the other 'Market Theatres' on the Market Theatre page, I have found two other local theatres in Wikipaedia that have no more merit than the Market Theatre, Ledbury. If 'someone nominates them for deletion', could that 'someone' be me - and if so, how do I do it?

At my request a few months ago, the 'disambiguation' page Market Theatre was created, with links to three 'Market Theatre' articles. If Wiki moderators wish to save server space, might I suggest that all such articles are deleted and links to them replaced with links to the organisers' websites?

BTW - another of our members has drawn my attention to two other pertinent references, which I have now added to the Wiki page: that the former theatre was, from 1960 until 1979, the only theatre in Herefordshire, and that it is a member of the Little Theatre Guild of Great Britain.

BTW2 - Although I had ticked the 'Watch This Page' checkbox, I was unaware that it was being considered as an AfD until I happened, by chance, to look for it. I would expect an email notification if any page I was watching had changed - or doesn't it work that way? Superstevegs (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can find recent changes on pages which you are watching through Special:Watchlist. Thanks. Claritas (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to be notable. Even the mentions in local news sources seem to be no more than "arts roundup" sort of articles, which are rather trivial mentions. --Lord Pistachio ^talk 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Ledbury#Recreation. I think a amateur dramatic society that has kept running since the 1950s earns a mention, but I don't see what encyclopaedic information we can give except that the society and theatre exist. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC) [Ledbury Amateur Dramatic Society has actually been in existence since 1938. It is second only to Ledbury Rugby Club as the longest established society in the town. Superstevegs (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

... Okay, this seems to be the most sensible outcome. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:59, 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, Shimeru (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above, seems to have some local notability. Polarpanda (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per reading above discussion, agree with Superstevegs. Judicatus (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as nominator, I see the case for a merge of relevant content. Claritas (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This theatre is mentioned in numerous reliable publications as a venue. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (keeping redirect). This is a good solution to local facilities on the margins of notability (which I think this is). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 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 redirect to sports tourism. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sports travel[edit]

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

I believe that anything that is worth saving from this article (is there something?) should be moved to Professional sports. As is, this article really has no place. Moving any relevant content to Professional sports is a start, and if that section needs expanding then someone should look at creating this article. Overall, this article is nominated because of the lack of any sources related to the title and the somewhat advertising-ish tone with regard to Gullivers Sports Travel. — Timneu22 · talk 17:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently studying tourism at university and we have an entire module on Sports Travel so I was surprised that there is no wikipedia article. Gullivers Sports Travel is known in the module as the people to first do it and they also came up first in google where you can read their story. You can leave that bit out if you think its advertising they are nothing to do with me I just thought it was interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzo7788 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is to do with tourism and travel rather than professional sport

This is not at all clear in the article. For one, FIFA is professional sports. — Timneu22 · talk 21:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this can be fixed up (at the moment it looks like an ad for a particular agency. However, the independent source shows that there are businesses that specialize in "sports travel", so I think notability is established. Mandsford 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may indeed be an industry; why not WP:USERFY this until it becomes a real article, or push the info into professional sport? — Timneu22 · talk 21:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Sports travel caters to professional sport but is essentially a sector of travel and tourism. Not a type or section of professional sport, I wouldn't say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzo7788 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have as yet no comment about keeping or deleting this, but must say that I can't understand why anyone would consider Professional sports a suitable merge target. What connection does sports travel have with professionalism? Is travel to the Olympic Games, in the days when they were officially amateur, not a major part of the topic of sports travel? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sports travel caters for people watching the olympics and all sports. I agree it does not come under professional sports, it is a sector of the tourism industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzo7788 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly userfy. It seems to be a notable topic even if it is very poorly presented, so it will belong in mainspace eventually. I have no firm opinion on whether that should be now or later. Change to redirect to sports tourism. I hadn't noticed that article. This one looks like unneccesary duplication now. It would however be useful to integrate the reference currently in Sports travel into Sports tourism since that's tagged with "addition sources required". Alzarian16 (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant genre of tourism.This one link indicates notability and I'll presently add it to the article. --Pink Bull 01:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At second thought, the subject seems to exist at Sports tourism. Redirect it there.--Pink Bull 02:05, 27 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) 07:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to sports tourism. The phenomenon is real and notable but the sports tourism article is more developed and has a better title. There isn't really anything worth keeping in this article. --MidnightDesert (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sports tourism. I thought that we must have an article on this topic under some title, and MidnightDesert has found it. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arty cafe[edit]

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

Avoid neologisms. I'm not sure if "Arty" is a typo, but it's confusing. APK whisper in my ear 07:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We already have Arts café. There is nothing in this article worth keeping or merging over. In fact, the editor who created this article already added the same stuff about "arty cafes" and "e-cafes" to Arts café. That stuff should probably be deleted in my opinion but I'll leave that to another editor. I don't think a redirect is apt either, since "arty" is usually used as an adjective and not as a proper term or classification. --MidnightDesert (talk) 10:02, 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. None of the Keep comments (bar possibly TM's) give any policy-based reason for keeping this article. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia–Indonesia relations[edit]

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

whilst it can be verified that these countries have diplomatic contact. The fact that Indonesia recognises Macedonia is covered here Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia#International_recognition. this gnews search shows no significant coverage of bilateral relations, most of it is mulitlateral. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 27 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. Shimeru (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Bilateral Relations wikia and delete; no real notability to speak of. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a "bilateral relations wikia"? Mandsford 13:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://bilateralrelations.wikia.com/wiki/Bilateral_Relations_Wiki Yilloslime ^T_C 17:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the article (and sources) say(s) there is significant development on bilateral (!) and multilateral plan. political meetings and dialogue between these two countries has improved the last years. if i find more information i will improve this article the next weeks. Keep. Habel (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tag as a stub. Macedonia is notable. Indonesia is notable. Ergo, the topic of the foreign relations between these nations is a notable one, per se, on the face of it, without further ado. This article is an insufficient treatment of the topic and should therefore be tagged as a stub, which is the way insufficient articles are improved on Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Macedonia is notable. Indonesia is notable. Ergo, the topic of the foreign relations between these nations is a notable one. Rubbish. Notability is not inherited: while Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor are both notable, their marriage ceremony and their children do not automatically qualify for individual articles. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 18:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

do you mean insufficient in terms of significant coverage to meet WP:GNG? LibStar (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milkshakes are notable, Elbows are notable. By this logic, Elbow milkshakes are notable. Or how about this: Strawberries are notable, and strawberry milkshakes actually exist, and yet we have no strawberry milkshake article... Yilloslime ^T_C 17:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get right on that Strawberry Milkshake article. Sounds deliciously notable.--TM 18:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, there's no need to have a separate article on it when it's already adequately covered in Milkshake. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has anyone searched for more sources in the native languages? As it stands now, its borderline at best I suspect.--Milowent (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Macedonia . Delete Although I understand Carrite's argument, I have to add the context that there was a long lasting controversy in 2009 over a plethora of articles that were described as "Nation X - Nation Y relations", and the consensus was that the diplomatic relations between two different nations is not automatically notable. Elements of notability usually include resident ambassadors, extensive trade, and other items. The consensus was that relations should be mentioned in the "Foreign relations of..." pages, but that separate pages should be created only upon showing of significance. Mandsford 21:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Even by my rather expansive standards this is quite nonspecific; unless more can be found , it should be merged/redirected for now. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has a few 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 embassy and Ministry of Foreign Affairs sources are reliable, but not independent of the subject. The only other source is about a specific event, and while it makes reference to these counties' bilateral relationship, it would be a stretch to say it covers the topic "directly in detail." (And I removed another source that was about an annual multilateral meeting that happened to be Indonesia that year--it was not even remotely about Macedonia-Indonesia relations.) I've got the article watchlisted and if independent sources (plural) are added that actually discuss the topic directly and in detail, then I'll switch to keep. And for what it's worth, I the comment I made here also applies. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it will be expanded. Wikipedia has many smaller stubs than this one. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the weakness of other articles is irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS LibStar (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No its not. whether other articles exist and continue to exist is evidence of what people deem notable in the long term.--Milowent (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hardly, the true test if "weak" articles are notable is if they survive an AfD, not survival because hardly no one is interested in building them up. LibStar (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the countries have pretty significant economic relations, as clear through the 135 million USD dollars in trade exchange they had in 2008. Here are 5 news stories from the Macedonian press directly about Indonesia-Macedonia relations.--TM 13:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient reliable sources for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 18:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak to medium delete—while there are some specific bilateral treaties, that (short and scant) passage is hopelessly out of date, and the entire page is mainly dependent on the Macedonian and Indonesian foreign ministries as sources – I count them as being six out of the eight citations. This is not the third-party referencing which is expected of articles. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 18:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That Indonesia recognises the existence of Macedonia is worthy of a footnote in the article on Macedonia, not an article in itself. I don't believe we have firm consensus that the existence of diplomatic relations (which requires, as far as I can tell, the existence of a telephone line and a nameplate for someone's desk in the respective foreign ministries) is in itself a sufficient indicator of sufficient implied secondary sourcing as to consider all such bilateral relations capable of meeting the GNG. At present, the sole secondary source on the article is just a mouthpiece for the office in question, and even then it specifically says that this exact relationship is not commonly heard of amongst the Indonesian population! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another bi-lateral relation article with zero evidence of significant third party coverage of the actual topic. Infact, I see no evidence of any independent coverage at all. It's a collection of primary sources and press releases. Not good enough, not by a long shot. MickMacNee (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a systematic bias amongst most editors and we all understand it. Neither Macedonia nor Indonesia are English speaking or developed nations. These nations produce a significant amount more online media. The Macedonian news service, which is online, has covered the relations in detail, as I linked to above. 135 million dollars a year in trade might not seem like much to developed economies, but surely you must see that for a country like Macedonia, this is a very significant amount of trade. The combination of significant and, as the sources indicate, growing trade relations and the understanding regarding the systematic bias should point this discussion towards a keep.--TM 02:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Economy of the Republic of Macedonia, the country has $3.035 billion of exports, $4.942 billion of imports. So, even if the idea here was to judge for ourselves what is and isn't significant, which it isn't, then no, $135m does not appear to be significant even for Macedonia. MickMacNee (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article meet the Wikipedia Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 21:27, 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 delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Student Math Association[edit]

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

Article does not satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. Requesting deletion; only notable source which article cites is the Sammamish Review. All other references are towards the organisation's own website and the article reads like an advertisement. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 05:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete nothing in gnews [50]. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LibStar (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-footnoted and well composed; adds information to Wikipedia on an esoteric topic. Not selling anybody anything. Not self-promoting gibberish by a bored HS student. An esoteric topic done right. No harm in inclusion, information will be lost by deletion. Easy call to keep. Carrite (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM should be avoided in deletion discussion. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable local organization.--RDBury (talk) 01:44, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storaged Melodies[edit]

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

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 19:17, 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Demo[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and I can find no significant coverage of this one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Demos are out per se. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Mou[edit]

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

~~Unsourced BLP for 3 years. Claims to notability are sketchy, and I could not find any reliable sources to establish notability. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 05:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw and Keep based on sources found. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no clue about this topic area, but there is some news coverage in Chinese, primarily relating to one of his comic books, The Ravages of Time: [51][52]. Unfortunately his name alone is almost useless as a search term in Chinese ... cab (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a Chinese WP entry ( http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh/Talk:%E9%99%B3%E6%9F%90 ) , I don't speak Chinese, but a plea at the discussion page might net someone bilingual who could provide references. --Joe Decker (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the one reference for the Chinese WP entry is a broken link. J04n(talk page) 09:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom on the basis there aren't any reliable sources. If sources are added then I'll change my 'vote'. PhilKnight (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking 'vote' based on sources added to the article. PhilKnight (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reference on the Chinese Wiki is of a page not found dead link. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this translation, if your looking to find more. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seemingly fails WP:GNG. Claritas § 08:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a page on one of his works, The Ravages of Time, which appears to have a few possible sources on it. I just added this one, which is certainly significant coverage but may not be considered reliable. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources now in place, which seem to constitue significant coverage in reliable sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two sources that cab posted above state he won two awards in Taiwan for his first published work, despite being from Hong Kong. Both sources are reliable, one is from Central Daily News, a Taiwanese newspaper; and the other is Sing Pao, a newspaper from Hong Kong. _dk (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comments, I've added those references, and included machine translations on the talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 15:08, 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 A7 UtherSRG (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Living Dead Dolls ISD Models[edit]

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

No sources\refs\highly questionable notability. ~QwerpQwertus |_Talk_| |_Contribs_| 04:04, 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 speedily deleted (G12, copyvio) by Alexf. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanspace Realtors[edit]

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

No sources\refs - notability and verifiability questionable. ~QwerpQwertus |_Talk_| |_Contribs_| 04:02, 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' as copyvio. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada-Marshall Islands relations[edit]

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

really don't see any notable relations here. most of the relationship is in a multilateral sense ie Canada and a bunch of Pacific Islands. coverage is almost exclusively about multilateral not bilateral relations. [53]. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep I don't believe any AFD voting on bilateral relations articles should be done until this policy discussion is completed and a guideline in reference to these types of articles are made. Silver seren^C 04:20, 27 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. Shimeru (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Bilateral relations wikia and delete. Not really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Canada is notable; the Marshall Islands are notable; the countries have formal diplomatic relations; ergo, the topic of international relations between these two countries is notable per se, on the face of it, without further ado. Wikipedia is not paper, we are not going to run out of space because somebody went to the trouble of writing on an esoteric topic such as this. There is no harm from continued inclusion and information will be lost by deletion. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there have been at least 100 of these combinations deleted, they are not inherently notable, WP:NOHARM is not really a good reason to keep. Please advise how this article how this article meets WP:N or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. If not, then Merge with 'foreign affairs of' pages for each state. Outback the koala (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I understand Carrite's argument, I have to put this into context by saying that the common outcome has been that there is no automatic notability for articles about the relations between two nations. Throughout the first half of 2009 there was a long lasting controversy in 2009 over a plethora of articles that were collectively described as "Nation X - Nation Y relations". The consensus was that the diplomatic relations between two different nations is not automatically notable. Elements of notability usually include resident ambassadors (in this case, neither nation has an embassy in the other nation), extensive trade, and other items. The consensus was that relations should be mentioned in the "Foreign relations of..." pages, but that separate pages should be created only upon showing of significance.All nations are notable, of course; but the relations between two nations are not necessarily the subject of widespread coverage and don't meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. As an analogy, Barack Obama is notable, and David Cameron is notable, but we would not have a separate article about their discussions, although the information would be covered elsewhere. The rationale is that there are endless potential combinations of a relationship between any two notable items (hence, articles called "Comparison of _____ and _____" are discouraged as well). Mandsford 21:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, random intersection of countries, no evidence of significance. This seems to be part of an attempt to create a whole new tier of articles which are spuriously claimed to be "inherently notable" because every country has some kind of relations with every other country. I do not subscribe to the idea of "inherent" notability nor notability by association, those are the only apparent sources of notability for this particular bilateral relationship. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 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 keep. Juliancolton (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Sgudi 'Snaysi[edit]

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

It is not referenced\sourced and doesn't appear to be notable. ~QwerpQwertus |_Talk_| |_Contribs_| 02:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Business Times describes it as one of Penguin Films' "better known productions ... a long-running comedy series with the highest yet audience ratings on SABC".[54]. We're talking about a 1980s/1990s Zulu television series --- I reasonably expect that there's offline sources not covered by Google. cab (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources will require a lot of work (compared to American TV show), but they should exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:06, 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 Nomination withdrawn. See Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_request_early_closure.3F. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blame! characters[edit]

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

Reason: Found in the articles to be copyedited list. This is list cruft. The characters are listed in the Blame! article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how is this listcruft? It's standard practice on Wikipedia to have lists of characters . 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is hardly the place for merge discussions. Possibly the list is an unnecessary split, but that should have been discussed at the page in question; this should never have been brought to AfD. Doceirias (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if this is not the correct venue. But the list is long, and poorly written. I'll ask for closure of AfD if you can tell me how, and do what I normally do: rewrite the prose. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable series always get a list of their characters. Also, only three characters are listed in the main article, it then linking here, no way to fit this much stuff in the main article, so it a valid content fork. Dream Focus 09:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Luginbill[edit]

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

This article does not demonstrate notability and appears to be about a 15 year old "politician" that certainly fails WP:Politician and has received no notable coverage. ~~Some references do not even mention his name~~ (Striking my own prior mistake). Seems to be an Autobiography. Prod removed by author, saying "Every Source Mentions his name. Also, He is notable as a member of the school board." I do not see how a student member of the school board is notable. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim to notability for encyclopaedic worth. Simply self-promotion--Stephencdickson (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Age makes the subject worthy of inclusion under the principle that Dog Bites Man is not news but Man Bites Dog is... Self-promoting, sure, as are about 96.543% of biographies of living politicians on WP. Politicians are almost inherently notable, in my view, they are public figures in the news... Is this subject really a politician? That's the question... I'm inclined to say yes, for now. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this person fits "Politicians are almost inherently notable, in my view, they are public figures in the news..." because almost all of the references are either primary sources (School board and the kid's facebook page) or are trivial mentions. This person is also a student member of a local school board, and fails WP:Politician. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN members of school boards are not notable. Also coverage in third party sources are lacking - facebook pages created by the subject are as far as it gets from reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN or the general notability criteria. Lacks reliable sources. Royal broil 01:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in gnews [55]. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this person seeks election to the Wisconsin State Legislature, becomes a well-known actor or writer then the article should be recreated-but I can not see keeping this article if the subject is just a student representative of the local school board-therefore I agree with LibStar and RoyalBroil but with the comment that this article can always be recreated should things change-Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:02, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Murray Hamm[edit]

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

I cannot find significant coverage for this firm. —fetch ·comms 02:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some references to the article. Based on the coverage of the sources and the number of awards that they've won, the group seems notable. Silver seren^C 04:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The gnews hits though most of them based on PR are enough to show them a major design company. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obivous keeper. per references. notability.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm very leery of business-related entries, but this one is sourced and done right. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The various references cited are the kind of industrial awards which exist solely for the purpose of creating notability - even the mentioning of the brands like Horlicks and the like seems to be spun to alude to inflate the company's notability. What we need to see is the actual design campaigns which have entered the public consciousness - what logos / packaging were designed for these companies? PoisonedPigeon (talk) 10:41, 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 redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Courcelles (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa "Terri" McGreggor[edit]

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

This fictional character does not appear notable enough to warrant her own article, could easily merged into a central character list. —fetch ·comms 02:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge So merge it. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters where she is already covered. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Character is already covered there and does not meet notability for stand alone article... Shooterwalker (talk) 23:26, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farida Samerkhanova[edit]

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

No sources for biography; no proves for notability (poems are published mostly in small e-zines). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.
Delete Don't see any evidence of reliable sources about her, just her own publications. Note also, it was deleted on Russian Wikipedia; see ru:Википедия:К удалению/18 мая 2010#Самерханова, Фарида. I'd agree with the assessment of the closing admin there: "the author has an unspecified (very large) number of publications in various English-language internet-journals, but as far as can be seen, none among them has any authority in the modern literary field ... seems to be typical Internet self-publication." cab (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Codella[edit]

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

I have looked to try to establish notability. The best claim in the current article is the book that has been purchased for television. I can not find anything to verify the book or the television purchase. I have found some information to confirm some of the information but nothing to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? Papaursa (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No evidence of book or notability. ttonyb (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:MANOTE and I can't find any reliable sources to show he meets WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is the amazon link for the book http://www.amazon.com/Alphaville-Crime-Punishment-Battle-Citys/dp/0312592485/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272034312&sr=1-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.157.181 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC) — 24.164.157.181 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Thanks for the link; however, it shows the book has not published. Additionally, it is a non-notable book. A Google search for the book shows only limited hits lacking substance. ttonyb (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ regarding the Jiu Jitsu history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renzo_Gracie Brooklynow (talk • contribs) 20:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC) — Brooklynow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Each article must stand on its own merits. See WP:WAX. ttonyb (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP article regarding TV deal by same name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooklynow (talk • contribs) 20:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC) — Brooklynow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Unfortunately the article fails to provide any evidence that the unpublished book has been optioned for TV. Even if it has, there is not any indication of that being a notable event. ttonyb (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable as a martial artist. Since his book hasn't been published yet, he can't be notable for it (and we don't know whether or not that book will be notable). Undocumented speculation about the book being on television is WP:CRYSTAL at best. Papaursa (talk) 15:57, 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 Nomination withdrawn. I'm going to enterpret the nominator's G7 request as a withdraw. Article in question currently tagged CSD A9 (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis (album)[edit]

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

Album is not notable per WP:NALBUM. Also no band page exists for the band. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 01:14, 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 no consensus. Juliancolton (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jihobbyist[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism mentioned in a few articles. Also a WP:COATRACK to give biographical info of Duane Reasoner, who the article creator feels belongs on a number of different articles despite consensus against. Grsz¹¹ 00:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator shows a pattern of supporting deletion of notable, reliably sourced material which does not suit his POV (he often opposes any material which could be characterized as information sourced by mainstream media such as Fox or USA Today on suspected terrorists) including supporting AFd. The term has been used many times by USA Today, ABC News, and mentioned several times in the scholarly book which coined the term, the author has been interviewed by the media. Duane Reasoner is one of the most detailed documented cases of Jihobby-ism in terms of videos favorited and photos posted, and tags attached to his identity, and clearly helps to characterize the topic. He is a person who may have had advance knowledge of Hasan's attack, and certainly was in a position to have dis-suaded Hasan, but instead chose to justify the attack on "soldiers sent to kill Muslims" after the fact. In contrast to COATRACK, the editor uses it as a tool to attempt to completely eliminate any mention of a related topic, such as the fact the Reasoner was Hasan's only known close associate, and obviously acted to reinforce rather than discourage Hasan's jihadists plans, even if there is not enough evidence to prove that he was actually a co-conspirator who help Hasan get connected with Revolution Muslim and Awalaki himself. These very details of his internet activities were published by the mainstream press, not to mention countless anti-jihad blogs which were the first to point these out. Bachcell (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bachcell is quick to attack me simply because his POV is differnt from mine. I find the term and its use interesting, but its simply just an infrequently used neologism that is better suited for Wiktionary. Grsz¹¹ 02:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's fair to say that he may have been influenced by your votes in support of deleting/redirecting the page for the Christmas Day bomber, or your effort to delete this article--where DGG himself (whom we all know is as non-POV as one can get) said he hoped that the nom by Grsz was not being made because of Grsz's POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I apologize you two cannot see past previous interactions and the true merits of this deletion argument, as others have. The deletion argument has nothing to do with a POV, and everything to do with WP:NEO, which is a frequently referenced section in AfD. Grsz¹¹ 02:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the observations by both Bachcell and DGG, which I join in, and your reaction, I am reminded of this.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:NEO. nableezy – 21:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC) – since I am the person who provided the "bald unsupported rationale", Ill expand. The CS Monitor is the one good source in the article. The rest are either from the originator of the term, or from marginal sources, or from instances where the word is being used. People using a word does not mean that a word is notable. This article, along with most articles on neologisms exists to promote usage of a term. Many of the sources in the article are of low quality, blogs used as primary sources, and [56] a self-published website that tracks neologisms being used to claim this was made up by Jay Leno. The originator of the term using and defining it. When you take out all the fluff from these sources, all that is left is the CS Monitor paper. I dont think that is enough to say that this neologism merits an article on Wikipedia. There are not enough independent sources about the actual word to merit anything more than a page on wordspy.com nableezy – 01:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Nableezy. I disagree. The article is replete with refs from notable sources. As to your use of the term blog, as you know they come in more than one type – those that are non-notable "MuNab's Blog", and those that are notable—such as the Revolution Muslim blog here. The article includes, as anyone can see, sources interviewing Brachman as to the meaning of the term, others sources criticizing the term, and others using the term. That's the sort of mix that warrants a keep. And as to the website that tracks new terms, that also appears notable enough. Always makes one wonder what drives those who seek to delete the articles w/17 refs, as they don't seek to delete the unreferenced articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the sources is far more important than the number of them. And the use of blogs, as primary sources no less, shows the quality of the sources here. nableezy – 01:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I meant to mention before, there are different types of blogs. We're not talking here about non-notable personal page blogs about MuNab's views on dinner, the Yankees, and cous-cous, but rather notable blogs by notable persons. That's a whole different ball of wax, and the coverage by the notable person in the blog confers notability on the subject of this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a blog is notable it can have an article about it; that does not mean it is a reliable source or should be used on Wikipedia. nableezy - 19:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly prima facie evidence of such. And such is the case here. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely not prima facie evidence of a blog being reliable. Atlas shrugged may be a "notable" blog, it is by no means a reliable source. nableezy - 20:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting (if contestable) discussion for the RS noticeboard. Irrelevant here.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As evidenced by the 17 refs, and the accompanying text, it is not a "non-notable neologism mentioned in a few articles". Rather, it is a notable term, mentioned, inter alia, by ABC News, FOX News, PBS NewsHour, The Christian Science Monitor, The Dallas Morning News, CTC Sentinel, Word Spy, The Jawa Report, and even outside the U.S. in Oneindia News. Furthermore, the refs not only reflect usage of the term, and discussion and explanation about the term and its meaning, but also criticism of the term. Under WP:NEO, this is just the sort of article that warrants a keep. Nor, of course, is the article a coatrack, which is an article where the subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". That simply hasn't happened here – rather, the subject of the article, the term "jihobbyist", is front and center, and not in the least obscured. Finally, this is the sort of article that may perhaps attract delete !votes by some who have POVs relating to the I-P conflict; I would hope that the closer will see through bald unsupported rationales asserting that this violates the above guidances, and afford us an NPOV application of the rules in the close.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is stuffed full of unreliable sources – i.e. blogs – as Epeefleche knows perfectly well. This is basically another silly blogospheric neologism. – ChrisO (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to make perfectly clear – since ChrisO just indicated, moments ago, in what may have been our first exchange ever, that he felt that he had been singled out for being pro-jihad – that I actually have no opinion of ChrisO in this regard. I do, however, think that he is incorrect here. As of course there is not any blanket prohibition of blogs, and of course Revolution Muslim is notable. I cannot say that ChrisO knows this perfectly well, however, as that would be a violation of AGF. Also, he may legitimately not understand or know that. Before he chastised me on my talk page moments ago, and followed that by appearing suddenly at this AfD (the most recent one at which I had commented), I can't recall having seen his comments and edits in my 40,000+ edit career. Though it's of course likely that we did cross paths; perhaps the crossing was simply not memorable to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is notable and there are several reliable sources covering it. Even though the article may have some questionable sources, that is not a valid reason to delete an article – as ChrisO (a former admin) knows perfectly well. The article should be expanded, because there is lots more info about Jihobbyism out there. Breein1007 (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD. It gets results, and they explain where the word came from even. Google book search only gets one result, not sure if that book is notable or not. Doesn't matter, the news coverage proves its notable. Dream Focus 06:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those results actually show why this should not have an article – only three stories mention it. – ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge -- the term exists, so go and create a Wikitonary entry. WP:NOTE is a different issue. But why do people always jump to AfD? It is perfectly straightforward to merge this into Islamic terrorism. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- most of the time, deletion requests are caused by structural problems in existing articles. Reviewing Category:Islamic terrorism and Islamic terrorism, I find that we are disastrously lacking a discussion of the history of Islamic terrorism. The phenomenon is a century old now and needs to be studied in its historical development. The "Jihobbyist" phenomenon would come in under the heading "21st century" or "post-9/11", as it illustrates the decentralization of Islamic terrorism with the internet (Islamic_terrorism#Internet_recruiting) and the huge Muslim diaspora (alienated migrants, sleepers). Instead of bickering over neologisms, interested editors should try to build more comprehensive accounts of the topic. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- most of the time, deletion requests are causd by POV pushers who don't agree with the POV of those creating the articles. For example, the New Jersey guy who was all over the news after being caught with a small arsenal, maps of army bases that had "jihad" written all over that was probably 3 times the size of the guy's FBI file with as many sources was somehow voted to be deleted before being revived after it was still a news story. The nominator shows a consistent disruptive record of challenging and harassing editors who add information, no matter how well sourced, regarding islamic plots, attacks and suspects, including supporting or nominating AFDs. Bachcell (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate Bachmann's suggestion, but don't think merge is appropriate for this nearly-20-cite article. There is certainly sufficient material here for a stand-alone article, there is more than one place it could be merged so it doesn't "naturally" belong in any one, and one loses cats and wps when one merges an article needlessly and raises wp:undue questions as well. Agree w/Bachmann that the nom of this article raises troubling questions, and that good-faith editors should seek to build a better article. Bachcell of course has a possibly correct response to Bachmann's "why" question, which could be bolstered by examining which articles delete editors vote for AfD, but there's perhaps no need to do so as we can stick to the fact that this article should be kept.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Islamic terrorism. Notwithstanding the amount of padding here, there's not enough here for a standalone article. Dlabtot (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Thanks to some work since its nomination I regard this as a strong article. I think it had sufficient sources to justify retention prior to the recent work. I have cited some of Brachmann's other works. I know he is a serious scholar. WRT to the article's use of "blogs"... in an attempt to seem "modern" some real news sources allow their professional columnists to have online fora, which they confusingly call blogs -- but which nevertheless have the same or similar editorial oversight as their print columns. Conflating these fora with the blogs of uninformed non-professionals is a serious mistake. Some real professionals write blogs in their spare time, which, nevertheless are widely cited by the MSM, because the professional authors are well-informed, and authoritative, and write to a professional standard. Conflating these fora with the 99 percent of unprofessional blogs is also a mistake. So, please, let's have no blanket denunciations of all "blogs". Geo Swan (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these ([57] [58] [59]) are written by "real professionals" who are "are well-informed, and authoritative, and write to a professional standard"? Or are they associated with "real news sources" and written by "professional columnists"? nableezy - 01:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually this is quite a well written article with considerable information, and the expression is noted in The Christian Science Monitor & The Dallas Morning News &PBS etc. It is a distinction originating in a scholarly book on terrorism, one that makes an important distinction between members of a terrorist group and individuals who act on their own initiative. Notable blogs *also* have commented upon the expression but the article does not rely upon this to define and flesh out the concept. Good article. Definite keep. 69.131.127.159 (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Fails WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (which is a deletion criteria, and an ISNOT, and is-nots trump notability) because it's defined in the intro to be about the term. Encyclopedia articles are always about the thing, not the word for the thing. If you simply rewrite the first sentence to make it about this type of people then I'll change my vote, the rest of the article is pretty borderline, but OK.- Wolfkeeper 02:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. I'm reasonably persuaded that the author of the book coining the term is an expert, and hence it's extremely likely that this class of people exist. The fact that the article title is a NEO is a concern though, and evidence for use of the term is weak. Given encyclopedia articles aren't about the term, but the thing though, I think it's just about a keep at this time, given the author, and the underlying topic.- Wolfkeeper 04:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like what Wolfkeeper has said, and I like his suggestion regarding the simple rewrite, and I'll assume it will be done, so to me it's a keeper. I think the article stands alone and need not be merged. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO the term is not in frequent use. Wiktionary entry plus mentioning of the term in the Islamic terrorism is enough. IQinn (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article as it stands is about the neologism, which doesn't appear to have the high level of notability needed to sustain an article about a word. A rewrite of the article to focus on the topic of "Jihobbyists" would likely be better placed in an existing article rather than in an article of its own. But even if not, I would rather the current content be removed and the new article written from scratch. Powers ^T 13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Islamic terrorism. This appears to be a neologism. Cnilep (talk) 14:16, 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 no consensus. Juliancolton (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Divosta[edit]

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

Downgrading CSD to AFD. Doesn't seem notable enough to merit an article, so I figure I'll list it here for consensus since it was so politely contested. delete UtherSRG (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I must ask what you mean by "doesn't seem notable enough." The burden of proof falls upon you as nominator to show why this does not meet guidelines. This subject meets the General Notability Guideline by virtue of having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. riffic (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 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) 00:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. Aside from the opening "Otto Divosta was", it's not clear whether or not this person is alive so relisting just to be on the safe side. Furthermore, there are several mentions of otherwise non-notable living people in this article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching for "Otto DiVosta obituary" didn't return anything, and I would expect this person to have a published obituary. These days most American newspapers are online, ergo, I think he's alive. Hello, Mr. DiVosta, if you're reading. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the references provide some evidence of notability; unfortunately I haven't checked the offline ones, but the first reference is good, and assuming the rest are what they sound like I'm willing to give this article the benefit of the doubt. It's a borderline case - I wouldn't particularly object to deletion, but I think this article probably passes our notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for Ron Ritzman's concern, I've just removed the last line of the article for BLP reasons, as it contained negative information about living people and seemed essentially unrelated to the rest of the article. Robofish (talk) 16:57, 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) 05:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elyan Fernova[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP for nearly a year, no sources found during quick search to indicate notability. Jwoodger (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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) 00:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not finding any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. J04n(talk page) 19:34, 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. Now that the copyvio issues have been resolved. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rude Britain[edit]

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

I'm not that sure that this book meets WP:NBOOKS; only a handful of sources exist, the authors are not notable, the book doesn't appear to be influential and I don't believe it has won any awards. I thought I would bring it here for a wider audience. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 17:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has been reviewed. Although not substantial, other coverage is more than trivial. [60], [61], [62]. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an article about the book itself. It's a thinly disguised "List of dirty-sounding place names in Britain" and a copyright violation whereby one skims the cream off the top of someone else's labour and investment. Why buy the book if I can read the Top 30 names here? It's no defense to say, "But we didn't list all 100" or "We told you where we took it from". Mandsford 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Err... this isn't an argument for deletion. It's an argument for a heavy-handed edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.195.36 (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm fairly certain that plagiarism, ripoffs, and possible copyright violations are all good reasons for deletion... Mandsford 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of a copyright violation in the article. Please link to a website that it is copyvio'ed from. Listing the top 30 is also not plagiarism or a ripoff. Silver seren^C 17:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - copyright violations don't have to involve other websites at all. --bonadea contributions talk 13:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's no need to list the "top n" listings. An example or two would suffice. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From what I was able to find, it looks like the book is notable, but the article does need to be rewritten. I would say that listing the top ten would be appropriate, but 30 is a bit much. And it does appear that some editors to it were just trying to fit in as many bad words as they could. But, like has been said, nothing that some editing can't fix. Silver seren^C 17:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard of this book IRL on the other side of the pond, but I'm not certain of exactly where, except that word of the book must have come through the first option for WP:NBOOKS. This doesn't look like plagiarism or a ripoff; the book contains explanations and etymologies for each listing. If anything, this reads like a partial table of contents -- not exactly grand copyright theft. I will conceed that 30 is perhaps excessive, but as a person using the article for research I found some of the links in the 11-30 range to be useful. Jaqphule (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Jaqphule (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Pyrrhus16 14:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newly registered user. I mainly came here to argue against a page's deletion, not the least of which is because I found it useful. I have since gone and started entering some of the other AfD debates. Jaqphule (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book fails WP:BOOK. Of the three reviews linked in the first Keep !vote only one, the NYT one, is more than a trivial mention, and the asylum.co.uk site does not look like a good source at all. The top-30 list had to go in either case, for copyright reasons. --bonadea contributions talk 13:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The top-30 list clearly falls into Fair Use for the scant information listed (little more than headings). I do think a top-30 list is overkill; perhaps the article should list only those to which there are currently linked wiki entries? Jaqphule (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the places have Wikipedia articles or not doesn't change the notability for the book, though. And a list of "rude" (in some people's eyes) place names in Britain is out of place in an article about the book - it would be appropriate in an article about rude place-names, but such an article would almost by default be either original research or plagiarism from that book. Unless there is actual research with reliable sources about place names with rude interpretations, that kind of list just doesn't fulfil the criteria for inclusion, as I interpret those criteria. (Others may disagree, of course.) --bonadea contributions talk 14:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research? The list is sourced by the book itself. Not that it appears to matter; the top-30 list has been sliced off. Jaqphule (talk) 01:10, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aspire Systems[edit]

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

This article is simply an advert for the company. There is nothing notable about it (either the company or the article). The editor who removed the prod tag added four more "Awards and recognitions", but they are far from notable, and likely biased. And they are unreferenced. The author did not address my discussion about the office in New Jersey. What is the address of the office in New Jersey? Tech Cello (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably speedy deletion material. Blatant spam for an entirely non-consumer business in a crowded field, with a thoroughly chunderous name: Aspire Systems is an ISO 9001:2000 certified Outsourced Product Development company based in Chennai, India. Its approach to software product development is based on the concept of Producteering. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And note that "Producteering" link requires login to the Aspire Systems website. Tech Cello (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have sourced and stubbed the article now. Only information that can be sourced from third party reliable sources has been kept and everything else (including the new jersey office concern of the nom) has been removed. As for the merits of the company itself, i think the quality of the sources and coverage proves it can have a separate article. Sources/Coverage that has been added include - Business Line, Daily News and Analysis, Express Computer, Rediff. There is also one ref from CNBC-TV18 which seems to atleast partially sourced from a PR release, but since it is CNBC and they normally verify Press releases before putting the news out (some amount of editorial control), i have included it too. With this much coverage in India's financial media, the company easily satisfies WP:GNG and thus WP:CORP.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:41, 22 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, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sodabottle did an amazing job. The article looks really nice and the sources clearly show the subject's notability. Silver seren^C 07:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:N; significant coverage, and independent sources. Judicatus (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but do those sources establish that this business has any historical, technical, or cultural significance? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company is marginal, but is subject to nontrivial coverage. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Riordan[edit]

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

Unable to find any third-party references about this person. While the article cites 12 or 13 references, there are indeed only a few unique references (3 or 4), but it is difficult to determine the actual source of the references. I could find one or two instances where Stuart's work is listed on a calendar or something, but no reviews or interviews or notable third-party coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 14:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The links in the article don't show "significant coverage". First Light (talk) 21:02, 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 redirect to Bandits_of_the_Acoustic_Revolution#Discography. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Call to Arms (album)[edit]

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

no notability shown for this ep, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 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) 23:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RISC Group[edit]

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

no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. dominated by a quote from copyright source is problem. prod remove after challenge by ip "There is no reason for this page to be deleted, it provides information on a group that will no doubt become quite popular quite soon." WP:CRYSTAL duffbeerforme (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Robinson (Country singer)[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Non-notable singer, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Awards are minor, no charted songs, no significant references. GregJackP (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article looks like a CV for an unsigned singer. The Pebble Dare (talk) 00:47, 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. NW (Talk) 01:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M. Damodaran[edit]

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

Elevating another Mahindra Satyam bio. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apart from the current role, his former positions as head of Unit Trust of India, IDBI Bank and Securities and Exchange Board of India have been heavily covered in Indian media.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:17, 22 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, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added in references for every sentence. He appears to be quite notable, if sources are any indication. And I think Wikipedia has some sense of interest in sources. :P Silver seren^C 10:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite notable; headed IDBI Bank, was chairman of UTI, SEBI Arjun^codename024 13:26, 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) 05:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tori Sinclair[edit]

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

No evidence of passing GNG or any other notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I note that the article asserts that Sinclair has "appeared in a number of mainstream movies of the erotic thriller genre". If her "career in fetish modelling" is seen to fall under WP:PORNBIO, then her mainstream films would appear to pass the PORNBIO criteria. As she has done over 184 films in toto,[63] the mainstream ones need be seperated out and considered toward overall notability, and yes... the article needs sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
After documenting the mainstream movies, keep per WP:PORNBIO -- 13:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karada (talk • contribs) 13:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 08:47, 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) 00:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't seriously be considering keeping a WP:BIO with no sources. Lionelt (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ((BLP prod)). —fetch ·comms 20:08, 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 merge to ISKCON. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakti Narasimha Swami[edit]

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

Non-notable ISKCON swami. No reliable, independent sources to assert notability. Gaura79 (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Into Iskcon article. Needs more material for his own article. (User) Mb (Talk) 04:35, 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, 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) 00:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial third-party coverage, all other references are ISKCON publications. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability. Also, please see the USA Today article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:29, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smita Krishna Swami[edit]

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

Non-notable ISKCON guru. No reliable, independent sources to assert notability. Sources used in the article are self-published or not independent. Gaura79 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Merge into Iskcon article. (User) Mb (Talk) 04:33, 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, 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) 00:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*keep He is notable for breaking the color barrier in the leadership of a notable religious institution Iskcon. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No third-party RS coverage. All references are ISKCON sites or books. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable religious leader with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:09, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Wood Productions[edit]

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

Badly CSD tagged. Looks like it barely fails notability. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave D'Mello[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dave D'Mello

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

Non notable DJ, fails WP:BIO. Lots of things on the page are utterly unverifiable, and the rest is not notable. No evidence could be found that Dave D'Mello is the same as the soccer player Dave Fisher [64],[65], so everything relating to the soccer player is out. What rests is his DJ and producing career. Even so, he only gets 80 distinct Google hits[66], noe of them indicating that he is notable. His records are self-released. He has no Google News hits[67]. Fram (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 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) 00:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. ialsoagree (talk) 23:47, 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.