< 27 May	29 May >

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ato[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ, no independent sources found Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely unnotable per WP:MUSICBIO. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, although I do like the nom-de-plume for this person who's bio says that he was born as Thomas Thibus. I'll never know for sure whether he pronounces his name Tom Aytoh or Tom Otto... Mandsford 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 merge to Impalement. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chithravadham[edit]

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

As mentioned on the talk page: There is only one hit; is this original research? There are no third-party sources. — Timneu22 · talk 22:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Impalement. There is no mention of it in books and for all I know it is the hindi (or other language) word for Impalement. But until it gets real sources it cant really stand on its own.--Savonneux (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Merge- Its actually the south indian version of impalement. Chitravadham is the Malayalam term, while Tamil uses "kazhuvettram" (after the Kazhumaram - sharpened oiled log on which the impalement is done). There are lot of Tamil sources on this, similarly there will be Malayalam sources. But the details could be added to the impalement article. No need for a separate one--Sodabottle (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why we would create a redirect. Do other foreign language terms (voiture→car) have redirects? I'm not sure that's the right course of action. — Timneu22 · talk 16:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
uh ok.. that makes sense. Just a merge of the information into impalement would do.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason not to have a redirect. English-language sources such as the ones in the article and this book use the word "Chithravadham" or "Chitravadham" for this punishment, so we should help readers who may come across this term by redirecting it to the article that describes the topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems reasonable. And if we're merging, then we have to redirect, due to GFDL issues. Heather (talk) 15:49, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and Redirect) seem appropriate.--SPhilbrick T 16:18, 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 and provisionally rename to Bradford murders. In terms of keep vs delete, there seems to be a consensus that the subject and/or the events in which he is involved are notable enough for coverage in Wikipedia. However, there also seems to a consensus in favour of renaming the article and reworking it to cover the eventts rather than their alleged perpetrator. Those arguing for this make strong atrguments which I feel are backed up by our policy on biographies of living persons. In addition, looking at this from a long-term perspective that an encyclopaedia should take, should the subject be acquitted by a jury, it would seem a gross BLP violation to keep an article on him that so intricately deals with the events he is accused of being a part of, thus I am closing this discussion as keep but will immediately move it to the title Bradford murders from where it can be moved to another title if consensus determines it to be appropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Griffiths[edit]

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

As somebody who has just been charged with three murders, he is not notable at present, though he may become so. See WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E. ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because of his unusual self-christened nickname, I specifically googled "crossbow cannibal wiki" to find an article on the guy, hoping to read more without sifting through media filler. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sad to have to go trough theese kind of Afd processes everytime when trying to start a new crime article. Even tough itd sbout s notable case like this. World attention. attention from major news sources. etc etc. I wasnt the one who started this article so i dont know why i got the Afd notice.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he isnt notable then no other serial killer suspect of serial killer is notable. Or do we have some American bias here?--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i was going to do this page myself, but my connection was so shit I couldn't operate wikipedia properly today. Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of ongoing news coverage, plenty of WP:RS. Lugnuts (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Peter Tobin's case caused a police visit to a UK editor. We are not trained journalists, and someone will make a libellous mistake. Wait until after the trial. This is far more important than simple keep/delete. If the defence claims the trial has been prejudiced and it is cancelled, someone else will have to appear in front of the judge and we're the people most likely to make a mistake. A high level Wiki policy statement is needed on cases which are subjudice. Renaming is fine in principle but won't stop someone adding back the carefully removed details. JRPG (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, what do we have to do with prejudice of the trial? --Cyclopia ^talk 22:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything! English law is very harsh on newspapers who state allegations or speculative assumptions as facts ahead of a trial. Wikipedia doesn't have a team of lawyers checking each article. Every line will have the crucial word "allegedly" and no speculation on whether he's a cannibal. Miss it out and Wikipedia, not the newspaper is committing an offence. If he's found guily you can legally say what you like. It's not subjudice, his reputation is worthless and he can't sue.JRPG (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. But we're not a newspaper and WP is not based in the UK. That said, I am curious to know more about the Tobin case and the UK editor. Do you have a relevant link? --Cyclopia ^talk 10:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did a bit of research; found nothing about a visit to a UK editor, but understood the point better. There is this impossibly long archived discussion from 2008 on the subject -any update on this subject? It seems that even BBC doesn't take information from its archives down, so I'd lean towards keeping information (and if some juror looks on the Internet during the trial, it's the juror's fault, not ours) --Cyclopia ^talk 11:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth paragraph, response by Alison W Twenty years ago, the rules were total press silence after charges and 3-6 months before the trial to give people time to forget. The internet has made that more difficult and I've seen reports of juries researching cases. Tobin was very difficult as he had a very highly publicised trial, followed by another a long time later. The key point though is to avoid speculative references to cannibalism, or any other assumption of guilt before the end of the trial. We don't want to become notable! Regards JRPG (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no trace of UK police visiting a UK editor in the paragraph you quote. That said, it seems we have no policy about the subjudice -also because if we comply to UK restrictions on content, why shouldn't we comply with, say, China or Iran restrictions on content? Again: WP is not based in the UK, so I see no legal reasons to comply with it. If there are possible liabilities for UK editors, we can advice editing of the article and talk page to be avoided by UK editors. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the 14th line.

In this case, I was approached by an Police Officer, acting on behalf of the court, that there were very strong reasons why this article (and its caches, which were being dealt with separately) should not be available for the duration of the case. After making confirmatory checks that the officer was 'real' and acting correctly (both true) I considered his request and, specifically, that it was strongly felt that should this article remain in place then the court action could be thrown out. Now, as other media coverage has noted, there is a very serious charge against this individual and given that there is a lot of history about him in this article I concurred that in the best interests of justice it would be very much preferable if the content was removed temporarily.

Note also the final sentence in [this video] warning not to publish material which would prejudice the trial.JRPG (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, I've seen -I was reading the wrong paragraph. I'd say it is a very good reason for UK editors not to get involved, but not a reason to remove the content. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. I would be happy if the article was edit protected until completion of the trial. I won't touch with a barge pole.JRPG (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. Thanks. :) --Cyclopia ^talk 14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, maybe are we too much paranoid? I mean, BBC keeps this online. Why BBC can, and we can't? --Cyclopia ^talk 20:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - I don't think Griffiths himself is notable, but the case itself could be, so perhaps we need to rename it something like Bradford serial murders. A point here though, I'm not certain it's not actually a serial murder case. Wouldn't there have needed to have been five murders for it to be a serial murder case? That's only going to be so if the earlier cases from 1992 and the early 2000s are linked to this one. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I happen to have recently discovered that the definition of serial killer used on Wikipedia is at least three murders for psychological gratification, over a period of more than 30 days, with a cooling off period in between them. However we should be using whatever the media is using. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If guilty, he probably passes that definition. He has been charged with three murders and one of the women has been missing for a substantial time. As for the reason why, we're still guessing until any trial. 91.106.120.165 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like this concept but we may still need to be careful. The defence may say they weren't all committed by the same person, we don't know. JRPG (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename / merge into an article about the serial murders, per TheRetroGuy and WP:BLP1E. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion no merge is necessary..considering that this Stephen Griffiths has got all the attention on him not the murders itself. Its different in other cases. But here Stephen as a person is what is of interest of the media actually.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree, but our policies differ. In theory I could argue too for an IAR simple keep, but renaming and creating an article about the event seems the best option. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would never have been even a issue had this been about an american. which is totally bias. Sad that wikipedia still is america friendly when it comes to crime articles,more than rest of the world.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Rename / merge per Cyclopia, TheRetroGuy and WP:BLP1E because he may still yet be proven innocent. Also, the guy has garnered much attention in this country (the UK) and is therefore quite possibly notable in his own right even if the killer turns out to be someone else or is never found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by -m-i-k-e-y- (talk • contribs) 09:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename. The amount of media coverage of the case is vast, and there can be little doubt now to the notability. However, it's better to write articles about the murders, not the alleged murderer. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would never have becomed any discussion about merge or rename had this been about an american serial killer. Totally biased.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Brit. I want it renamed. He hasn't been convicted; he hasn't even been tried for goodness sake. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am an Italian. Living in the UK. Agree with renaming. Your conspiracy theories are nonsense. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - I've been working on this on Wikinews and was surprised it took some time for a WP page to appear. The media coverage has been global (though I confess I've mainly stuck with British sources) and, realistically, serial killer cases are usually notable. However, I also agree that we can't name the page after Griffiths - especially without even a conviction. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename, as I commented on the article's talk page there are enough noteworthy aspects, and enough media reports, to make some article. I've no objections to the rename option, but per ÅlandÖland, in this particular case at this time, I'm not convinced it's the best option. As far as I'm aware, these three alleged murders are only linked through the investigation and charges against this one person. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless he turns out to be a random fantastist with matching DNA, this article is likely to remain of note BRIANTIST (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources like this may prejudice his trial. Although this article does not say he killed them, it is strengthening the link between him and the women. The justice system of this country is based on 'innocent until proven guilty',and the jury will be selected from the general public, who are easily swayed by the media, and a wikipedia page adds sustenance to the prosecution's case, before we even know what the evidence is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallycarrie84 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He currently has a really high profile in the Media and thus notability. Also he has become a famous serial killer IJA (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename - on principle, we normally don't name articles about serial killers, particularly when they are current events. We normally name the article after the victim (ie: murder of, killing of, etc), or give it an appropriate title. However, if this series of cases prove both related and significant (they still have not found two of the three bodies), then it should be renamed. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still say keep here. This article subject has becomed ntoable in his own right. To delete seems meaningless.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while the trial is ongoing. At the moment he would only be notable by WP:ONEEVENT. Were he to be found innocent, then he's not notable. 91.106.120.165 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form (possibly renamed). I think that other articles tend to entitled as about the murder, rather than its perpetrator (in this case alleged perpetrator). However, multiple murders are particularly notorious. This article will no doubt develop as the trial process develops. At present, he is only an alleged murderer, so that we must be careful. There are severe restrictions on what UK newspapers are allowed to print about a criminal case before there is a conviction. WP should be as circumspect. UK editors are probably subject to the same restrcitions as the press. These are designed to ensure that a person can get a fair trial. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename or delete WP:BLP "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, ... and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Currently, as someone who has merely been accused, a standalone article under the name of a living person is unacceptable. Active Banana (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as 2009-2010 Bradford serial killings or similar; focus on the details of the killings, and keep mentions of Griffiths to a single section (so that it can easily be updated as events progress, without the risk of inadvertently leaving harmful information lying unnoticed elsewhere in the article). I presume the police have explicitly linked the killings - though would we need that to justify us treating them jointly, as they have obviously implicitly linked them by charging one man with the three? Maybe redirect from Crossbow Cannibal and establish a Stephen/Steven/Steve Griffiths disambiguation page as there are now quite a few of them. Barnabypage (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and no need to rename. Clearly has sufficient coverage to be notable and I would argue that renaming to the "event" is more of a BLP issue than making it crystal clear in the article that he is a suspect rather than convicted. If it is renamed, the article will have to be completely rewritten to focus on the murders rather than the suspect. - ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily - see handling of Steve Wright (serial killer) and Ipswich serial murders. It would be easy enough to spin off a section on Griffiths-the-person (or indeed any other suspect) into a separate article if he is convicted, while keeping the main treatment of the crimes and investigation in the original article. Barnabypage (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is precisely the sort of article that the policy on biographies of living people should be concerned about, as it repeats unproven allegations about a living person which are obviously potentially harmful to that person. We've been sidetracked this year by a handful of disruptive editors (included some admins and at least one steward) into a moral panic about poorly sourced articles saying "Joe Bloggs is a footballer playing for Anytown United" rather than concentrating on the cases, such as this one, that have the potential to cause real, serious, harm. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can we widen this to include Anthony Sowell? Seem to be a similar debate, and the hoops I'm being made to jump through to edit are getting smaller all the time. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was made by a user who moved Sowell's page so much it got, at my request, move protected. (The first move was to the highly inappropriate and lurid "Ohio House of Horrors.") He has been asked more than once to go to Sowell's talk page and get consensus, so this comment constitutes inappropriate canvassing. Şłџğģő 00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have gone with the Imperial Avenue Murders initially, except there was no mention of Imperial Avenue in the article. If House of Horror is so inappropriate and lurid, it's strange that this disambiguation page refers to Rose and Fred West. No-one deemed it necessary to delete that although SluggoOne is about to. SO is trying to suggest that I am unreasonable. The evidence is there for people to make up their own minds. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough plus he has been in media enough for own notability.--195.84.41.1 (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rework to be about the case, not the accused. Fences&Windows 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Bradford murders or similar, the support is overwhelming, who is going to go ahead and do it? Ggoere (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yet i cant see a clear pattern that most people wont it to be renamed....The discussion should be closed as no consensus. and be kept under its current name.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the decision on whether or not to rename it should be decided in a move debate. Although mergers, redirects and moves are often proposed in a deletion debate, ultimately a deletion debate exists to decide whether or not to delete the article completely. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing I do NOT see here is a consensus to keep under the current name! Active Banana (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither no consensus to change the name.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no policy based reasoning that suggests anything close to the BLP demand that it cannot remain under the current name - that means determining a consensus between "delete" or finding a consensus for different focus and name for the article. Active Banana (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering he referred to himself as 'The Crossbow Cannibal in court I don't think we're going to influence the ruling. I'd say keep, it's certainly notable enough. BodvarBjarki (talk) 13:41, 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 merge to Scandjet. Tim Song (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Djakovic[edit]

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. MBisanz ^talk 17:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 22:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, too minor a businessperson to motivate an article. Also to note is that articles connected to the company Scandjet have previously been the subject of various COI editing in the Swedish language version, as there has been some legal disputes regarding the ownership of the company. Tomas e (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Scandjet. Buddy431 (talk) 16:48, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Scandjet per Buddy, although target is in sad shape.--SPhilbrick T 16:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tim Song (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Florimon, Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable minor leaguer, and no content in the article to show any possibly notability. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the 40 man roster does show some possibly notability. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On Orioles 40-man roster. Article needs work though. Spanneraol (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Baltimore Orioles minor league players, however, after clean-up, I would change my vote to keep. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep after self clean-up. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a $400,000, one year contract shows that even a minor league gig is "fully professional" for the purposes of wp:ATHLETE. Buddy431 (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He fails wp:ATHLETE because he has actually competed at the "fully professional" level of the sport. It doesn't matter how much money he makes. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Narthring, how does he "fail" WP:ATHLETE is he has competed in a fully professional league? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he had competed in a fully professional league he would obviously pass WP:ATHLETE. He hasn't. While he does have a contract with the Orioles he has never taken the field and thus has never competed in a fully professional league. You could argue that even though he technically hasn't played a game that having a contract is good enough. In my opinion it isn't. I agree with the more specific WP:NSPORT#Baseball arguement criterion #2 that he has to actually appear in a game to pass notability. WP:NSPORT isn't an accepted policy but I agree with its interpretation as to what "competing" actually is. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Eastern League is actually a fully professional league.. no amateurs allowed so that argument doesn't work. As far as NSPORT, he seems to have enough sourcing and prose to satisfy #6 or at the very least should be merged per #7. Spanneraol (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well as stated above, the minor leagues are fully professional. See professional baseball. It may not be the highest professional level. But that's not the argument. It is fully professional. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the issue some more I understand it a bit better. Professional = paid/full time contract vs. amateur = no pay/have to have a side job. The sourcing does seem to be good enough to satisfy #6, particularly this. Narthring (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails WP:NSPORT#Baseball - see criterion #6 for minor league players, specifically "To establish that (a minor league player) is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I haven't seen any resources that would satisfy this requirement. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Guidelines did not intend include baseball minor leaguers. No [strong evidence of] significant coverage in secondary sources. --Pink Bull 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professional players are included meaning minor leaguers are as well. More specifically, WP:WPBB/N states that, "To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The article does in fact cite reliable, intellectually independent, and independent sources, including this, and this. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the baseball guideline allows for minor leaguers to be considered notable if they meet the general notability guidelines. The sources you provide above are the best sources in the article, but significant coverage has yet to be demonstrated. However, I'll modify my vote somewhat because I'm less confident in the lack of notability.

I would also like to suggest a merge. I understand what you're saying, however, typically team's minor league articles (Baltimore Orioles minor league players) are the place for players who establish some notability, but not enough for their own article. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is preferred to deletion, especially where the content is impeccably sourced like in this instant. However, merging to Baltimore Orioles minor league players may prove awkward since at this time the article is nothing but templates of player rosters. Merging to Bowie Baysox, the last team he played for, may also be an option. But that seems unprecedented, partly because minor leaguers tend to move up and down in the minor league levels, as far as I know.--Pink Bull 21:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WPBB/N, merging to the team's minor league articles is the way to do it. See Seattle Mariners minor league players (and most of the other team's articles). In the case of the Orioles' article, it seemed that an editor just deleted the people because it wasn't very clean. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:22, 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) 00:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Warrior Ink. Jacob Alexander[edit]

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

There seem to be a lot of self promotional sources, exhibition promotional reviews and blog entries for this BLP. I see nothing that substantially meets the notability requirements, such as international awards or significant reviews in printed publications I have heard of. A search on Google News for "Virtual Warrior Ink" provides 0 matches. I may have missed something out of my ignorance of the material, so I am opening a discussion. Fæ (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources, and the ones provided seem questionable at best. It also looks like there's a conflict of interest - the username of the editor who created the article shares Alexander's real last name, and the section titled "references" seems to have been taken from Alexander's MySpace page. Annalise (talk) 17:39, 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) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katalina Verdin[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline, no nontrivial GNews hits, long-unsourced stub. PROD removed by now-blocked sockmaster-vandal with edit summary "loved her in Playboy." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Clearly not wikipedia notable. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Fails GNG/PORNBIO. EuroPride (talk) 08:06, 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. nominator withdrawn. Notability asserted and cited. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Ulloa[edit]

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

Contested PROD; non-notable footballer who looks to fail WP:ATHLETE (lack of professional appearances) and WP:GNG (no media coverage). Giant Snowman 21:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No assertion of notability at all. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played in the top level in Peru - have added ref to article Eldumpo (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I am happy to withdraw my nomination now that a reference has (finally) been found to verify notability. Giant Snowman 01:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 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. The rule that BLPs default to delete on no consensus when the subject requested deletion does not apply as there is no evidence that the request for deletion came from the subject. Tim Song (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seda Pumpyanskaya[edit]

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

Hello. wmuk: received an email from the Council of Europe requesting the deletion of this article, which I'm passing on in a personal capacity. The request was (quoted with their permission):

"The article represents the biography of the former Director of Communication, and has become the field of a never-ending battle of edits and reverts. We would appreciate it if you could delete the entire article from Wikipedia, since it contains inaccurate information about the person and has no genuine informational value to the Wikipedia community."

They also said in a follow-up email that "the tone of the article is not neutral as the Wikipedia rules impose for biographies, but gratulatory. The article might also not comply with the notability guidelines for biographies."

I personally can't see any benefit to keeping this article, as the subject does not appear to be notable by our standards. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 39 news articles on google news archive. Couple mentions in books. Also per WP:POLITICIAN she's had a UN office, and a council of europe one, (sourceable to news articles), and international politicians are generally notable. I don't feel like switching my keyboard over to cyrillic but I bet there is more in russian. Is this from the volunteer email board thingy?--Savonneux (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those news articles are where she is being a spokesperson. References in books appear to be either similar, or CoE publications. The offices do not appear to be as an elected politician, so does WP:POLITICIAN apply? Mike Peel (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who says politicians have to be elected?--Savonneux (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Named a Young Global Leader ... seems that would be enough to pass WP:N. Blueboy 96 22:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed - there's no reference for her being a young global leader in the article. Mike Peel (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said "weak keep" rather than a full keep. Blueboy 96 12:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Subject is politically notable.I assume the email is not verified as the subject. I also note that there has been some partisan desire to negativity edit and delete the article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN — as noted by Savonneux, she's held two international offices —. The article does seem a bit of a battlefield, but that's what semi-protection and blocks are for... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Subject appears to have been a "spokesman" for a UN mission and the Council of Europe. In my mind that doesn't make her a politician or in scope for WP:POLITICIAN. Although there are a handful of sources where her name is mentioned they are passing mentions, where the importance of the story is mostly for MINUGUA and/or the Council of Europe - hence I think it fails WP:N. More generally, I would say if the subject requests deletion we should err on the side of deleting it (even if that isn't written anywhere) AndrewRT(Talk) 19:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC) (P.S. I'm the Chair of WMUK and personally know Mike Peel who nominated the AfD although my views are my own and independent)[reply]

The subject has not requested deletion, there is no confirmation of that request at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm another WMUK board member and I have no opinion on this article. I'd just like to clarify that the email came from someone else at the Council of Europe Directorate of Communication (I don't know their job title), not the subject. It is from a coe.int email address, is that confirmation enough of the origin (I'm not sure what the standards are for that - I know email addresses are trivial to fake)? I don't know if people want to treat an request from a colleague of the subject the same as a request from the subject themselves - people can decide that for themselves. --Tango (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The request was from the same person that has been vandalising the article, a partisan request from someone opposed to the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it by the same person? To clarify, by 'vandalising' you mean removing content?

My hope is that the outcome of this deletion debate will be based upon the verifiable facts about the person (and hence a determination of their notability), rather than reactions to the source of the request or the previous edit history of the article. The fundamental question is: should this person have a Wikipedia article, yes or no? (Followed closely, of course, by "why?"). Mike Peel (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting your information? I can't see any edits by someone with the same name as the emailer and I can't see why they would be in opposition to their colleague. --Tango (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the article history, there is vandalism from the same location as the email, Strasbourg, council of europe and the requests posted by the ip at the BLPN, "please this person is not notable and the article is promotional" , in just the same way as the request sent here. Main issue for me is that there is no request from the subject to delete and there has been from the same location edits of a nature to remove content and comments that this person is not notable in the exact manner as the request posted above. Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN thread, Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi, Mike Peel. Were you able to verify the authenticity of the email? Personally, I don't see any reason for deletion as the subject is clearly notable, statements are properly-sourced, and the article has a potential to expand. But if Pumpyanskaya is requesting it herself through the agency of the Council of Europe then I am of the opinion that we should comply even just for courtesy. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 22:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Tango said, the request came from a coe.int email address. Given that I replied to the same email address and subsequently received a response, that rules out the possibility of a faked address. I do not know what involvement the article subject has in the request. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the Revision History of the article it is obvious that some individual from the Council of Europe was responsible for the vandalism. This could also be verified by a Wikipedia admin who has access to IP addresses of the most flagrant vandals. I would say that issue should be forwarded to the IT Administrator at the Council of Europe for possibly illegal internet abuse if not worse.PaulRaunette (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide diffs? Thanks. --Tango (talk) 16:59, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Rolf[edit]

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

Here we have an otherwise non-notable gentleman who was accidentally caught by the media enjoying his welfare benefits. There was quite a fuss in German press, but the article is practically unsources. BLP1E, in my opinion. East of Borschov (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The issue may be notable but this living person apart from this one issue is not. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 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) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Kirkman[edit]

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

This very recently created biography of a living person looks like a one event to me about a ten year old child and social services, considering Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event I don't think wikipedia should have a WP:BLP about this living individual. There was a thread opened at the BPLN here about this article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article appears to be a one-sided description of a controversy involving a living person. The article appears to intrude on the privacy of a minor. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per the nomination. To quote WP:BLP1E; "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." I suggest Mr. Kirkman is likely to remain a low-profile individual, at least until puberty. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear WP:BLP1E. ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G3. Non-admin closure. Treylander 20:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Puddings[edit]

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

Ah, the days when anons could create articles. Very strong probability of being a hoax, and a serious BLP violation if it isn't. There is no song called "Make it Fake" in the NZ singles chart, and no entries for "The Puddings". Any trial for murder/manslaughter by brake fluid would have attracted quite a lot of media attention and stuck in the memory, yet there are no matches in Google news archives. dramatic (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Speedy Delete - no references whatsoever as well as being a serious BLP violation. Looks to me like it can go under ((db-hoax)). Already tagged the article. Treylander 20:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Poe[edit]

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

Band with very few references and the only "official" website is Myspace. Treylander 20:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not notable at all band. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails every point in WP:BAND, as far as I can tell -- Foetusized (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that this band doesn't seem notable at all. Coolug (talk) 12:13, 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 merge to List of unexplained sounds. Tim Song (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julia (unidentified sound)[edit]

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

Unidentified sound which does not meet WP:N - no significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing comes up through Google Scholar/Books. Claritas (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that www.pmel.noaa.gov qualifies as a reliable source. This stub article should be kept as part of a collective of unidentified sounds - others of which are listed in the article and have been categorized. Moorsmur (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a WP:RS, but I wouldn't consider that significant coverage. Claritas (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It has WP:RS and WP:V, might be a good candidate for Bioacoustics or Acoustical_oceanography, or concantate all the unidentified sounds article into one since they are all stubs.--Savonneux (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, it might be suitable to merge and redirect all these non-notable unidentified sounds into List of unexplained sounds, with the exception of Bloop, which did receive significant coverage. Claritas (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, whichever. I've also tagged the article for ((Rescue)). __meco (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into the aforementioned list of unexplained sounds. --Grahamdubya (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I was unable to find any secondary coverage, the NOAA is a primary source and doesn't confer necessary notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:55, 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 Cookson Group. JForget 00:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Cookson Electronics[edit]

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

Third creation of this article. Twice CSD'd for G11. Initial user blocked indefinitely for a username violation. Article has WP:COI issues. No reliable sources listed - all are either self-published or do not establish notability. Violation of WP:SPAM. GregJackP (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. A heck of a lot of irrelevant referencing for the London Stock Exchange, and the rest seem to be company based. There might be notability in this outfit, but the article doesn't show it. Wikipedia is not a directory. Peridon (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Awful rubbish. allegedly turnover millions a year and yet the article looks like it has been written by a very young person. Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cookson Group, the parent company -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent company per Whpq. Possibly notable, but now owned by another business and can be covered there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:41, 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. Tim Song (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cement in Africa[edit]

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

This is essentially a list article which lists (and links to) the cities in which cement is produced in Africa (which is essentially just about every major African city). Very few of the actual companies which produce the cement have their own article to which this article could link (presumably because of notability concerns). Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. SnottyWong talk 18:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely pointless. The Pebble Dare (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe that any sourced article about the industries on a particular continent would be pointless. The nomination is premised on the idea that "every major African city" produces cement, which would be a "citation needed" thing for me. I can say with some confidence that in the United States, the figure is "113 cement plants in 36 states" [1]. Although "cement" and "Africa" might not equate with "fascinating", an article about manufacturing in Africa is encyclopedic. Mandsford 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it not fascinating, it's also not notable. Clearly, this is a list article (and as such it should have been titled List of cement plants in Africa). Given that, remember that list articles are supposed to be an organized directory of notable things (and preferably, these things should have articles that we can link to, thus making the list useful). Seeing as how almost none of the cement-producing companies listed in this article are notable enough for their own article, this article basically boils down to a big list of non-notable companies. We could, of course, accurately rename the article to List of cement-producing cities in Africa (since that is essentially what this article is), and if you choose to argue that List of cement-producing cities in Africa shouldn't be deleted, then there's no hope for you. SnottyWong talk 22:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hope for me? Oh dear... Mandsford 15:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for our lack of articles about cement producers in Africa has nothing to do with any lack of notability of such producers, but is simply a reflection of Wikipedia's appalling lack of coverage of African topics, which the deletion of this article would only exacerbate. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Are there sources available to corroborate the fact that many of the cement producers in Africa are notable, per Wikipedia's standards? No one is suggesting that African concrete manufacturers are not notable simply because they are African. They are likely not notable because they don't meet WP's notability standards. If I'm wrong, it should be quite easy to disprove me (and to be clear, I'm not suggesting that all African cement companies are not notable). Furthermore, as I said before, the article as it currently stands is not about cement producers in Africa. It should be titled List of cement-producing cities in Africa, per my argument above. I think that an article titled Cement in Africa or African cement industry would almost certainly be notable enough for its own article, but just because this article has that title doesn't automatically mean that the article's content matches. If I name an article Cement in America but then fill it with information about aardvarks and pictures of Brittney Spears (or fill it with a simple list of American cities in which cement is produced), then that article should be deleted until such time that someone has the time and motivation to produce a proper article about cement in America. Or do I need to rename the article to Aardvarks and Brittney Spears before anyone will agree that it should be deleted?

Keep The topic is notable. Please see The global cement report for an excellent source which covers the topic in considerable detail. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Then let's blank this article and start over using that source to actually create an article about cement in Africa, rather than a list of African cities in which cement is produced (which is currently the content of this article). Do that, and I'll gladly withdraw my nomination. SnottyWong talk 23:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone does that, I'll gladly revert the changes. Mandsford 16:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cement is an important industry in Africa for all sorts of building and construction and also poor transport arrangement make it difficult and costly to supply from one country to another. Tabletop (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tabletop. Notability does not stop at the Atlantic ocean. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
mildly amused delete. Really, this page is silly. We don't have "Cement in ..." anything else. "We" do have wikia:list:Cement in Africa, which is even redder. Oh, if we get to Cement in Indonesia, the word for bahasa Indonesia word for cement is ""semen". Really: wikt:id:semen. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, and it's the reverse of how it's done in the Northern Hemisphere. Up here, the hardening process has to take place before the delivery of the semen. Mandsford 12:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename: List meets WP:List and should be renamed to List of companies and cities in Africa that manufacture Portland Cement or something similar. The overall subject is clearly notable and covered by ample sources. The fact that there are entries without articles is irrelevant. They just need to be sourced to demonstrate they meet the lists inclusion criteria, they do not need to be notable in their own right. Per JM and TPD, completely pointless and silly are not reasons for deletion.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Completely pointless and silly are not reasons for deletion." -- Shouldn't they be? SnottyWong talk 17:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep don't rename either. Cement is a key building material for the basics of "modern" living. Its availability in Africa (and the fortunes to be made by mis-use of control over the supply chain) has been a topic of huge significance for African politics and 3W development. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 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) 00:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Cavaliers[edit]

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

Not notable. British university sports teams in mainstream British sports (e.g. soccer) are rarely of note within their institution, never mind the wider world. This American Football team does not appear to be one of the exceptions. A quick google reveals nothing other than sites directly related to the team and its rivals (Note not to confuse sites referring to the more notable Rugby League team of the same name). Article is unreferenced. Given the lack of independent sources, there is little prospect of being able to reference it. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources given.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent sources. It is an unusual British university sports team that actually meets our notability criteria, and this isn't one of them. Pfainuk talk 19:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I stated in the deletion rationale for Tarannau Aberystwyth, Uni sports teams are rarely notable within their own campus. This team is no different. (Also, a Google search, removing references to the rugby team of the same name, reveals nothing that can make this a referenced article.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 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) 00:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King's College Lions Cheerleaders[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/King's College Lions Cheerleaders

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

Non-notable. Google turns up only pages directly related to the team. Article is also unreferenced with little prospect of being able to reference it, due to lack of independent sources. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No references, no prospect of references, so fails our notability standards. Pfainuk talk 19:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 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. JForget 00:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracktor Bowling[edit]

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

WP:NN band. Failed speedy. Toddst1 (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the best bands out there, but will never make MTV feature. East of Borschov (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't see reliable sources, but given Google hits, and in the interests of global bias concerns, I'm wondering if there are any sources in Russian, perhaps; asked here on Wikiproject Russia. Chzz ► 23:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indonesians[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE Davidelit (Talk) 17:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should be cat, IS cat.--Savonneux (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It looks like a mess, but the argument that "it's already a category" seldom works. Kinda like "Why go to a synagogue when there's a nice Baptist church in town?" For a nation of 230 million people, Indonesia seldom gets mention in the American press, so a well-developed set of lists of politicians, entertainers, scientists, etc. would be most welcome. Mandsford 21:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I shouldve been more specific. No lead section, lots of redlinks per WP:LSC, lists of people are supposed to be comprised of people who are notable because of the topic of the list per WP:SALAT. Now if it were a list of lists of people who were Indonesian, i.e. if someone made a list of this cat Category:Lists_of_Indonesian_people I would go keep because those are generally acceptable.--Savonneux (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Satu Suro 01:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP Indonesia has had indscriminate lists for the duration of the project - and they simply show that the project credibility is regularly eroded by lists of names of things - usually red links. This list - if you check the talk page has had comments from over 2 years ago by myself advising that ad hoc addition to red links or no links at all would be deleted - as a means of discouraging mess. As a list it is a useful link to Indonesians who are notable who have had legitimate articles. As a list - it can only function if due diligence of editors who work on the Indonesian project check it and keep it clean. Where this falls down is the person hours spent on project maintenance on the WP Indonesia project gets to a critical minimal - and the red links and fictitious notability items creep in.

I would not support keep if the rate of red links that keep getting added are sustained in number over time without some provision for semi protection of clear indication that only legitimate blue links can be added.

I would not support delete as it has existed for at least 3 years - and when adequately on watch of a few experienced editors like Indonesia or Borobudur - It can be adequately policed. If it can be shown that the indonesian project has got to the point where a few editors cannot sustain adequate watch over a few lists - well then... Satu Suro 02:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too broad of a topic, per WP:SALAT and WP:NOTDIR to have an encyclopedic article built around it. What do these people have in common other than the fact they are from Indonesia? On the plus side, the section on Miss Indonesia Universe winners seems discriminate enough for a valid spinout. Them From Space 03:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Miss Indonesia Universe winners table is in List of Miss Indonesia Universe title winners, an apparently machine translated article (try reading it), which is a spinout from the Puteri Indonesia article. All rather messy. Davidelit (Talk) 04:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the topic for this list is far too broad. - Whpq (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless. Can anyone explain its purpose? --Merbabu (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It allows users to browse for notable Indonesians. Polarpanda (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see these kind of arguments frequently in AfD: The article is sub-standard so lets delete it. Granted, its not that specific a list, but rather than deleting the information, FIX IT. If the individual sections need to be spun out into smaller sections because its unmanageable, do that. If there are too many red links, delete the ones that apparently have not purpose or justification . . . or if you know there is a justification, then write the @#$% article. But wholesale deletion is never the answer. Who cares how long you've been complaining about the article, nobody else has been motivated to fix what you complain about. Looking at the specifics of the article: "Comedians" is weak, only one WP link, "Education-related" shows all red links--it definitely needs some work, "Auto Racing" is half red, "Entertainment" maybe a third red. Four weak sections out of twenty? Is that justification to delete the whole article?Trackinfo (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that the article is incomplete, its that a complete article would be so long and broad in scope as to be of no benefit to the encyclopedia and little use to readers. WP:IINFO applies here. Them From Space 03:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if there were known Indonesian project editors (or others) with this list on watch - as had happened with a few other specific lists - red links are removed on the basis that such lists are pointless (to red links) - and only go to blue links - that is 'live valid articles' - on that basis the arguments by the delete/pointless supporters fail to see the utility of such a list identifying the actual notable indonesians within the scope/range as having articles about them. The topic may seem broad but the capture is specific and has a definite scope - list of current valid articles about notable Indonesians. Satu Suro 00:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Break into more descrete lists, ie. List of Indonesian Politicians, etc. This list meets WP:List and is clearly useful for helping editors expand coverage of notable Indonesians per WP:CLN. There is absolutely nothing indiscriminate about this list. If an entry is not a notable Indonesian and cannot be sourced as such, then delete the entry. Breaking this list into more descrete lists will only improve coverage of notable Indonesians. Per Merbabu, Pointless is not a reason for deletion.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, can be clean up via normal editing, and since it's divided into sections sublists can be split off as necessary. See List of Canadians for a healthier example. Polarpanda (talk) 14:43, 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) 00:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Precisionism[edit]

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

No supporting references provided or found, other than the blog of the person who created the phase. Non-notable neologism. I42 (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Silliman is perhaps the most notable poet-blogger in the blogosphere, practically defining what is or isn't notable in contemporary poetry. Therefore this is a notable neologism. When he coins a term it will immediately be used far and wide among poets. This article should not be deleted, as it will be of considerable import. Customranger (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)— Customranger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Will be" is the critical issue here. When it is, then we have an article on it. I42 (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, Silliman is very important voice in discussing present-day poetry. But what if this concept would never be mentioned again either by him or by any other sources? I think now it is too early to make it the subject of encyclopedian article. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are a blog and an article about something else that doesn't mention the subject. The examples of poets in this school include only one reckoned notable enough for an article here - and that article oddly does not contain the term 'New Precisionism'. A search for '"New Precisionism" poetry' gives five ghits. This includes this article and two for the unfortunately named Silliman's blog. The remaining two appear quite irrelevant. "Ron Silliman is perhaps the most notable poet-blogger in the blogosphere". Maybe. I cannot see the term getting used in the circles I move in by any of the poets (published poets at that) that are there. Admittedly we are not in the blogosphere... I'm afraid that not every utterance by notable people is of itself notable. In time this one may be. As of now, it ain't. Peridon (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have escaped notice so far [2]. Get some attention in a literary publication and come back when you do. Mandsford 21:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above points seems rather weak. Peridon thinks Ron Silliman has a funny name, and isn't one of his poet friends. Do any of you know how many hits this page has already received? Probably tons. It is a valuable resource for New Precisionism. Once removed it will inevitably need to be recreated, and perhaps not in a fashion that is not as well worded. Customranger (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a weak point that the article is not reliably and independently sourced, or that there are no independent reliable sources to be found in a search. Also, I used the word 'unfortunately'; I didn't say 'funny' - you did.... Peridon (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this well-worded and valuable resource can be placed in the article about Ron Silliman until the topic achieves some notability. Mandsford 21:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#OR. This term appears to have been coined yesterday—that is, the day the article was written—so it's highly unlikely that the existence of the "movement" it denotes is verifiable in reliable sources. Deor (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. No reliable references exist. Inniverse (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non. Rangataua huntaway (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayou Trikerioti[edit]

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

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

Repeatedly re-created by a WP:SPA, article makes no substantive claim to notability. Two sources are cited, IMDB (which is a directory and not reliable anyway) and a namecheck at the end of a review of a production. Set designers really do not get significant coverage, a schoolmate of mine went on to be a lighting designer and his partner designed the sets for shows such as Blood Brothers, it is extremely unusual to find any independent biographical sources about technical stage professionals, and this article includes no such sources about this one. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I don't believe that there is inherent notability for a set/costume designer unless they've held the title in multiple notable productions (compare to actors/actresses). This is dangerously close to an A7, in my opinion. The only thing saving it from being an A7 right now to me is the one reference that's not from IMDB. OlYeller^Talktome 17:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - many ghits, but this would be normal for anyone working in this industry (programme credits etc). Looking at the URLs for the greek search, I do not see any website that are specifically about her. Any awards or major productions would swing it maybe. --Triwbe (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

additional - some of the greek web sites are specifically about her, but they are very short industry specific and I feel not quite enough to be notable. --Triwbe (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I got enough google hits originally that it seemed fairly notable, but as you suggested, each source is a trivial mention at best. Sorry to drag this back from speedy only to vote for its deletion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources, and no indication of any awards for the design work. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the lack of available English coverage for this individual's career in film and theater apparently fails WP:N, if a Greek-reading Wikipedian cares to start digging through these 7,000 results,[3] I'd like to learn if there is a notabiity in Greece that is not being revealed in my English-laguage searches. And to the nom: your friend's adventures aside, costume designers can indeed be notable.[4] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She hasn't got an article in the Greek language Wikipedia. Gets a mention there in a box in an article about a play The Pillowman by Martin McDonagh. Peridon (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was, it's extremely unusual to find any independent biographical sources about technical stage professionals. That doesn't mean it never happens, only that it's extremey unusual. Unlike actors and directors they tend not to get written about much. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Chzz ► 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Triwbe (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment for now TO be honest the comments below are not all together wrong. My guess is that this is likely a systematic bias issue and hopefully we can find references to prove notability etc (in english or greek) then I hope we can save it. We do indeed have issues with non-english speaking people for this very reason. I assume we have a Greece wikiproject? Has anyone poked them yet? I'll try and poke an friend from who may be able to help. That is another spot that might be a great place to look for despw22 and others. (summary: lets not jump to conclusions quite yet) James (T C) 23:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All i can say is that all these google links you come up with are mentions/proof in newspapers and press releases or reviews for the theatre credits you keep deleting. It is also things I was trying to put in the article, but parts were deleted before I managed to proceed. I am a final year student in the University of Greece, and I am working within a team to put greek theatre people in wikipedia. This was my first try, and as I have found it frustrating enough writing here and being deleted all the time I have put a claim not to do this job for the University anymore, and that there is no use for it, if other people delete the articles. I cannot understand why you would not accept the credits in somebody's private website, and that you trust things like the IMDB (which is not comprehensive by the way, and only film-related). It is, however frustrating to have gathered information and a complete Biography and CV and having it deleted over and over. It frustrates me even more to see that now a very small amount of somebody's work is credited, rather than more than 10 years of design. So finally, I give up, as I can see the frustration for somebody to have worked for a week on a person, with nothing to show for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Despw22 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC) THis is Despw22 by the way and to answer the "friend's adventures aside, costume designers can indeed be notable.[2] Schmidt," IT IS SO MUCH EASIER TO PROVE/GOOGLE AMERICAN/ENGLISH SPEAKING CREDITS RATHER SOMEBODY WHO SPEAKS IN A WHOLE DIFFERENT ALPHABET. But finding this belittles their carrier, that I think is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Despw22 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way, but Wikipedia is not site just to list (or advance) someone's career. They have to be notable. Ms. Trikerioti has certainly a long career and has some favourable reviews, but nothing that 100,000s of other theatre workers have also acheived. I have tried hard to find some more reason to keep this because of the language issue, I think you have also. But I have not found anything that shows that she passes any of the criteria shown in WP:CREATIVE. --Triwbe (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeap, totally understand, and accept this. I never realized this, as I know there are semi-inexistent fashion models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katerina_Georgiadou), but also other theatre practitioners with smaller careers (I am not mention them as my purpose is not to have them deleted, but to make a point) I do not see this happening in their editing histories, and it seems bizarre to me. It is because these people are self promoting that we decided to do so in the University, properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Despw22 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We DON'T accept IMDb - for the same reasons we don't accept personal or companies' own sites. or blogs and forums. They are not necessarily reliable. IMDb relies on info supplied by the people concerned (or their PR dept), and personal sites are not really the place to find neutrally presented information. As to other articles, yes, there are ones that have slipped through the net. Please feel free to tag them yourself, or to bring them to our attention. But remember that an article doesn't have the right to exist just because another one does. Peridon (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Katerina Georgiadou is now proposed for deletion. And not by anyone who has taken part in this discussion so far. Peridon (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katerina Georgiadou was Miss Greece and a Miss World contestant, so I am sure she was known by a good proportion of Greek men :-) A quick google for Κατερίνα Γεωργιάδου gives a lot of hits, some specifically about her and a number of photos. One could argue that the pages are not that significant and that the rule WP:SINGLEEVENT might apply, but I doubt it.

Also I passed over a few pages in the Category:American scenic designers but, of those I checked, all have a number of significant references, awards or had some level of notability. --Triwbe (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After blanking the page [5], following previous warnings, Despw22 (talk · contribs) was blocked from editing. Chzz ► 19:49, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UEA Angels[edit]

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

Non-natable UK university cheerleading team. No references, and Google shows up nothing not affiliated with the team or the university's American football team, an article on which was itself deleted as non-notable here. Pfainuk talk 16:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - non-notable cheerleading team to non-notable American Football team. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete no independent sources given.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - UEA Pirates was recently deleted through AfD, and I can't see how their cheerleading team can be considered notable if the team isn't. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment good point. They could in the realm of possiblity I suppose... but yeah, they're not.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ajith Jayakody[edit]

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

Individual who fails WP:N - I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. The Webster's quotation is actually, believe it or not, a Wikipedia mirror: [6] - the entry is a copy of the first sentence of the article with (WP) behind it, clearly attributing it to Wikipedia. All the information in the article is essentially unverifiable. Claritas (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the so-called "book" is from icon publishing which is really a facility that scrapes information from various sources on the web including wikipedia. The only claim for notability here is that he was the Sri Lankan discus record holder. However, no evidence is provided, and I can find nothing that corroborates this. As such it fails verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please delete This kind of All personal blogs from encyclopedia. I have find out lots of living persons biographical Articles same as. Please Remove All.--Wipeouting (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I obviously missed that the book referred back to Wikipedia. No other RS found. Jarkeld (talk) 18:58, 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 all. No prejudice to separate renominations. Tim Song (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens Memorial Library[edit]

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

I don't believe we consider small-town libraries like these inherently notable, and there's no assertion of notability for any of these. I've searched for a number of them and generally only found a website with hours, staff, etc. Should any of these later turn out to be notable, recreating them from reliable sources will not be a big deal, but for now, there's no need to keep around a slew of stubs on libraries that are apparently not notable. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Comment So you're assuming they are all nonnotable because you searched generally for a couple? Most libraries are included in town histories, like the main nom here, passing mention here, apparently it also has the original collection of some poet Anne_Bradstreet flickr pics [7]. That's barely scratching the surface.--Savonneux (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That might be wrong library, not sure... Town names change so much. My point remains though.--Savonneux (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What you turned up are passing mentions that can easily be recorded in the articles on the towns themselves, as indeed they are. They certainly don't meet WP:GNG requirements for stand-alone articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasnt trying very hard. --Savonneux (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all This is several litters of "Kittens" that were brought into the world on May 18 and left for others to take care of [8]. I've looked at them and they're all the same: "The Ashby Free Public Library is a public library in Ashby, Massachusetts.", "The Attleboro Public Library is a public library in Attleboro, Massachusetts", "The Avon Public Library is a public library in Avon, Massachusetts", "The Ayer Library is a public library in Ayer, Massachusetts", etc. Betcha can't guess the contents of the article about the Bedford Free Public Library was... A mass nomination is appropriate in this case and I'm glad it happened before the next batch of contributions. Although stubs are acceptable for topics that are inherently notable (i.e., they don't have to show notability), libraries are not inherently notable. There is no accomplishment in making lots of little articles. Savonneux makes a case that there will be more added to the Stevens Memorial Library, and if someone wants to do someone else's homework (Sav is under no obligation to do so) on a page, great, but how many of these are there-- 40? 50? Please don't create articles if you have no intention of working on them. Mandsford 22:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all since the nomination is defective. The nominator admits failing to search for evidence of notability for each one before the mass nomination Come back with ones where you have followed WP:BEFORE. Some small town libraries may well be notable, architecturally or from having programs or collections which have gained significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Handwaving is not a substitute for searching for references. Edison (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so let's say I have searched for all of them in the meantime and found no indication of notability for any of them. What's your next argument for retention? Remember WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". That editor has so far not supplied any evidence of notability, and in its absence, we must assume non-notability and delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - More hand waving? Your nomination said "I've searched for a number of them," which explicitly says you failed to search for all of them for evidence of notibility, which makes this a disruptive and bad-faith mass nomination. I find it difficult to believe that you actually did the research required. Individual nominations are more appropriate. It is not true that all libraries of medium-sized or small towns are inherently non-notable. Edison (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Useful information that will be of service to future users. No reason to delete: nothing is being sold or hyped. Carrite (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ITSUSEFUL, and please show how any of these meet WP:N. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an absolutely invalid mass nomination. Each article must be considered on its own merits. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We allow bundling of nominations for a reason, and you have a week to consider each one. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: I'm afraid I'm with Edison. Nom doesn't indicate that he's made any attempt at all to find sources for these articles, as deletion policy requires him to do before nomination. That many of them would probably fail of notability doesn't change the fact that he should have tried to find out first. I do agree with Mansford's sentiments about creating articles you have no intention of improving, but the intent of an article creator to improve or not forms no valid ground to delete. Ravenswing 13:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. I've looked; same result. Any further arguments for keeping this slew of substubs on non-notable libraries? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The bundled nomination is appropriate, considering that this is a bundle of articles. I'd point out that Biruitorul gave the article's creator the benefit of the doubt, waiting ten days to see if User:M2545 intended to do more with these before bringing them to the forum, even though the history suggested a pattern of disruptive editing. I see some arguments to the effect that we should have 20 separate discussions to respond to, but do the rest of you really want that? If the procedural objections are made in hopes that perhaps it would deter Biru, I'd be more than happy to assist him in renominating each of these separately. We've been through this before with the User:Groubani articles, and if that's what must be done, so be it. Still, isn't it somewhat ironic that a person will be spending more time on the discussion of one page, then M2545 spent on all 20 pages combined? Mandsford 18:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for another 7 days Too important an issue for a handful of people to decide. We're talking about dozens of articles kept or thrown into the book burning bonfire. If the topic of small town libraries is junk then it may qualify for the trash but we need to think this through carefully. Goldamania (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind if the debate lasts two or even three weeks. But we're actually talking about two dozen articles (not "dozens"), and these are "articles" only in the loosest sense of the word ("X is a library in Y, Massachusetts"). If some are found to be notable even after being deleted, then restarting them from reliable sources won't be a problem (they'll have to be, anyway, since this encyclopedia relies on sourced material to indicate notability, and these "articles" make no attempt to show notability), and if any are found notable during this discussion, I'll gladly strike them from my nomination. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this is mostly about User:M2545, than the actual articles, why hasnt someone notified him/her of it? --Savonneux (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't suggest that bundled nominations are inappropriate, as a surprising number of editors do, when deletion policy explicitly encourages them; this is the sort of instance where it's appropriate to do so. But that being said, excuse me? The nom neither performed any research on any of these articles and didn't inform the article creator?? (As it happens, I just did.) Sorry, no. That's inappropriate, and it is unacceptable. Ravenswing 11:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, now, enough of the hyperventilating. I researched enough of them to get an idea of what was going on, and within the first day I researched them all. Can we do away with the feigned outrage and actually consider the nominations on the merits? As I said, I'll willingly strike any libraries found to be notable, but so far, that hasn't happened. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you usually exhibit this degree of condescension in your discussions? (If so, I can scarcely be surprised at you running afoul of RfA.) That being said, it is quite conceivable that the crafters of deletion policy meant what they said when they required nominators to research their nominations prior to filing and inform article creators of such filings. The correct response is "Gee, I'm sorry" rather than "I can't be bothered with such trivialities." I assure you that no part of my reaction to your attitude is feigned, and am comfortable with characterizing this as a bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 14:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And while I'm at it ... let's take the very first one I researched, the Attleboro Public Library article, which I admit I picked because it's a small city rather than a small town. Leaving aside trivial or calendar mentions in local media, which of course don't qualify, I found these articles either about the library or with the library as a substantive element in them, within about three minutes flat. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. This didn't take extraordinary skill or dedication ... just a few minutes marching down Google News hits. Of course, AGF debars me from open speculation about whether the nom's done the research on these he states he has done, but I do sure wonder at his methodology. Ravenswing 14:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, whatever you say. More to the point: 1) One day later, User:M2545 shows no signs of defending these "articles". We'll see if he does show up. 2) Regarding what you found about the Attleboro Public Library, there's hardly enough in there to build an article out of. "Teen breaks into library + Neighboring library loses accreditation + Library renovates building + Library hosts 1920s event + Library puts its old files in order + Library usage jumps at least once in a century of existence + Library encourages residents to read Fahrenheit 451 + Library fixes roof + Gas leaks at library" doesn't really make for a coherent narrative, does it? We do actually need some source(s) that provide(s) a structured narrative about the library, something like this. Let me know if that turns up; otherwise, notability remains unproven. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that's an intriguing notion as to what you think WP:N should be about; feel free to raise that on WP:N's talk page and see if you can get consensus around to your POV. Back to the relevant issue at hand, neither WP:N nor the GNG require a seamless literary narrative. What they require is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That exists for the very first of these articles I researched, and turned up at once. Hm, let's take on the Billerica library next; it's a small city with a population comparable to Attleboro's. There's [18][19][20][21][22], for starters. Quite possibly more than a cursory 90-second search might turn up others. Ravenswing 23:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a practical matter, enough non-trivial coverage of a particular subject needs to exist in order for an actual article to be written about it. No source has devoted significant coverage to the Attleboro Public Library as an institution (as opposed to various minor events happening there during the last 15 years, and which are bound to be reported by the local paper, but which usually pass unnoticed by this encyclopedia). Moreover, based on what you found, you yourself would be unable to write a coherent article about the Attleboro Public Library. (I proved that by summarizing the totally disparate and random mentions you dug up.) That is also the case for the Billerica Public Library, where your sources would give us an article saying "The library had a dynamic director in 2003 + The library was promoting reading in 2006 + The library opposes enforcing some aspects of the Patriot Act + The library received level funding in 2003 + A recovery center was set up at the library last month." ****Again, senseless, and showing that notability just isn't proved. (As it so happens, the history of Billerica Public Library goes back to 1772, and there may well be some extant historiography about it, perhaps on its own shelves, but WP:BURDEN requires positive evidence of claims of notability, not speculation about what may be out there. Like I said earlier, deleting this substub and recreating it later on from reliable sources if someone really pines after it is no big deal – they're all going to have to be rewritten that way in order to survive, since we don't keep articles without further proof of notability unless they fall into a select set of exceptions (say, national or state legislators), public libraries not being one of them.) There are libraries the notability of which is immediately and readily apparent from a variety of reliable sources about them. These happen not to fall into that category. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unbundle and Relist Separately" Edward321 (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In fairness to User:M2545, he or she has added content and sourcing to Jonathan Bourne Public Library. I think that a solution would be for M2545 to have a chance to transfer the rest of the stuff to a user page, maybe called something like User:2545/Libraries in Massachusetts. Like the rest of us, this editor is doing the research and writing during spare time. Overall, userfying gives a person a chance to make better articles. Mandsford 16:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To list them separately may be a good idea. My general approach to these stubs would be to merge then into their respective towns, except for those libraries established to be notable enough for a stand alone article. --Pink Bull 19:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All If appropriate relist individual articles so each can be judged on its individual merits. TJRC (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Donkey Show (band)[edit]

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

Delete. This is a totally non-notable band. I checked the "sources" and non of them amount to non-trivial/reliable and independent needed to demonstrate notability under WP:MUSIC guidelines. This is no better than Bullshido.net IMHO. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable at all. Coolug (talk) 12:16, 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. JForget 00:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat Figurine Collection[edit]

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

Completely falsified. User that created the page created a similar fake article for a supposed Masters of the Universe collection. Google search for "SunWar Publications" returns only mirrors of this article and the removed MotU article. The article is copied and pasted (with MK character names inserted where necessary) from user's actually legitimate article on The DC Comics Super Hero Collection (though even that is a duplicate of an identically titled article that simply lacks "The" at the start of the name). -- L. T. Dangerous (Talk to me!) 15:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportI had a feeling this was a troll's work, but I had no idea it was fake. I definitely support this deletion, as there really would be no reception for Mortal Kombat figurines (Sans the one that I put in the talk page). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's content is wholly unreferenced and its truth is questioned.--Pink Bull 19:39, 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) 00:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pawlooza[edit]

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

Article fails to establish why this event is notable according to our policies and appears to be primarily promotional in nature. Deconstructhis (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! It is my belief that this is a popular festival in London, ON, and should be listed on Wiki like the other popular London, ON festivals London Ontario Live Arts Festival, the Expressions in Chalk Street Painting Festival, London Fringe Theatre Festival (Ontario). It is not a major event in London, ON but it gathers over 10,000 visitors from the area and throughout Ontario which, in my opinion, is significant enough to be included. I appreciate your discussion and concern...

Creeeg (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most cities can claim numerous community events which get a sizable turnout, and maybe a photo in the paper next day. (say, the Teddy bears' picnic in Christchurch, NZ). Searching finds nothing but minor promotional coverage, and a surprising number of events with the same or similar names. dramatic (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a nice local event, no different from the various "Woofstock"s and similar events in many cities, but doesn't meet notability guidelines. PK T(alk) 01:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find is local news. Joe Chill (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Animal Rescue Foundation of Ontario ? Canuckle (talk) 03:34, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Alan Reid[edit]

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

Minor actor lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Best known for a upcoming role in an unreleased film. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENT. ttonyb (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He seems to have some minor appearances in film [23], but I can't see a keep. If kept, put in a note that this is not Richard Reid (shoe bomber), the asshole who made it more inconvenient for everyone to go through the airport. I'd add that to the extent he's mentioned on imdb.com, it's not as "Richard Alan Reid", and that he shouldn't be referred to that way here (Richard Reid (actor) would do fine). In the U.S. and Canada at least, criminals, more often than most demographic groups, tend to be referred to by their full names (Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wayne Gacy, etc.). I think is mostly to avoid any possible confusion with an innocent person. Mandsford 15:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best known for something that has not happened yet? Yikes. His short career and lack of coverage fails TOOSOON . Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - several small roles do not pass WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 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 Speedily Deleted Stwalkerster [ talk ] 16:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GERYES TAXI[edit]

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

Recreated after CSD (A7/G11) - non-notable cab company, no refs, promotional, including phone numbers, etc. GregJackP (talk) 15:02, 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 Speedy Keep. No outstanding "votes" to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alien vs Ninja[edit]

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

Speedy contested, elevating for discussion. ~~delete~~ UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been extensively cleaned up and now contains reliable sources. I'm thereby glad to change my !vote to keep. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Incubate as specifically NOT crystal. Sourcing and ongoing improvements to the article show that principle filming was completed earlier this year, and that the film will be released in in a few months by Nikkatsu studios. Using the "Find sources" offered above show this clearly, if editors wish to avail themselves of it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has undergone improvements since the good faith nomination, and the good faith opinion by UtherSRG, turning what was then a two-sentence stub into a somewhat fuller and better sourced article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why I like thinking of AfD as "Articles for Discussion". I've removed my !vote, and replace it with a keep. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its always a nice feeling when an article is improved to the point where a nominator changes from a delete to a keep. Thank you much. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:03, 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.

Pete Freeland[edit]

The result was 'speedy delete'. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on whether to keep or merge, but further discussion can take place on the involved talk pages. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Symbian_platform[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Symbian platform

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

Content fork of Symbian OS.

Merge the two articles and spin off the long article in another way e.g. Application development for Symbian, history of Symbian or list of devices running Symbian. The current spin off is awkward and counterintuitive. Andries (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging Symbian OS with Symbian Platform and creating a list of devices running Symbian would be a better multi-page structure. The devices in the Symbian OS page are distracting from understanding anything in that page. Err, ok that is exactly what you said. I think that is a good plan of action. Bpringlemeir (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Note; this is the second AFD for the same reason. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Symbian. Andries (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This marks a major shift for Symbian OS development in both the license and development practices which deserves a separate article. Pxtreme75 (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand on the development practices? Do you just mean that development is open source or is there some support of agile development or something like that? Bpringlemeir (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Symbian is currently developed using a type of crowdsourcing development process as described here. Pxtreme75 (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a major change. Symbian OS was a proprietary, commercial product while Symbian Platform is a community product. The transition from closed source to FSF approved open source is probably the most significant change that a mature software project can undergo.

Delete. Merge with Symbian OS. Just like the software itself has just one website, so should we. All companies that produce operating systems all want to call their products 'platforms', but that's just marketing. Google called its Android (operating system) a platform, but we call it an operating system. You can't separate the two. Two articles splits the one subject, and causes confusion.--Lester 06:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and then? The article will become very long. Andries (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The original Symbian OS website was www.symbian.com while Symbian Platform uses www.symbian.org. As I stated on my previous comment Symbian OS does no longer exists. All its code has been transferred to Symbian Foundation and became an open-source system. This marks a significant change in so many aspects that, in my opinion, clearly differentiate the product and make it worthy of a different article. Pxtreme75 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If Symbian.com (please click on it) no longer exists, then why are we differentiating it with 2 separate pages, when the vendor puts it all in one website? With 2 separate articles, we are making it more difficult for Wikipedia readers to find the information about Symbian.--Lester 20:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge. I am the originator of this AfD. By having separate pages some of the history is missing. History is often important to readers of an Encyclopedia. The kernel (EKA2) which stands for EPOC kernel architechure 2, EPOC is supposedly superseded by Symbian OS, which is now superseded by Symbian platform. The original EPOC was part of some hand held organizers that were developed by the UK firm Psion. New redirects to the generic Symbian are now to the Symbian platform page. I think some history of the software collection is missing and bound to get lost with a multiple pages. Currently it looks like Symbian originated in the cell phone industry. Bpringlemeir (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not acceptable to clearly link to the Symbian OS page and the EPOC/Psion pages at the appropriate point in this article? apparently User:Justinchudgar

Not sure who I am replying to. Anyways, that is one solution. That would be fine if Symbian platform is sufficiently distinct from the kernel which proceeded. However, the redirect for just Symbian points to the Symbain platform page. Multiple readers and editors have been confused by the current state of affairs. Some people concluded that Symbian OS and Symbian platform are un-related things; at least that is the connotation I get in the Symbian platform talk pages. I don't think conversion to open source development warrants a completely new page (my opinion). It seems that Symbian OS is a mess and instead of fixing it, a new page was started. Judicious linking is one solution, merging is another. The question is does Symbian platform warrant it's own page and will the information be significantly different than Symbian OS. I think there will be a lot of duplication. But that is definitely why I thought this discussion might be worthwhile. My vote should read merge. I never meant to say the Symbian platform page doesn't have good content, just the separate page is confusing and counter-productive to producing a better article on Symbian. Bpringlemeir (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just to clarify that I get it right: when people talk about "Symbian", they generally mean Symbian OS - an operating system -, which nowadays has become the open-source Symbian platform. In addition, they can mean Symbian Ltd. I definitely agree with the prior editors that we should have one, unified, big article that deals with the concept of the Symbian operating system, and delivers for the readers that seek information about the history and technical aspects of this world's most used mobile phone operating system. We should deal with all the incarnations of the system in one article, as the operating system forms one continuous technical entity spanning over three decades from the mid-1990s' Psion devices to the modern-day Symbian^Ns. There are also a good reasons why the whole Symbian thing is nowadays called Symbian platform, but this article would, if properly expanded, just mostly overlap with Symbian OS. On these ground I suggest each of the following actions be taken:
Merge any non-overlapping content from this article to Symbian OS for example under the pre-existing subsection Released as Free and Open Source Software.

Delete this article.

Move Symbian OS to Symbian platform, keeping redirect Symbian -> Symbian platform in place and adding a disambiguation header to Symbian Ltd. to the top of this article.
--hydrox (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC) (ed. 16:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Well said in the intro. Also, there is Symbian Foundation. Technically, this is a progress of a kernel/API with different umbrella organizations taking care of it (possibly with the same developers) and various marketing spins. Symbian platform does include Qt which is a significant piece of software, but is already documented elsewhere. I believe the kernel has not been re-written and backwards compatibility is still possible afaik. Bpringlemeir (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable platform, from the world's largest smartphone producer. I'm somewhat confused by this AfD, in that the nominator and most of the so-called "delete" votes are actually arguing for a merge, and not a delete. Surely a merge is something that can be discussed on the talk page. Is anyone actually asking for a delete - i.e., where the article name and content would be deleted? Mdwh (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Symbian was Speedy Keep - shouldn't this also therefore be a Speedy Keep, or if not, what's changed? Mdwh (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure Symbian itself is notable. Nobody denies that. But it's notable as an operating system, so being notable as an operating system does not mean it should be called a platform.--Lester 01:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "platform" is being focused on at the expense of the conceptual change. It appears that the change in name from OS to Platform was designed to clearly indicate that the nature of the project has changed. Since there are a limited selection of synonyms for "operating system", the use of a different term indicates the change in project license and ownership not a change in purpose.

Keep I think the best thing would be to have Symbian page have a normal "disambiguation" page, one for the original "Symbian_OS and it's history, and then a second one for the "Symbian_platform" which is the Open/Crowd Sourced version of the Software maintained by the Foundation. It is part of the evolution of the system. I see no problem having it broken up into multiple articles the way it is now for ease of information sharing, this is done for many other topics as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WildWikiGuy (talk • contribs) 04:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A disambiguation page would confuse the issue, because we're talking about one product. There should be one umbrella article that explains everything about Symbian.--Lester 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that seems like saying that Microsoft_Windows is one product and that everything from Windows_3.x through Windows_7 should be in one umbrella article. There is, for good reason, an umbrella article; but, there are also detailed articles about significant versions of Windows. The same pattern is appropriate for an OS that is more widely deployed than Windows.

I did not even know that there were two pages on the same subject until I saw the AFD. Talk about confusion. Andries (talk) 22:27, 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. JForget 00:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Grady[edit]

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

Promotional in tone, created by a WP:SPA whose only other contributions are blatant vandalism, deletion was disputed because "Steve is a very important example of up and coming australian artists", most of the article is about how he's going to be famous Real Soon Now. Zero cited reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually found him in several independent sources, which I added two at the bottom. Triple J is a national broadcaster. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with due respect to Graeme, I don't think that Grady meets WP:MUSIC at the current time. Point #11 of that guideline says "placed on rotation", but Unearthed is not 'rotation', it's simply a page full of unsigned musicians that may not necessarily be played more than once on the radio. I don't see he meets any of the other criteria, either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
comment unearthed pages are not independent, they are submitted by the artists. most songs there have not been played on triple j. duffbeerforme (talk)
Delete per nom. Not notable per guidelines. Created to promote. Alio The Fool 18:54, 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 redirect to Tabnabbing. JForget 00:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tabnapping[edit]

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

Non-notable, essentially unreferenced neologism. Also reads more like a "how-to" guide. The history also says something I don't understand when the article was de-prodded: "this is an article by firefox`s creative lead". This may indicate a COI. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IF THIS IS TO BE DELETED FOR NEOGLISM. then there is an duplication of this article in a different name tabnabbing (this is tabnapping).Imgoutham (talk • contribs) 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
when is the due date for deletion, or the article is considered for approval —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imgoutham (talk • contribs) 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my view on this is a new internet term to specify the various phishing methadologies.User talk:imgoutham —Preceding undated comment added 06:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I am supporting deletion, but I would like to say that I have made a few improvements to the article, but the references provide no examples or proof that it even happens. Chevy monte carlo 14:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the term is widely used. Also no explanation of how it exploits tabbed browsers rather than non-tabbed ones. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously, people, one Google News search is all it took for me to find sources. Yes, the article needs to be majorly improved, but the sources are available. Passes GNG. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 07:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Merge with tabnabbing. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 20:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- it's the same as Tabnabbing.Gz33 (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gz33's point is great - there's already an article on Wikipedia on the same subject which is much better. It needs to be deleted. Chevy monte carlo 10:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tabnabbing. It's a very possible misspelling. Peridon (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm in agreement with a redirect. I was unaware of that article. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tabnabbing, per Peridon's rationale--Pink Bull 19:43, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Kaabour[edit]

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

speedy contested, elevating to afd for discussion, though I expect it won't meet our notability policies. delete UtherSRG (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the claim of a screening at Cannes bears out Go here. Although an IMDB listing is not included in the article, the subject is listed in the film's credits on IMDB, and subject has an IMDB page. A Google search found roughly ten or so hits. Not sure about notability, but I suspect the subject might pass muster. Evalpor (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment did a tiny bit of straightening up and added some citations and links.Evalpor (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable in Lebanon, and there is coverage in the English-speaking world as well.Evalpor (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, not good enough to be in the namespace right now but could become a very good article. I will host it if you want. Samwb123^{T (R)-C-E} 23:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* I'm fairly new at this and the Userfy thing is something I'm a bit unclear on. But I think this article, ratty though it remains, has value. Anything short of deletion seems desirable to me, thanks. Evalpor (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article improvements have begun. Input is required from Lebanese-reading Wikipedians, as notable in Lebanon is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has been producing music since 1974 and has six studio albums release since. He also composed music for over six children's plays and countless musical compositions for TV promotions, ads, and series. He acted in several plays during the seventies and eighties as well as several TV series and one Egyptian feature film in 1991. Google search found 30,100 results. He is listed as one of the main six actors of "Carlos" which premiered at the Cannes Film Festival (refer to official website of Carlos: carlos.canalplus.fr). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marwan.kaabour (talk • contribs) 08:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, but we cannot use information taken from a personal website. We're doing our best to save the article through Wiki-appropriate means. Evalpor (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The information regarding the movie "Carlos" could be found on the movie's official website, which is a microsite within canal plus, one of France's biggest TV station: Carlos.canalplus.fr (Ahmad Kaabour is listed among the main six actors of the movie alongside Edgar Ramirez)

Other articles mentioning Kaabour in Carlos: http://www.parismatch.com/festival-de-cannes/2010/Actu/Carlos-autopsie-d-un-terroriste-184498/ http://www.iloubnan.info/artetculture/actualite/id/46250/lebanon/Carlos-et-le-petit-%C3%A9cran-:-la-piste-du-terroriste-qui-a-fait-trembler-le-monde-passe-par-Beyrouth%E2%80%A6 http://blogs.indiewire.com/toddmccarthy/archives/2010/05/19/carlos1 http://www.timeout.com/film/newyork/people/376675/ahmad-kaabour.html

Concerning Ahmad Kaabour's musical career, you could refer to the following websites which mention or speak about recent festivals and concerts he has taken part in: http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=270906 http://www.bau.edu.lb/kaabour-zenni.php http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2009/April/theuae_April474.xml&section=theuae&col= http://www.abudhabievents.ae/en/events/music/sounds-of-arabi-mustafa-said-and-ahmed-kaabour.html

His albums could be purchased and/or read about from the following links: http://www.amazon.com/Ahmed-Kaabour/e/B001LI6Q8A/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1275381782&sr=8-1 http://www.passionate-music.com/2009/01/ahmad-kaabour-ounadikom.html http://www.timeoutbeirut.com/music/article/1909/ahmad-kaabour.html

There are plenty more articles about Kaabour, however they are mostly in Arabic, and that is why I am trying to build a Wikipedia page as it would be a main source for English-speaking people to read about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marwan.kaabour (talk • contribs) 08:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources indicate (rather borderline) notability, and this was an inappropriate nomination per WP:BEFORE. Claritas § 11:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. 05:52, 31 May 2010 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted "Joshua Israeli" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Israeli[edit]

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

Contested BLPPROD without adding sources. Non-notable athlete. GregJackP (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable.--Grahame (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable junior athlete, negligible coverage outside of routine records of junior tournament results and the like. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete I removed some contentious material per BLP. The comments I removed lead me to doubt the seriousness and hence reliability of the article.--agr (talk) 03:21, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brentyn Milverton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously nominated for AfD and closed as no consensus. I think now, a year on, givem there has been no follow up or additional coverage in reliable sources, WP:BLP1E could apply. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he plays in a non-fully professional state league, not the professional national league. The-Pope (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.--Grahame (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree, this is a textbook WP:ONEEVENT case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 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) 00:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TVersity Media Server Metadata Reference[edit]

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

Declining speedy A1. Elevating for discussion. Reads like a manual. Doubtful it can be salvaged. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Manual page for non-notable software product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:03, 28 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! 15:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a reference manual -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a reference manual Pxtreme75 (talk) 17:59, 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. no arguments to delete aside from the nom - but please expand this ASAP. JForget 00:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Route (command)[edit]

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

Declining speedy and elevating for discussion. Tech dict def. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an important and notable command. It's mentioned in both external links of routing table (Linux FAQ and Microsoft TechNet article).

The closest related article is routing table, but Ifconfig#Current_status mentions that it's being phased out, at least in Linux. It may become an historical topic at some point, an argument for keeping it separate from routing table. The article isn't well developed, but I can see it developing like touch (Unix) or ed (text editor).

-Pnm (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: we've already got some tens of similar definitions with some other commands. This page should stay a disambiguation page complement by summing up the function roles and history, and eventually point toward v:Routing_Protocols (to learn how it works) and b:Guide_to_Unix/Explanations/Real_Networking_Interfaces (to get many utilization examples). JackPotte (talk) 18:39, 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} 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"NBA Coach of the Year Curse"[edit]

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

Not a notable topic. (The title is wrong anyway, including quotes on both sides.) — Timneu22 · talk 12:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX. Tarheel95 (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about "hoax" but you will actually get some google results for this term. — Timneu22 · talk 12:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Were any of these results reliable? Tarheel95 (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A remarkably uninformative article. The nominator is to be praised for waiting to see if there was any sign of an intent to do more, rather than tagging it immediately, but after a few hours, it's clear that "that's all she wrote". Mandsford 15:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title is wrong due to the quotation marks, and the article has hardly any content and no sources. If editors believe that the string of firings of Coaches of the Year within 2 years after winning the award is noteworthy, it would be better to discuss it in the article NBA Coach of the Year Award with reference to sources, rather than announcing in the article title that this is a "curse" -- an opinion which could be taken as either bias or original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If only bias/or had speedy reasons. Alas... — Timneu22 · talk 00:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unwikified made up something-something. Carrite (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A random statistical coincidence seen in the past vaguely defined few years does not seem to warrant an article. Jaqphule (talk) 19:01, 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. JForget 00:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaadhal Solla Vandhen[edit]

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

Declining speedy A1 as there is plenty of context. There's enough content for delining A3, and films can't be A7'd. Elevating to AFD. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is an unreleased film. Only the Music album was released. Doesnt meet notability criteria for films.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same as Sodabottle, I was only able to find about the soundtrack of the movie, not the movie itself, the notability is disputed for me. FredZ (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - the article is a total trainwreck but most of the existing content seems to be about the soundtrack album. The discussion above is focused on whether or not the film is notable, and apparently it isn't, but shouldn't the article be judged on music notability criteria too? The end result might be the same, but all ground should be covered, IMO. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Tamil films, music cant be separated from the film - so if a film gets stuck in development hell or is unreleased, it means the album also doesnt get much coverage. I went through WP:NALBUMS and believe this film's album wont meet the criteria, as it has not received any independent reviews. (Usually the music is reviewed along with the movie and not separately). --Sodabottle (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The film has been in making for some time, but the makers have been keeping silence and not revealed any facts or details about the film (except for the director and the music composer's name) so far. We don't even know the official title of the film, it was earlier Naan Avalai Sandhitha Pozhudhu and is said to be Kaadhal Solla Vandhen now. The soundtrack album of this film hasn't been released officially yet, but got leaked somehow (that's why there are no professional reviews yet!) I suggest to delete this article for the time being and possibly recreate later when details about the film get revealed by the film's makers. Johannes003 (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Action (Canada)[edit]

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

This group is not notable and there are no references. Be in Nepean (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Political parties are inherently notable and historically important — even the little Trotskyist sects. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to have gotten some news coverage, I see no reason to delete it unless we are suppose to delete all pages regarding minor political parties here at Wikipedia. --TIAYN (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this isn't a political party. They're not registered as such and have never run a single candidate in any election. I also can't find any news coverage. Be in Nepean (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not all political parties run candidates for office. This is a revolutionary group. Carrite (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, albeit not a major party, it has a 16 year history as a nationwide activist organization, and is at least capable to holding conferences, see [24], [25]. --Soman (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —67.68.49.42 (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also noteworthy as an entryist group/faction in the NDP. --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:15, 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) 00:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mint editor[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable product. Lacks reliable sources and therefore fails WP:PRODUCT. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very specialized product with limited notability (note that it can be used only to modify templates created from the mother company). If the company is notable it might become a part of a company focused article as described in WP:CORP and WP:PRODUCT Pxtreme75 (talk) 18:09, 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 delete. JForget 00:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Rosenthal[edit]

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

Speedy contested. Elevating for discussion. Looks to fail WP:BIO. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. A lot of fringe mentions in Google searches but I'm not seeing anything that meets the needs of WP:RS. Jusdafax 15:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered in New York TImes , Boston Globe, multiple articles in the Providence Journal, and many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmug (talk • contribs) 17:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, the sources pointed out so far are one sentence or less, so they fall under "passing mentions". WP:GNG requires significant coverage, which I do not see for this article. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 06:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two sources given above are reviews of the same group exhibition. Passing mentions, not significant coverage.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:N requirements on the evidence to date with passing mentions. Ty 23:54, 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 Speedy A7 UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InterPals[edit]

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

Not covered by reliable sources, therefore fails both the notability and the verification (beyond that it exists) tests. Oh and if you search for this make sure you don't confuse it with InterPal an entirely seperate organisation or Interpal (the international pallet association) or any of the other organisations that uses Interpals as a name in some way. Cameron Scott (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there may be some notability issues here, but it does have an Alexa ranking of around 11,000 which pretty high (relative to many other sites in the social networking category). Not sure if that makes a difference, though. Mefistofele (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that but the problem is still, it's not what you are, it's what people (reliable sources) write about you and reliable sources simply aren't writing about this company. If someone could find some decent sources, I'd be happy. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more sources, but am not sure that this they're reliable enough. Any advice? Thanks! Mefistofele (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find significant coverage, just not in reliable sources. As far as I have been able to find, this fails both general and web specific notability guidelines. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd tagged for speedy as advertising which GB fan declined (hey, you can't blame a gal for trying :) but I can't see this topic is notable. If I'd found evidence that it was the next Facebook, I'd have rewritten it. No idea whether the article creator has any connection with it, but the disgruntled user who keeps adding a bunch of crap to the article has a definite WP:COI Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:A7 (non-notable website). Tagged accordingly. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination has been declined twice -- and this discussion is already taking place. Can we just finish it here? I've added more sources as per my comment above. Thanks! Mefistofele (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added more sources, but I'm not sure they qualify as reliable. Can anyone take a look before deleting? Thanks! Mefistofele (talk) 14:02, 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 redirect to Rated R (Rihanna album). I'll also salt the redirect; any admin may unsalt without consulting me when/if the song charts. Tim Song (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar 101 (rihanna song)[edit]

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

No charts, no covers, no awards: fails WP:NSONGS, redirect to album reverted with no edit summary. See also twice-redirected Rockstar 101. Empty Buffer (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this again. I don't know how to find previous discussions, but this unreleased non-single keeps coming back to haunt us. In an otherwise non-notable way, of course. There's a better version of this article (rescued from a previous redirect) brewing at User:Iluvrihanna24/Rockstar 101 anyway. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion I merged three times, they didn't learned. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 17:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~If it is possible also Rockstar 101 (song) and Rockstar 101~~. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 17:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have more information, so I say keep, but need to be moved to Rockstar 101. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 23:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not eligible for speedy, but certainly needs to go. Fails WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 19:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should be speedied, should not have been recreated for the zillionth time to begin with - obviously the author did it to work around the current redirect. - eo (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Single by a notable artist with a music video already out, seems notable for me. Also the article says it hits radio june 1st so it's relatively understandable that it hasn't charted yet. Also note that every other Rihanna single has an article. --Deathawk (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there have been discussions about Rockstar 101, which is the proper name as there is no dab needed, which resulted in a redirect. If and when the song charts or wins awards it is notable to have an article. At the moment fails WP:NSONGS. A sanboxed article is at User:Iluvrihanna24/Rockstar 101. Adabow (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the song has been mentioned in reliable sources. Just a handful of these are-

Daily Mail- [26]

MTV- [27][28]

Metro- [29]

The Huffington Post- [30]

Entertainment Weekly- [31] KingOfTheMedia (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree totally with the view above. And further that the video was released.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are thousands of songs with music videos, but they are not notable enough for a WP article. Music videos do not help a song to pass WP:NSONGS Adabow (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the song is much changed since it began, at least, more information in the music video, --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the song is an official single, noteworthy as it is crucial in documenting rihanna's career. Some songs that have articles on Wikipedia, for example Feel Up by Grace Jones, weren't even commercially released, never charted, didn't have a music video, have no known citation by any major critic, yet are still 'crucial' (apparently according to Wikipedia's standards) while this song is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin217 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel Up has now been redirected. Thanks for pointing it out.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rockstar 101 has an official video which premiered on VEVO, and as above has been featured in many critics' articles. It is also being released to radio in two days. What more confirmation does it need??!! However, the article should be changed to just 'Rockstar 101' as there is no other page called Rockstar 101. 82.19.248.157 (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Official single, release dates, music video, performed live. Alecsdaniel (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This Song Is An Official Single! So It Should Have A Page! Want To Delete A Song Thats Not A Official Single On Wikipedia? TRY BREAKIN DISHES!!!!!!!!--74.44.87.84 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is looking like WP:SNOW, but it would be so much better to merge to Rockstar 101 which is presently a redirect either to the album or to this article, depending on who edited it last. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we are in the unfortunate situation where this is kept, I'll do some history merging to straighten that out. It certainly is a shame that the AFD has been visited by so many people that have no apparent respect for WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album's article: Unfortunately fails WP:NSONGS, and Kww... admit your defeat! ;) Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and re-open when it has charted. WP:NSONGS is clear about notability criteria. Remember WP:consensus is not decided by the number of people in agreement of a particular notion it is decided by the quality and merit of the arguments put forward. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By the time this gets sorted out, the song will have charted in Jupiter, let alone the US! The articles (plural) were certainly created before they were viable but, since the song is going to be released next Tuesday, I suspect this whole load of debates and edit wars etc are going become mooted either by the song charting or flopping: either way it will be notable... Furthermore, the edit war over at Rockstar 101 should be brought to an end as utterly pointless, BTW. Clearly, this article should be moved over there if kept and both this and that should redirect to the album if the article is deleted. Either way, the edit war is a waste of effort and frankly embarrassing to watch --Jubilee ♫clipman 23:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the song will chart soon Jagoperson (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as Wait Your Turn has an article, Rockstar 101 must have one too.--Quaveren (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: What's your logic there? Wait Your Turn passes WP:NSONGS by virtue of charting in three countries, something which this song as not accomplished.—Kww(talk) 21:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep ignoring this part - All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It passes.KingOfTheMedia (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't ignore it: that's a precondition. Once it does that, it then has to chart, be covered by multiple artists, or win an award.—Kww(talk) 02:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, I'm sorry; "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". KingOfTheMedia (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish that you would take the time to analyze the guideline. It doesn't say "appropriate when" or "always appropriate when", it says "only appropriate when. It's a limiting condition.

"All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

I think we agree here: there has to be substantial coverage in independent sources.

"In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting."

This doesn't apply to this discussion, as it is about albums.

"Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song."

Pretty basic guidance: in general, don't write separate articles for songs, cover them in sections of larger articles.

"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."

Here's the major exception: songs that have charted, won awards, or been covered by multiple artists can get articles.

"Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

Even if the article charted, won awards, or been covered by multiple artists, it may not deserve an article.

So, given all of that, the test for "passing WP:NSONGS" is "received coverage in multiple reliable sources" AND (charted, won an award, or been covered by multiple artists) AND "received enough coverage that we can write more than a stub". Coverage first, and then does something that qualified.—Kww(talk) 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument against an article's deletion. haz (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so here are my arguments: Keep because the song is an official single; even though it wasn't, it has a music video, so that makes it a notable song, deserving having an article; it's been promoted in TV and Radio as a single; and if so... what are the reasons to delete it?--Quaveren (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gobsmacked comment: Wait a minute, having a video "makes it a notable song"? Why do you believe that? Since when? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The song has a music video, radio add dates, and was performed live on the biggest show in the United States. The article also has a variety of third party resources. XL XR2 (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rated R (Rihanna album) and salt the article until the song charts. WP:NSONGS is extremely clear: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." — ξ ^xplicit 01:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The song will be released tomorrow, and it's unlikely it's not going to appear in some charts. There are plenty of other aspects that make this song notable, as seen on the above comments. Alecsdaniel (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD discussion will end after the release of the single, but presumably before chart data are released, and it would be a bit of a violation of IAR to delete the article on protocol, only to have to undelete it in the more-than-likely case that the track charts. The circumstances of its creation leave much to be desired, but I think it would be prudent to not see this one in black and white re. the application of WP:NSONGS. In the case that the article is kept, merge with Rockstar 101 – the article's contribution history is a bit of a clusterfuck as it stands. haz (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it violates WP:IAR at all. Charting is at least a week away, and there are far better versions of this article sitting in sandboxes and under redirects. Allowing articles like this to stand sets a bad precedent, and encourages editors to create articles prematurely in the future, saying things like "Rockstar 101 got kept, why can't my article on Lady Gaga's latest single be kept too?" There's nothing in this article that is exclusive, valuable, hard to write, or not already in User:Iluvrihanna24/Rockstar 101. Deleting this now sets a valuable precedent and results in no damage to the encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just checked Wikipedia's notability guideline, and the song section does not mention singles anywhere. Therefor it could be inferred that Wikipedia does not have a policy regarding singles: Indeed wikipedia says "Most songs are not deserving of an article" but most songs are not singlesm. so therefore it could be argued that singles could be seen as an exception --Deathawk (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singles are covered in WP:NSONGS, which a shortcut to WP:Notability (music)#Albums, singles and songs Empty Buffer (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This song has a cover, a radio release and a music video!--Aaa16 (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since this appears to be an un-winnable battle, it is best to just allow the article to exisit. It was only released yesterday. Keep the discussion open but give the song enough time to meet Wiki qualifications (2 weeks at least), if not, then delete the article. Itsbydesign (talk) 03:54, 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotronic (mind control)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Psychotronics is a redirect to parapsychology, this disamb is wholly unecessary. More fundamentally, there are insufficient reliable sources amidst the comspiracy theories to make this a notable topic. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic telepathy. GDallimore (Talk) 11:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NEO. "Mind control" doesn't exist, nor does "pyschotronics", so all this article would end up being about was a particular neologism. Claritas (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Using Claritas' logic then we should also delete the articles on ghosts, Santa Clause and God. Notability guidelines are not to establish the real-world existence of the subject, but to provide a verifiable encyclopedic article on the subject. Inniverse (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't believe in mind control? Cult leaders and torturers use it all the time. Dream Focus 11:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - 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. Psychotronic (mind control) is demonstrate as notable by the thousands of google hits pointing to hundreds of independent websites, articles, and other verifiable references to the topic of Psychotronic (mind control). This subject was even discussed in congress [32]. Other links include [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] as just a very small sampling of web-articles that I quickly found. As I wrote in my comment above, notability it is not about whether you believe it to be true or not, it is about verifiability - and this subject easily qualifies under the general notability guideline. Inniverse (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

loc.gov link doesn't seem to work but I presume it says much the same as the "Space preservation act", ie absolutely nothing that could be used to write an article. The rest of the sources are not even close to reliable. As I said in the nomination - and thank you for proving my point so well - there are no reliable sources amidst the many conspiracy theories thrown up by google. GDallimore (Talk) 20:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen what's at the link. It's just the text of the act itself with the word "psychotronic" buried in it as a passing mention with no explanation (and certainly no indication of discussion by Congress). Not the basis for an article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR sourced to "mindjustice.org" and other fringe/conspiracy sites. And no WP:RS reliable sources found for supposed relevance of "The Space Preservation Act" to this topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per LuckyLouie - 152.16.15.144 (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It gets coverage and is a real thing. Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD. One detailed one is [39] Dream Focus 09:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Book search shows results for the term being used as well. Dream Focus 09:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link in the article to confirm the information about Putin outlawing this in Russia in 2001, the LA Times having an article about that. Dream Focus 09:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dream, there's no way that "OpEdNews" meets WP:RS. Claritas (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google news found it, so I assume Google considers it a reliable source of news. Anyway, as I said, the La Times article [40] I linked to in the article, proves this a real thing. Plus hordes more mention of it. It was even outlawed in Russia, and apparently a bill was introduced in America to outlaw it as well, that failing. Dream Focus 10:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it's obviously an urban legend which has got out of hand, if the article is kept it needs to deal with the subject in a encyclopaedic way, similar to Fan death. I see your point, however. Claritas (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An urban legend? The Russians admitted to having programs for this, and America have done this sort of thing as well. It exist. Dream Focus 11:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Pyschotronics" doesn't exist, so I have no idea what you're actually claiming the Americans/Russians have been doing..... Claritas § 11:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[41] The Washington Post article about this is off limits unless you pay to read the whole thing. The Berkeley Daily Planet article[42] is available for reading.

•Through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations.

I suggested at the time that it seemed impossible that these weapons were even possible, but Kucinich, a member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, assured me that these weapons exist and “those people who control them are deadly serious and intend to use them if we don’t stop the weaponization of space.”

So a member of congress, who is also a member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, says that these things do exist, and tried to get a law passed to keep them out of space. Dream Focus 11:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotronic space weapons exist? Then there should be dozens of reliable sources we can use to verify this rather than a few fringe blogs and books by conspiracy mongers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:FRINGE theory that such things exist. There are otherwise well respected scientists who believe that UFOs have visited earth and so forth, and this is the same sort of thing. Worrying pseudoscience with no basis in any research. Claritas § 12:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google news includes many things which are not reliable. Same with Google books and also "Psychotronics" turns up a lot in hits because it is a Russian term for parapsychology.[43] The only reliable sources do not even attempt to explain what Psychotronics in a "mind control" sense is or why it is included in the list of several items mentioned in the space preservation bill. The berkeleydailyplanet source doesn't go beyond quoting the bill when mentioning psychotronics, for example, and certainly does not suggest that "psychotronic mind control" weapons exist - it could be talking about mind control weapons in general or sonic weapons, which are well-established as causing a range of short and long-term neurological effects which could be classed as mood management or mind control. The controversial The Mosquito, for example, has had several human rights groups up in arms

It would require signifcant OR to make any conclusion about psychotronic mind control from these briefest of mentions. In other words, there is no article that can be written without significant OR and use of unreliable sources. GDallimore (Talk) 12:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd say redirect to mind control but I'm not convinced it's a plausible redirect. Article consists of little more than a dictionary definition, with a couple of random quotes suggesting the word is in use, although no-one seems to be able to give an example of what a psychotronic weapon is or how it might be constructed. Even those quotes are suspect; Vladimir Putin certainly never signed any law mentioning "psychotronics", unless Russia has suddenly adopted English as its national language. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fringe concept lacking coverage in reliable sources. There are a few reliable sources that use the word 'psychotronic' (like the LA Times article), but none that focus on the concept, or provide enough information to write more than a dictionary definition (which is what this basically is). I would say 'Redirect', except that this doesn't even seem like a plausible search term, and Psychotronics is already a redirect. Robofish (talk) 21:26, 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) 00:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Sean[edit]

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

Originally created as a self-bio for a want to be pop star singer, now developing into a life history and career biography which matches his similar entries at Facebook and MySpace (NOTE: love the sepia pic in his bedroom!) Fails WP:NOTABILITY on all and every count, with only 1K Ghits combined of his three names. Would have sent it out via Speedy, but its been there so long Trident13 (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even without google searching, the article is non-notable on its face. "Forthcoming album"? "Short movie under production"? Sorry, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there is no way to tell if any of these forthcoming projects will actually turn out to be notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:55, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bossy Bitches[edit]

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

The song does not exist which is why I edited the page originally saying that but i figured that there is not point of having a page that says that this is a fake song so I just decided to instead nominate it for deletion WikiMinaj (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete While good natured (I suspect someone came up with this article while the album was still in production) This page has since been turned into an ungly attack page against the article starter. I would also like to caution the original author that next time he should just list an article for deletion instead of turning said page into an attack page. --Deathawk (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 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) 00:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CD Gold[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]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 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 Speedy delete as blatant hoax Enigma^msg 04:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plano Mall[edit]

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

This seems to be a complete fabrication. I can't find evidence for any specific shopping mall called "Plano Mall". There are The Shops at Willow Bend and Collin Creek Mall, which are both malls in Plano, Texas, but not for this specific name. There is this news story, but the land described is still empty. Delete as hoax. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 04:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any "Plano Mall" at Google News archive, although there are certainly malls in and near Plano which might be casually referred to as "the Plano Mall," but I could not find one which exactly fits the facts stated about this one. Seems to fail WP:V. Edison (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. According to the chain's official store locator, there is no longer a Lord & Taylor within 100 miles of Plano, Texas. The only Chuck E. Cheese's in Plano is at the "Preston Shepard Place Shopping Center" at 1604 Preston Road, between Park Blvd and Plano Parkway. The only Panera Bread in Plano is at 1900 Preston Road at the "Preston Towne Crossing Shopping Center". These are both thriving strip malls/power centers, not a single multi-level indoor mall. On top of that, while I can't claim to have heard of every shopping opportunity in north Texas, I live just a mile north of Plano and have lived in D/FW for almost 19 years and have never heard of "Plano Mall". It sounds like the author conflated bits of Collin Creek Mall, Valley View Mall, and a few real restaurant locations to create one sad fantasy of a dead mall. - Dravecky (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sad hoax article that no one ever viewed. --Milowent (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was living in Plano from 1990 through 1994, the time period when this mall was supposedly in operation, and I have no recollection of there ever being a "Plano Mall". That's why I asked about it at the Dallas WikiProject. Collin Creek Mall was in operation, but the Shops at Willow Bend hadn't been built yet. Either way, this article has to be a hoax. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:49, 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puggle[edit]

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

Delete Not a real dog breed. There are several precedents for removing portmanteau named designer dogs Rootsie (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has independent referencing specifically regarding the breed. Miyagawa (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This has been nominated before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puggle (dog). Station1 (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Dog Hybrid This is not a dog breed, just another "designer dog" cross of which there are hundreds. The sources listed are just about the designer dog fad and not about anything notable as it pertains to the "Puggle" cross. Thanks. 64.5.236.254 (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 14:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Notability is firmly established by the sources in the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Puggles" are no different than any other "designer" dog crossbred. If this article stays it will set a precedent for articles on every cross someone can think up. Also sources and references are not notable, just links to personal sites and articles on designer dog fad. FBGA (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Google News results at the top of this AfD. You will see many reliable sources. Look in my contribs, and you will see that I just notvoted to delete the article on the ShiChi. Abductive (reasoning) 08:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either let all the possible dog crosses have pages, or direct non-breeds to dog-hybrids. This should be a policy or there's going to be a debate every time someone adds a page for a boggle, shitz-poo, bordrador, or other concocted name. And I checked the sources. They're barely relevant. Just a vanity page and some magazine or news articles about fancy cross-breds. Merci, Michline 78.155.144.174 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Dog Hybrid/Crossbreed or to List of Dog Hybrids I read the article. Full of unsubstantiated claims about appearance and behavior of this cross. Like a mixed breed, a crossbreed dog is not in any way predictable in appearance or behavior. It could be like one parent or the other or any where in between. And someone's home made "Puggle" fan page doen't seem to be much of a source to me. JoKing (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup. Poor sourcing in the article is irrelevant, since there are 664 Google News hits, several whole books on Puggles [44], [45], [46], and this entry in Puppies for Dummies. Abductive (reasoning) 02:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches do not meet guidelines for notability. Nor do any of the other sources any more than any other designer cross. This really should just be an entry under "List of dog hybrids" like all the other trendy crosses. JoKing (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any topic that has entire books written about it is a topic worthy of an encyclopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Miyagawa Coaster1983 (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with "List of Dog Hybrids" This is not a breed of canine. If you keep this page it will encourage lots more like it on crossed dogs. There is already a page for "hybrid" cross dogs that are not breeds of dog. Why not compromise and put the info on this "puggle" pug cross on that page, with the other crossbreeds like it such as the pugapoo and pugalier? Mercedes Cordoba (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only acceptable compromise is to delete or redirect those articles on crossbreeds without treatment by secondary sources, and to keep articles on crossbreeds that do have secondary sources. Remove the words "on crossbreeds" from that statement and you have WP:N. Abductive (reasoning) 20:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the mentioned page. There's been a number of articles on these made up crossbreeds already merged into List of Dog Hybrids - Beaglier for example. Also checked the sources on Puggle and WP:NTEMP in my estimation. JoKing (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I think that defining things is helpful. Primary colors are wonderful, but I also like orange, green, purple, indigo, and everything inbetween. I don't mind that there are additional names to learn for things like "sugar pink" or "sienna" or "violet" or whatnot...I think they're fine, and unique, and I believe that the more bits and pieces of information one can obtain about something, the more we understand it. For example, getting information on a piece of fruit is great, but knowing that the fruit is an apple is better, and knowing that it is a fuji apple is even better than knowing just "apple" or just "fruit" ...and knowing that it is a fuji apple picked towards the beginning of the season vs. the end is even more helpful....yes, I realize it is just an apple and that perhaps only one out of ten people will care what type it is. However, I think that it's still useful information for those who care. For those that don't, well the info is there, you don't have to read it if you think an apple is just an apple. I just happen to believe that Granny Smiths are good for baking, and Fujis are good for eating straight up, so on so forth. "Just another designer dog" by the way, is a little mean. "Purebred" dogs are not better than "designer dogs" or "mutts." Even "mutts" and "designer dogs" can be sweet and awesome and very loyal. Tacking on the "just" at the start makes it sound so elitist.

Rather than all the spam across all of the "just another designer dog" pages, can this issue first be settled OUTSIDE of the pages, and then the final decision applied? Right now it seems a little like a spam war and is taking a lot of time, and all of the same issues and same people are appearing, it's just a very fragmented sort of battle. It should instead, be in a single forum, and be a little more cordial if at all possible. Otherwise, it is quite disheartening to people who are trying to contribute too you know? We care about dogs as much as you do, or we wouldn't be here either... Same boat, we just gotta figure out the course....play nice? Thanks. Kelidimari (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 'List of dog hybrids' or delete There is already a place for these types of dog crosses on Wikipedia. If you follow the debate on the dog pages, you'll see it was created for the very reason that people were creating endless pages on "designer dog" mixes. Do we really want articles on the Papshund, Pechi, Perroenano, Chigi, Corghuahua, Pomimo, PomChi, Porki, Pugador, Pugairn, Dogueador, Pugese, Pugzu, Schweenie, Schnug, Shichon, Zuchon, ShihApso, Schnautzu, Boodle, JackSchitz, and every kind of something-poo you can think of? Oh, and the fact that some quickie press has published a book doesn't make a subject legitimate or anything other than a fad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.236.254 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The following sources aren't exactly quickie presses: Chicago Tribune [47] ; Fox News [48] ; The Telegraph [49] ; Newsday [50] ; The New York Times [51] all have articles entirely about this hybrid. The NY Times article seems to put a lie to much of the Puggle article, talking about "Puggle fatigue", "Huggable, but only for awhile", "medical problems", "neurological diseases", "takes all the fun out of owning a dog", "the dark side of puggle ownership", etc., so the article might need some balance. First Light (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surprise (for me) - this one has several reliable sources that show distinct notability. First Light (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strong delete. Either all crosses should get a page, or they should be redirected to a single page, as the above poster mentioned. Other wise this debate is going to go on and on and on for every cross there is. But if you do decide to keep the "Puggle" page, let me know. I want to make Wiki pages for my two dogs. They used to be mutts, but now I've decided one's a Bossiepoo and the other's a Shnoodelier. 187.1.10.14 (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly merged Kelidimari, are you on meds? Anyway, this isn't a dog issue. It's a validity issue. There are only a few sources and they're just internet articles on why "designer" pups are a trend, no real support there. Thank-you. Mischa 203.148.84.26 (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shion Tsuji[edit]

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

Fails MUSICBIO. After talk page discussion I have converted from a PROD in order to ensure BIAS is avoided and there is time to discuss the possibility of using other language sources (such as searching for "辻詩音"). Fæ (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Meuuhh. The article facts proving is badly done as none of the references assert anything. Not that accurate & reliable sources don't exist, just that the job was half-done. Oricon charts are available freely so the "subscription only" excuse won't do. --KrebMarkt 07:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the subscription only bit is for the sales figures table. --Prosperosity (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it with Ｃａｔｃｈ！ほしいものＭ／ｅｌｏｄｙＳｋｙ　ｃｈｏｒｄ～大人になる君へ～Ｃａｎｄｙ　ｋｉｃｋｓ That should be enough to assert Oricon ranking & basic release information. --KrebMarkt 08:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Doesn't fail MUSICBIO, as she has a top 10 hit on the Japan Hot 100 chart as seen here. --Prosperosity (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on charting. Edward321 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charted = notable per WP:MUSIC = keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, article meets requirements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss SMAN1WA 2010[edit]

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

Another non-notable future pageant. Unreferenced, and nothing found. I42 (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search give about 50 results. Seems not much coverage in media as well. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 07:21, 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) 00:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charron (rapper)[edit]

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

The references given do not appear to meet the criteria set out at WP:MUSIC. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. and consider blocking the articles creator. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:11, 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. JForget 00:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection Planet[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). St Anselm (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. andy (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am probably posting this in the wrong place, but I'm a little lost. Re: your deletion request for "Resurrection Planet," I have reviewed the arguments that Wikipedia allows me to use and, to get past the jargon, I simply would like to point out that this particular book, while not being a bestseller or an Academic tome, does have a unique contribution to make. It is a rather unusual blend of religion, politics, and sci-fi horror purposefully designed to help readers past the typical post-Apocalyptic thrill ride and make a more thoughtful consideration of just what might happen if the Messiah delays His return until men have moved on to other planets (admittedly, an unlikely event in view of the way our world is self-destructing). Anyway, while I appreciate your concern for preserving the sanctity of Wikipedia, I think you might like to compare the Resurrection Planet entry to about...oh, I don't know...maybe a thousand other entries that certainly seem more commercial than this one. Wikicleric (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Here's one for example: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies And, of course, its "prequel." As for other crap (see next note) I see your point, but vanity press sometimes has less of a crap odor than formally published crap. My apologies to Jane Austen...--Wikicleric (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argument by the analogy that other articles are worse isn't really valid; see WP:OTHERCRAP. I would suggest endeavoring to find some sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless extraordinary secondary sources are provided; vanity published novel. —Korath (Talk) 20:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my counterpoint about "vanity," above. Resurrection Planet, seemingly destined to be un-resurrected, has significant value of a social nature, regardless of its publishing source. While Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: Dawn of the Dreadfuls (give me a break) hardly can make that claim. I say: out with the trash, then, one flush for all three! Otherwise, find something else to sniff at. Wikicleric (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Resurrection Planet, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies has been shown to be covered by many outside sources, satisfying the WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (books). As Wikipedians, we don't engage in original research to determine the social value of a book, we rely upon the informed opinions of reliable sources to make that determination. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be self-published; self-published books are almost never notable since they don't get the independent, reliable attention needed to meet Wikipedia criteria. Note that User:Wikicleric is the author of the article and is close to being a Single purpose account. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor who isn't drawn in by the concept of Wikipedia itself starts off by editing on a topic that happened to strike his fancy. Let's leave scrutinizing him aside until he does something more actionable than bearing some resemblance to people who are prone to doing something actionable. --Kiz o r 22:58, 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 merge to Coin counterfeiting. Tim Song (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Omega Man (counterfeiter)[edit]

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

I happened upon this article after noticing a link to it in an article on my watchlist. There's no question. This is a fraud, joke article, not existant. Such a huge quantity of fake gold pieces would lead to a few refs on Google, right? Nothing except mirror sites. If the fakes are prized, they should show up on eBay. They don't. Delete. Wehwalt (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: the same omega-story is reproduced in Gold coin and who knows were else. East of Borschov (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ There is no mention of this anywhere. Tons of blog and forum posts referring to the article (or exact duplicates of it) but no mention in books/newspaper archives etc. --Savonneux (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't find those examples when I searched.--Savonneux (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (but perhaps move to a better title, though I don't know what would be appropriate). See, for example, here. Other references are among the top hits in this Google search, but without preview. Article perhaps needs someone with back issues of The Numismatist to supply some better references. Deor (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment Thanks, apparently the counterfeits do exist. I would suggest, then, that there is not sufficient notability for The Omega Man. As there is already content in Gold coin, there does not need to be a merge, and this article can still be deleted. After all, per WP:BLP1E, we cover the event, in this case the counterfeiting, and it is adequately covered elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; I tend to think that there is material for an article here, but I agree that it should be about the counterfeits and not about the person (about whom nothing is apparently known). The mention in Gold coin is skimpy. Let's see what others think. Deor (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The counterfeits apparently do exist, but we have no confirmation for anything else. I do not think we have notability guidelines for unknown counterfeiters, but this does not seem to have made much of a splash.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — For events such as this that happened in the '70s, Google hits alone might not be sufficient. White 720 (talk) 15:51, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nom, on reconsideration, to Counterfeit money or Gold coin. Deor's sources are very helpful, but I don't think this is independently notable. I can find nothing which calls this guy the Omega Man, but information on the counterfeits should be inserted into one of those articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (changing from "keep" above). Wehwalt's suggestion seems a good one, though I'd suggest Coin counterfeiting as the target, putting the material in a new section (since the only currently present section deals with counterfeits intended for circulation), which could be expanded to deal with the counterfeiting of collectible coins in general. Deor (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope that it isn't edited out after merger. If properly sourced and spun back out, the article focus and the title should be about the Omega counterfeit coins, rather than about the person(s) who created them. The high-quality counterfeits are notable in the world of numismatics, but one can only guess about who the mastermind was behind these. Looks like "they got away with it". Mandsford 15:59, 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 Keep. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked on my talk page to elaborate on why this was a keep. There are several reasons: First, the raw vote was more than 2:1 in favor of keeping, but numbers do not rule. Second, the trend in !voting was in favor of keeping, again numbers do not rule. But if you are going to go against a 2:1 majority, you need to be especially certain as to your rationale and be able to fully explain why the numbers do not matter. In this case, I wasn't willing to do so because I agree with the majority as their arguements were, IMO, more compelling.

There is nothing that says that we cannot have both a list and a category. There was some discussion as to renaming the category, which might be appropriate, but did not, IMO, have consensus to do so. The article clearly needs sources, but even with the new BLPProd category, being an unreferenced BLP is not grounds for deleting older BLPs. Being a large list, which is going to grow and grow is also not grounds for deletion. We have numerous lists that are larger. Heck, we have some lists that are broken down by starting letter of the alphabet. The reality of the situation is that voice actors are a recognized field within the film industry. In the end, I found the arguments to delete to simply focus around the notion that it was too long and likely to grow even longer. The arguments to keep were focused around the benefits such a list might provide.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of voice actors[edit]

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

Delete - Ill conceived, incomplete, unwieldy list of people who have voiced roles in films, radio, etc. Much broader than the more useful selections found at Lists of actors. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although a list of voice actors is impossibly broad in scope (surprised nobody noticed it before), this list could be renamed something like List of American animation voice actors (since that's largely what it has come to resemble) which would make it more manageable. It could be further broken down by decade etc. Someone another 14:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any problem that can't be fixed. I agree with User:Someone that it would probably work better as a list of American voice actors. The scope of the article can (and should) be narrowed, and sources can easily be added. To keep it from getting out of hand, ideally, the description for most of the persons on the list should be limited to one cartoon character. One could go on and on about Mel Blanc, but one example would be fine for a list of this nature. Voice actors are notable, though some are more notable than others. There are some persons, such as Alan Reed, whose most memorable role was as the voice for a cartoon character. There are others who are well-known, but whose role as a cartoon character is less well-known, such as Ernest Borgnine. In some cases, the person has been seen as a memorable character and voiced another memorable character (one of the great surprises for me is that Hal Smith, who was Otis the drunk on Andy Griffith, was, during the same time, the voice of the evangelical dog Goliath on the Lutheran claymation show Davey and Goliath. It's an encyclopedic topic and a good, if not perfect, article on the subject. Mandsford 15:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Keep I'd suggest this be North American Animation Voice Actors, as opposed to just American. There's lots of animation made and voiced in Canada, and lots of Canadians who have worked or are working in the States. For example Leslie Neilson who narrated the cartoon serier "Katie and Orbie", or John Kricfalusi (Ren & Stimpy) or Peter Cullen (Optimus Prime in Transformers.) Too many people won't know the difference, and then the debates will start. Rootsie (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, my grasp of geographical naming conventions = teh suck :/ Someone another 17:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Calathan (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it were changed to American or North American Animation Voice Actors, the list would still be far too long to be manageable or encyclopedic. There are simply far too many notable people in the category for the list to be of any use. It's comparable to List of cities in the United States. Vectro (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize' this. --Gwern (contribs) 00:36 25 May 2010 (GMT)

I'm sure that already have a category for voice actors, although a list can do some things that a category cannot do, and vice versa. WP:CLN ensures that it's not a matter of choosing to keep only one or the other. I'm working on making a less crowded list. Mandsford 18:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Wikipedia list that aids in navigation is perfectly valid. If all the links are blue, then it helps people find those articles. Adding in some sortable categories for everything would be nice, as well as adding in more information as to what everyone was most notable for. Dream Focus 01:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An impressive piece of work. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly fine list, with clear inclusion criteria. Lugnuts (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strictly inferior to a self-maintaining category. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, far superior to a category because it gives the works with which they are associated. Polarpanda (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And gradually getting even better. There's not a whole lot that a category can do in this case other than to generate a list of names associated with voice acting. However, under WP:CLN, we can keep the category for people who prefer to search that way. I'm happy to see that this list is already tagged and will show up in a category search. Mandsford 13:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Narrow it Must not stay as it's now. In this current form any voice actor can be listed whatever they are French, Spanish, German, Chinese, Japanese, etc... --KrebMarkt 15:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is a mess. Many of the famous actors on the list are not notable because they did cartoon voices, and some actors who did notable voice acting are missing. Also, there are no references. It might be best to do the whole thing over from scratch. The Pebble Dare (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Pebble Dare has been blocked as a sockpuppet.[52] Edward321 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rewrite with sourcing. Lionelt (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is an unreasonable and unnecessary requirement to impose referencing on each entry on such a list. Out of a fairly long list, only a dozen are red links--perhaps those would need sourcing or better yet articles. Everything else links to the actor's article. Anybody can read their contribution to voice acting, be it a large part of their career or a one off line delivered for a movie. If you have issues with a specific case, that is what editing is about. Go ahead, get in an edit war if you feel strongly about one entry. From my knowledge of the subject, I found most of the names I expect to see here--I added one. And I certainly don't see any need to delete this article.Trackinfo (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - consistent with other list articles. Deb (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename This list has potential but not as it is now as the title is way too broad, a list of voice actors in anime maybe can be a solution? Anyways deletion is not a solution to a cleanup job on wikipedia if consenses says clean up and tidy the list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename List meets WP:List and WP:CLN allows both categories and lists to cover the same ground. If this list is too broad, then break into more descrete lists as appropriate.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:56, 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) 00:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Coghlan[edit]

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

all claims to notability are falsehoods, that he is world ranked and has defeated (yet alone played) famous players Mayumashu (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant hoax (G3). Note this seems to have been placed in, rather than transcluded to, delsort athletes.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I placed it in - will link it correctly here now Mayumashu (talk) 01:53, 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 speedy delete. The article is a copy of [53]. The website's copyright notice allows for non-commercial, but not commercial, reproduction of the material, and this is incompatible with the Wikipedian GNU/CC license. As I am deleting this based on WP:CSD#G12, it is without prejudice to recreation, even though my feeling is that the content does very little to establish anything significant about these particular bilateral relations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada-Micronesia relations[edit]

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

this article is basically a copy violation of http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/australia-australie/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/canada_micronesia-micronisie.aspx?lang=eng&menu_id=53&menu=L . just because these 2 countries have diplomatic relations does not mean automatic notability. can't see any evidence of significant coverage of bilateral not multilateral relations. gnews. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Canada is notable. Micronesia is notable. Canada and Micronesia have international relations and this topic is automatically notable. Properly constructed page, no harm in keeping, information is lost if it is deleted. Easy call. Carrite (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this topic is not automatically notable, over 100 of these have been deleted. secondly, WP:NOHARM should be avoided. this page is not properly constructed if it's a simple copy and paste from another source. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 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) 00:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So You Want to Be an Elephant[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation. See Google. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 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. Par WP:NOTNEWS. This particular earthquake seems to hold no long term notability. Merging it to Acre_(state) does not seem to be viable either, as the acre article details the state itself on a global level; Individual (non important) events are beyond the scope of includion for that article. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Acre earthquake[edit]

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

Non-notable quake, no damage or casualties ; would seem to violate WP:NOTNEWS C628 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Acre (state) - although there's not sufficient coverage after the event for it to have an article of its own, it seems reasonable information to have around. Claritas (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: as a local event without broad coverage it belongs rather to Acre (state). Dewritech (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insignificant as every 2.0 quake (because of depth)--DAI (Δ) 13:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel like I'm at Chuck E. Cheese at the mole game. The "quaking news" articles got so numerous that there was a big aftershock in the form of nominations. We recently had a similar creation and deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Brazil earthquake. Suggestions for creating a page called "Earthquakes in Brazil" were offered. Maybe an administrator can help get the info on that back in order to make a useful page, but the practice of filling out the infobox and seeing what we think is getting, shall we say, ridicule. Mandsford 16:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Aditya Ex Machina 18:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deep earthquakes that are barely felt at ground level are not notable. RapidR (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 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 Assertions of inherited notability were not supported by reliable independent sources, as noted by those advocating deletion. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yvan Cournoyer (model)[edit]

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

Contested Prod. A living person biography that contains no independent reliable sources to confirm the notability of the subject. Searches for reliable sources about this person are challenging because of the well-known hockey player Yvan Cournoyer, but extensive searches as part of the BLP referencing drive have revealed no significant independent sources about this person using googlebooks, googlenews, and general google searches. The artlcle also has probable copyright issues as it is a very close paraphrase of the subject's own promotional material [54] Slp1 (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article seems to be a direct paraphrase of above mentioned source...very little paraphrasing at that, more of a simple change from first to third person. Searches in order to establish notability have turned up nothing but primary sources from the subject himself, or his own comments...I do not doubt he is notable, but it cannot be established, at least by me or Slp1. I don't see many articles on models with good sourcing usually, unless they're very popular...so I doubt this will fair much better...but here's hoping. Judicatus (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is notable as a model for his magazine covers and as the star of his 3-volume workout series (videos). Inniverse (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did cover of notable magazines. Dream Focus 01:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what notable magazines these are? Yes, there are claims of covers, I can't find any evidence that Fitness YM [55], nor Playgirl Special: Hottest Bodies [56] nor "Playgirl Special: 50 Hottest Men in the World" [57] even actually exist. Gaydar magazine appears to be an Atlanta magazine that ceased publication after 13 months [58] which I suspect means it isn't notable, and the Exercise for Men Only magazine has zero hits for cournoyer on a search [59]. We need some independent evidence for the claims of these covers to actually establish notability. --Slp1 (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The independent evidence of being a cover model are the hard-copies of the magazines themselves. Not every source will be found on the Internet. Inniverse (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. However, the magazines need to actually exist, and this is can generally be confirmed by online searching if they are notable. "Fitness YM" doesn't seem to exist as pointed out above, and the relevant PlayGirl specials are not listed in archives [60]; [61]. Gaydar magazine seems to have existed for a short period, and it does look Cournoyer was on the cover of Exercise for Men Only. I still don't think this meets the requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BASIC criteria. --Slp1 (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because notability requires verifiable evidence, which is not forthcoming here. None of the claims of notability can be proven, thus it fails WP:N --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 06:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Due to the lack of verifiable coverage. --Pink Bull 19:53, 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. JForget 00:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amén[edit]

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

Previously CSD'd twice. Not notable. Refs show either passing mention in relation to be lead in band for Aerosmith concert or do not mention the band at all. Unable to find any indication that the band meets criteria of WP:BAND. GregJackP (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -Reconsider ! 02:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability, re-created after speedy by the same WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- what refs? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who can help me with the article? I gave my best to better it !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.11.90 (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

improve? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you help me please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunlight14 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think now the policy is fulfilled! Is it not? : ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunlight14 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The only claim to notability in my opinion is winning "the APDAYC award" which an editor has suggested is like a Peruvian Grammy. I haven't been able to determine if that's true yet as the organization doesn't have great documentation. I'll continue looking but I'll be !voting delete if I can't find anything. OlYeller^Talktome 15:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to continue searching but these 3 articles are the only hits that come up in a Google News or New Archive search when looking for their association with the APDAYC. I've had Google translate them and you can clearly see that their only mention in the article is when they're playing at a concert put on by the APDAYC. For anyone unaware, the APDAYC is the Peruvian equivalent of the American Federation of Musicians. OlYeller^Talktome 15:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given up on finding a reference to show that they've won anything from the APDAYC. I've moved on to charts. Apparently Peruvian music charts aren't well documented online but this is my best lead so far. Whether or not it goes back to the 90s is questionable. OlYeller^Talktome 16:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user has added 3 more links. One is the link that I mentioned above that is significant coverage. Another doesn't mention Amen from what I can see (may be used as a reference to show that the APDAYC gives out awards). The last is a mention that the band will be playing at a concert. None of the new references have changed my !vote as there is no new article that shows significant coverage (still only one). OlYeller^Talktome 23:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N and WP:BAND. I can find no verification of their winning an award whose ability to bestow notability is questionable. With the links provided by a few Spanish speaking editors, I can only find one article that provides significant coverage of the band (see here). I wouldn't be surprised if there is more coverage that simply isn't online but at this point, that can't be verified by information I've found or information provided to me by other editors. OlYeller^Talktome 16:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all stated reasons. No evidence of notability at all and all sources offered are unreliable. magnius (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment THANK YOU! I put some new and better links in English ... --Sunlight14 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who can help cleanup the style ???--84.226.241.93 (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for putting the references! Like this you can see that the band is notable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.241.93 (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really depends on whether the references are considered reliable. magnius (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course: one reference is from Terra Peruand Terra networks is a famous network [62]! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.24.44 (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think now the article is verifiable. --62.167.24.44 (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: unfortunately one reliable source (the terra networks one mentioned above) is not enough to confer notability per WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Both guidelines require multiple reliable sources. --JD554 (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Terra was only an example!! There are more enlaces which are reliable sources as you can see!! --89.217.203.15 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An other example is www.peru.com there a lot of links from Amen [63][64][65][66] --89.217.203.15 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete At this stage I still have to say that it struggles to ascertain notability. The sites and links offered are of dubious reliability. magnius (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

Why you think you have the right to say that the links are dubious ?? whit which argument ??? Terra Peru and www.peru.com are the most important networks in Peru !!! --89.217.203.15 (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC) and also: Magnius:I saw that You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.203.15 (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link[edit]

A new link: [67] --Needsexperts (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An other reliable page is el comercio [68] Its a page from a newspaper! --89.217.203.15 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In google and youtube you can find really a lot of links of Amen and Marcello Motta! --89.217.203.15 (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Please try to google it!![reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptzone[edit]

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

Small non notable company. Vazom (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC) — Vazom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 72 GNews hits for Cryptzone, 121 for "Secured eMail", the company's previous name. Edward321 (talk) 04:33, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs to be improved, but the company seems to be notable. Dewritech (talk) 16:24, 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Smackdown[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 21:49, 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) 00:35, 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. 7.2 earthquakes don't happen every day, and the trend in the supporting was heading towards K. I do think that Merge would not be out of the question.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010 Northern Sumatra earthquake[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Notability not established. WP:NOTNEWS. Aditya Ex Machina 15:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A 7.2-magnitude earthquake is large, and this earthquake was reported in the news. This article may require cleanup, but deletion is going too far. Av9 (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. No enduring notability. Aditya Ex Machina 14:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Lasting impact just not there, despite magnitude. Earthquakes of that magnitude are not uncommon around the Pacific belt.--70.82.131.148 (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This earthquake was a powerful one of over magnitude 7, which doesn't exactly happen every day. Most earthquakes of magnitude 6+ have very little significance unless they cause damage or casualties, and therefore not worthy of an article, but magnitude 7+ earthquakes are very powerful and nowhere near as common as magnitude 6+'s. Also, this particular quake was felt across a very wide area and caused some minor damage. Justmeagain83 (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.--DAI (Δ) 12:26, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't necessarily earthquakes because they are news events, but geological as well as human phenomena. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOTNEWS being mainly criteria on news...not geological occurences. Per WP:GEOSCOPE

WP:GEOSCOPE would indicate the article should be deleted. Aditya Ex Machina 18:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An earthquake over 7.0 should be an automatic keeper. Carrite (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no it shouldn't. There are no such guidelines--DAI (Δ) 13:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NOTNEWS applies. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIR"Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." Edison (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but only because it's consistent with proposed guidelines that many of us would like to see to replace the "quaking news" practice that got out of hand. Bing-bing-bing, 7.2, we have a winner... but I still think it would make more sense to make an article about Earthquakes in Sumatra, seeing as how they happen so often that they have to distinguished by month (March 2010, April 2010, May 2010, etc.) Mandsford 16:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Ok, this one makes it as notable, but it was the third major earthquake in Sumatra this year. Can't somebody please create an article called Earthquakes in Sumatra, or even 2010 Sumatra earthquakes, instead of spawning a new article every time the Ring of Fire does its thing? --MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Spain earthquake[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Notability not established. WP:NOTNEWS Aditya Ex Machina 15:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, I would like to keep this earthqauke on because a 6.3 earthqauke has not hit Spain or that part of Europe in a long time and maybe poeple on wikipedia can put a bit more information about the earthqauke on. I will try and put some infromation on as soon as I can.(talk) 10:00pm, 25 May 2010 (GMT)
Delete No damage, no deaths, no injuries, no news coverage beyond the actual day - this is not a notable subject. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sierra Nevada National Park (Spain), encyclopaedic and potentially useful information. Claritas (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The map show it was violent as a 2.0 magn. quake. Thus - not notable--DAI (Δ) 13:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, I encourage the author to follow the advice offered by Claritas on saving the information. Better yet, do an article called "Earthquakes in Spain", where stuff like this and the info from the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Pyrenees earthquake could be placed. Mandsford 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. Police academies do not enjoy the same categorization as colleges/high schools. The article had no independent sources and the comparison to other police academies in England was woefully inadequate. This article was borderline promotional and failed to demonstrate notability/importance. I would not, however, be opposed to recreation if it were done with RS showing notability/importance.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bishopgarth[edit]

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

Non-notable local police training centre, fails WP:N. Joal Beal (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bishopgarth is a local landmark and centre of note for UK policing, being one of the UK's largest police training centres.WP:ORG

The site is of special interest due to the architecture of the building by noted UK architect Sir Hubert Bennett KT, who is note for designing the GLC building in London. WP:BIO

The page is awaiting some updates including notes and/or photogaphic reference on Sir Hubert's building and the Bishops Palace another building of note that occupied the Bishopgarth site built in the gothic revival style. The page is also awaiting more information on police training. WP:DEMOLISH

For further similar articles that already appear on Wikipedia see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_Police_Training_Centre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Staff_College,_Bramshill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Police_College

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendon_Police_College

I hope the article is allowed to remain and be expanded upon —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenHooley (talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable ecclesiatical palace. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to West Yorkshire Police. I can find no evidence that the building itself is notable. Having checked Google News, Scholar and Books, the nearest I can find to significant coverage in reliable sources is this article in the Yorkshire Evening Post, which gives it one sentence: "In the early 1990s the national detective training course was based at West Yorkshire Police Force's Training School at Bishopgarth,Wakefield." Not enough on its own. The history page of its website makes clear it's a pretty undistinguished piece of late-Victorian architecture which 'was never favoured by the authorities as a Bishop's residence' and was only used as such for a relatively short time. English Heritage gives a Grade II listing to the police box in its grounds but that was moved there in 1982. Bishopgarth itself is not a listed building. Qwfp (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of books listed by Google. Among them is Bishop Walsham How - A Memoir which contains detail about this place. Your search thus seems inadequate. And your proposal to merge into an article solely about the police would neglect the first role of this place as a Bishop's palace. This seems to be WP:RECENTISM. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop How commissioned the building of Bishopgarth and was its first resident, therefore his memoir is not an independent source as required for WP:notability. The other books found by Google appear to either be mentions rather than significant coverage, or to concern the hymn tune of the same name rather than the building that is the subject of this article. The building has been a police training establishment for over 60 years, longer than it was a home to bishops. Qwfp (talk) 23:30, 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) 00:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a tertiary education institution. We regard every high school as notable, so that I think every teriary college ought to be. The objection of Colonel Warden to the bishop's memoir as a source is to my mind excessively pedantic. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to West Yorkshire Police. The article gives no indication that the building is notable and police training academy should not be analogous to a teriary college.--Pink Bull 19:59, 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seán Mackin (Irish republican)[edit]

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

I'm struggling to determine why this person is notable enough for inclusion. It was originally prodded but it was removed with the reason " notability established by 3rd party coverage". There is only one link, not really a reference (the other two where dead and I have no idea what they contained.) I find some references to this person on some other pro-Irish Republican sites, but nothing of real noteworthyness. I'm not spotting other news stories of significant coverage. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources other than for one event. Strong WP:BLP concerns weigh in favour of deletion: I just removed uncited perjorative coverage of the subject from the article, and it seems that event is all he is really known for (ie a WP:BLP1E). --Mkativerata (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The New York Times[69], The Times[70] and this book published by Palgrave Macmillan, which do not all describe the same event. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Phil Bridger - the book seems to indicate he is important, so there are probably more sources offline, but even these online ones pass WP:GNG, and WP:BLP1E is not a concern given that there are 3 separate events discussed here. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 06:17, 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 redirect to Pink Pineapple. JForget 00:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anejiru[edit]

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

A non-notable pornographic game and OVA adaptation. A search for reliable sources turned up nothing more then sales catalogs, copyvio websites, and self-published websites, such as Animetric.com. Prod was disputed. —Farix (t | c) 13:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 13:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pink Pineapple. I found no reliable source coverage of this game or the anime based on it, but I think it is a valid search term. The animation studio is probably the best place for a redirect, as the game studio doesn't have an article (and may also be non-notable). Calathan (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone search for its Japanese name? Several different names keep coming up. The Japanese Wikipedia article [71] says its been two volumes of OVA, and that the game it is based on is called Sister Juice [72] Dream Focus 07:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. No realiable sources to establish notability. EuroPride (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pink Pineapple This is a small non notable anime series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 15:43, 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Method[edit]

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

I can't see where this band passes WP:MUSICBIO. They did sign to a major label, released one album that tanked 7 years ago and that was it. They participated in a big tour event, but any mention I found of them was trivial. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third part sources. Not expecting anything to materialize for them either since their official Myspace page hasn't been logged on to since 2007. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the coverage in Deseret Morning News, 8 October 2004, "Bands excited about Apathy tour" by Scott Iwasaki and Daytona Beach News Journal, 27 August 2004, "Out of a 'Coma'; Metal band escapes hometown" by Rick de Yampert squeezes into wp:n. duffbeerforme (talk)

I have to admit, the Mormon owned Deseret News was probably the last place I expected a piece about them. But I have a hard time calling these short pieces that significant. When I see an artist/band that has only a superficial article or two like this, I can't help but think that it's just WP:ILIKEIT one step removed. A relatively unknown writer needed something to write about or liked the band, so they wrote a very short piece on them. It may not be technically the way the rule reads, but that's the way I end up seeing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an WP:ILIKEIT, hadn't heard of them (I think, could be wrong, maybe I have but they weren't worth remembering), nu-metal mostly not impressed by. Yes the coverage isn't that impressive and might not considered by some to be enough, hence my use of the word squeeze. I don't know much about how good the publications are (Mormon owned is news to me) but the coverage in my mind was beyond non trivial (I admit the way I look at that may vary with my mood). duffbeerforme (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if there is no keep here then this could be merged\redirected to Dope (band) where Tribbett went. duffbeerforme (talk)

You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying your vote was an WP:ILIKEIT. I'm saying that if some writer somewhere hears some local band and writes about them in a reliable source (regardless of size), does it truly make them notable? Or is it just that the writer happened to like them and decided to write about what he liked? When I look at coverage like this, where there are literally thousands and thousands of music writers from RS's and only a couple even bother to mention them, I see it as more a case of that writer liking them than the band actually being notable. Besides, if you want to write about metal, there aren't that many opportunities in Utah. Daytona isn't exactly known for their metal scene either. And yes, the Deseret News is owned by the Mormon church. All that said, I wouldn't argue too hard against a redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I misunderstood you, oops. But it does not matter why they were written about, just that they were. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Allmusic bio and review of their album, and Google Books shows coverage in Garry Sharpe-Young's book New Wave of American Heavy Metal, and also coverage in CMJ New Music Report. There are Blabbermouth.net news articles on a couple of former members.[73][74] Also several Google News results showing coverage in a variety of news publications: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]. Plenty to meet notability requirements.--Michig (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because most of that is fairly trivial in nature. A side box of a couple of questions for the band members or an entry in a book listing bands just doesn't appear that significant. Allmusic bio? Those are submitted by the record companies or the band themselves. I don't know why people keep calling that coverage. I'd dispute the reliability of andpop.com and the realitytvworld entry is about the death of a member, not about the band. Same with the MTV news entry, it's about the band member dying. Sources 5 and 7 were addressed above. Source 8 is a one paragraph entry saying they released an album. Articles about individuals, focusing on them as individuals doesn't establish the notability of the band. In reality, if one actually looks at the sources you list rather than just assume they are good, they will see they are mostly short, trivial coverage, often in passing.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Allmusic bio? Those are submitted by the record companies or the band themselves. I don't know why people keep calling that coverage." - utter nonsense. The bios and reviews there are written by Allmusic staff writers, some of whom are widely published music writers. Sharpe's book is essentially an encyclopedia of American metal bands - the entry is hardly 'trivial', and neither are several of the other examples.--Michig (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've seen on AfD's time and again that entry into an encyclopedia/list doesn't count as significant coverage. Most of the so-called encyclopedias are about specific topics (ie movies, music genres etc) and they have to fill space. They do it by adding stuff that everyone ignores because they're unimportant or non-notable. As for the obligatory, often promotional sounding Allmusic bio's.....they truly shouldn't count regardless of who is writing them. They exist solely because a record got released. Background info put into a couple of paragraphs so you know who the whole thing is about isn't significant, it's pro forma. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, every AFD I've seen where a subject has had an entry in a specialist print encyclopedia has resulted in a keep. The idea that encyclopedias are filled with stuff that nobody wants to read to fill space is a new one on me - I can't see that being a viable approach for publishers. Allmusic bios are not pro forma either - some are brief, some are quite substantial. The reviews there are on a par with reviews anywhere else. I find your views somewhat bizarre, although you are of course entitled to them.--Michig (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the switch between bios on Allmusic to reviews on Allmusic. We were talking about their bio not a review. So let's quit confusing the issue with talk about the reliability of their reviews. Of course, this whole back and forth with you is for the benefit of other editors because, for my part, I can't recall you ever seeing a group or album that you felt were non-notable. (don't bother digging up the rare example to "prove me wrong", I'm sure there is one somewhere, I'm commenting on my observation on your tendency to find every mention anywhere to be "significant coverage").Niteshift36 (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ok, whatever. Absolute rubbish of course, but, whatever.--Michig (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep/Speedy Keep/Snow Keep. Per Michig. Niteshift -- tx for supplying needed comic relief.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That you find a short lived band of no real importance notable because of a few mentions to be notable is far funnier to me, I assure you. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, when did a whole 3 votes in 2 weeks become a "snow keep"? Wow, for someone with all your "experience", you really missed the boat on that one. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Between us Michig and I have four times the edits you do, and I believe have spend at least that multiple at these music AfDs. I believe what he has said is spot on, and what you have said is ... something less. Nor, it would seem -- at least to this point -- does anyone here agree with you. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now we resort to the "I have more edits" defense? Now THAT is some weak stuff. Well guess what? Some AfD's get by with minor participation from people who aren't prone to keeping every article in their area of interest, others don't. There are AfD's that Michig has !voted keep on and they've been deleted, including ones I've nominated. I suspect I could find the same in your edit history. That you can't accept that opinions on what is or is not significant coverage can vary without resorting to the "I've got more edits" psuedo-qualification is an indicator of a number of things. I'll let you figure out some of them on your own. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, am all for Wikipedia reflecting the number of articles an editor has !voted on at AfDs where they were the only one voting in that direction. And limiting or taking away nom or !voting privileges for those with the worst records. Those !votes and noms simply waste the time of other editors, who could do more helpful work improving the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, people like you aren't in the position to make that sort of decision. One could only imagine what other gems you'd put in place if given any real authority. As for time wasting, you could have saved your "valuable time" by not returning to chirp about your "I've got more edits than you" bravado, this pointless post above that has nothing to do with the AfD at hand or the time it took to come back and change your keep to a "snow keep" (wow, again, 3 votes in 2 weeks, how overwhelming). Consider those time saving tips just a gesture of goodwill, no charge for them. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Now, why wouldn't you be in favor of such a rule? Interesting. 2) Sometimes I take more time with an editor such as you as I assume good faith. If they are good faith editors, it can save time down the road. If not, they tend to show their colors, and a positive result is achieved down the road in any event, one way or another. 3) I tend to move in and out of AfDs as I see a need. Band AfDs had generally been reasonable as of late, and my value add was therefore negligible. Perhaps I was over-optimistic. Then again, given that you have received zero support here, perhaps I was correct. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up your "if I ever got real power" fantasy. I'm sure it keeps you entertained. But don't complain about time being wasted when you keep stopping in to talk about your "if I was the king" dream. I find the coverage here to be mostly trivial and only a couple that could be interpreted as being beyond that. I, however, don't buy into the notion that one source is an automatic pass past GNG. And, BTW, I've withdrawn noms before when I became convinced I was wrong. This just isn't one of those times. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting take. If I were engaged in power fantasy, first I would probably be the "make me a sysop" type. Or the "let me make unsupported, unsupportable nominations type. Or the "If I were king" type ... certainly not the "If I was king" type. Fair enough -- you needn't be convinced, of course. And its good to hear that you've listed to the community in the past. Here, the rest of the community will make sure that the article is kept, I expect. And btw -- a snow keep means that the nom doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving -- given that nobody at all has seen fit to share your view, apparently happy to let this be saved by all the keep votes in reaction, I would say that after two weeks this is a reasonable snow.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spin your fantasy however you like. If this survives or doesn't makes little difference to me. At least I can look at the article about this group of ~~has-beens~~ never-were's in good conscience and know that I at least made the effort to send the article to the relative obscurity that they never really emerged from. Had one of their members not met an untimely death, half of the so called "significant coverage" wouldn't even exist. Now waste some more time getting the last word.....Niteshift36 (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a riot. Priceless. Tx again.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Tokyo 1988[edit]

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

Bootlegs are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 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) 00:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 02:34, 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. Since the nomination there have been a few sourced calims added...however, it appears they're not independent of the club. That said, consensus here is clear that there are appropriate sources to be had. — Scientizzle 17:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buenos Aires Cricket & Rugby Club[edit]

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

amateur sports club, no V or RS, but if the information in the article and talk page are true, possibly notable. delete unless supporting references can be provided. UtherSRG (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B.A.C.R.C. is an amateur club simply because rugby amd cricket are both amateur sports in Argentina. All rugby clubs in Argentina are amateurs! It doesn't mean the club is a small club, it isn't. A quick look at their website would convince anyone that there are only amateur in name. The club is the oldest in the country, plays at the top level and has won 10 titles. Member-wise it's also one of the largest clubs in the country and many memebers became full argentinian internationals. I haven't included refs to the article yet nor I have finished writing it but to be honest I've only started the article less than 12 hours ago. Yet it has already been marked for deletion by 2 different people. Neither of which know anything about rugby as far as I can tell. Talk about jumping the gun... Now, 2 other top level clubs don't have a page yet and I'm going to create them. Before I do, methinks trigger happy deletionists need to take their chill pill. Saebhiar Adishatz 14:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google News archive search helpfully linked in the nomination reveals plenty of independent reliable sources with substantial coverage. I must go to bed now so don't have time to add any of the sources to the article, so maybe the nominator would like to help out with the collaborative effort to build this encyclopedia rather than continually trying to knock down others' efforts to do so? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One thing I find annoying is deletionists using the "amateur club" angle as an excuse to delete a page, If that's true, then delete Queen's Park F.C. once you've done this one. As for the page, as Phil Bridger said, there are plenty of suitible sources that warrent this page to be on Wikipedia. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The word amateur is lost in translation. In some sports there is no professionalism, or professionalism has occured only recently. This is a very strong keep as there is nothing wrong with amateur clubs, players, unions and teams within the sport of rugby union. This article is supported by WikiProject Rugby union. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:13, 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. Tim Song (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Ryukyu Islands earthquake[edit]

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

Notability not established. WP:NOTNEWS. "No injuries or casualties were reported, the only damage was a few pipes." Aditya Ex Machina 08:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Minor event. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm inclined to say that this one is more notable than most, it being in the 7.0-7.9 range and generating tsunami warnings, and being a fairly significant shake even in an earthquake-prone location like Japan. Overall, however, I'd prefer that these be grouped into pages specific to the region. I think that by now, the earthquake contributors have learned that when one treats big news and little news as all being equal, articles about the really notable quakes are difficult to find. Mandsford 14:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a list of earthquakes article to redirect this to, fine by me. But as it stands, simply reaching a specific number doesn't make it as notable to me as say a lesser strength one that had more of an impact. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This earthquake is already in the List of 21st century earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a magnitude 7.0 earthquake and also caused minor damage and a tsunami, albeit a small one. Justmeagain83 (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6.0 and higher should be the cut off. Lower and it must prove it is important. Higher and no additional proof Goldamania (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Earthquakes are geological phenomena regardless of their effect on human events, so the size is relevant. The proposal of Earthquake notability[81] was a good one, except that at magnitude 5.0, it set the boundary much lower than people would support. 7.0 on the other hand is clearly enough---there are only 18 or so a year at that level. I think it is good to have objective criteria in fields where that is possible, instead of relying on the chances of sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quakes of 7.0 or greater should be automatic keepers. Carrite (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard case of NOTNEWS. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete usual ring of fire shaking, notnews--DAI (Δ) 13:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No casualites, "a few pipes damaged", "no destructive threat". I definatley think this meets WP:NOTNEWS WackyWace ^talk 16:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EFFECT. No notable or lasting damage or impact. Magnitude should not be sufficient for notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "No injuries or casualties were reported, the only damage was a few pipes." means this is instantly forgettable and WP:NOTNEWS. --DAJF (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlike DGG, I think that the earthquake's effect on humans is not only relevant, but the critical question; indeed, outside of geologists, the human impact is all that matters to us, the rest is almanac information (the USGS has most of this info anyway). There's no need for pages on every incident, and the notability paradigm that says otherwise has the burden of explaining why that is. This is a good example. Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I concur with DGG's comment regarding notability of quakes in this intensity range. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:44, 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) 00:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hulkies[edit]

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

Deproded by author. No indication of notability or sourcing. "Created by a boy in grade 6" suggests a need of independent reliable sources. Shadowjams (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not state why these cartoons are notable, and from the article I can only presume the article is about a kid who is drawing cartoons and showing them to his friends - I hardly think this justifies a place in an encyclopedia. WackyWace ^talk 16:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication this might even be remotely notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should have been speedily deleted under some criterion or another. Carrite (talk) 03:18, 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) 00:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Al Massih[edit]

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

I am unable to find any reliable third-party notability coverage for this person. Top hits include ReverbNation, Facebook, and other social-networking sites. Unable to find reviews/coverage about this guy and what he does; only able to find promotional material. — Timneu22 · talk 16:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there a suitable Lebanese WikiProject this could be flagged for, in case this is simply a matter of us not being... well, Lebanese? - BalthCat (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added this note. — Timneu22 · talk 17:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. - BalthCat (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 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) 00:13, 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) 00:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can not find any reliable information independent of the subject, does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 14:22, 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) 00:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timetracker[edit]

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

I found zero sources for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that this software product has any historical, technical, or cultural significance. Note that the word "timetracker" seems to be used generically to refer to a number of different products, inc. a Firefox addon. Our article on time tracking software is quite awful, but it might be a redirect candidate. We'd do far better to have a good article on the category than to have hundreds of separate articles on insignificant products. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Software not updated for several years and with minimum references. Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:59, 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. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harmail Singh[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Nothing in this biography indicates that Mr. Singh is anything more than a mid-level government functionary. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 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) 23:59, 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, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nominator's rationale appears consistent, and that's a good reason. It doesn't really assert notability in any way either, hence the nom's rationale. Shadowjams (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No information imparted. Carrite (talk) 05:27, 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.