< 18 September	20 September >

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

The result was Withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one singles in 1966 (New Zealand)[edit]

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

As well as the following:

List of number-one singles in 1967 (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one singles in 1968 (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one singles in 1969 (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one singles in 1970 (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one singles in 1971 (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one singles in 1972 (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one singles in 1973 (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one singles in 1974 (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No official charts were published before 1975 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU0605/S00312.htm Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hung Medien also gives 2 May 1975 as first chart http://charts.org.nz/weekchart.asp?cat=s&year=1975&date=19750502. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm afraid scoop.co.nz has got it wrong. Although no chart compiled from sales figures existed prior to 1975, the New Zealand Hit Parade began in 1966 as the first official national chart. It was compiled by the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation in association with the New Zealand Listener by way of weekly voting, and ran from March 1966 to September 1970. This was replaced by the "Pop-o-meter" charts, compiled by the NZBC in collaboration with record stores and based partly on sales figures and partly on voting. This chart ran from 1970 to May 1975, when the National Sales Chart began (source, J. Dix Stranded in Paradise). Given that the national sales chart is the one listed by Hung Medien, it's not surprising that its May 1975 list is given as its first chart. As long as the articles make the caveat clear that the lists were not complied from sales figures, I see no reason why they shouldn't stay.Grutness...wha? 00:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the 1966-74 charts are listed at this site. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn OK, some work needs to be done to clarify this then. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 02:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eldzier Cortor[edit]

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

This article reads like an essay; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was copied and pasted directly from somewhere else. Smells like plagiarism/copyvio to me (not to mention the BLP issues; the article seems to portray the subject in a rather negative light without providing inline citations for the more potentially-inflammatory statements). Stonemason89 (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search for sources clearly shows notability, and the article has many (badly made) inline citations to good sources. Most of the text does sounds like a copy and paste, though a search for a few individual sentences couldn't find any copyvios. First Light (talk)
Delete - Copyvio from [1] Dondegroovily (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article needs a lot of work, but the subject is notable: [2] [3] [4].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some substantial changes to the article. Even in it's previous state one of the categories is Guggenheim Fellows, enough to suggest an article in need of improvement not deletion.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of the copyvio question and need for rewrite remains, although the adding of sources is a major improvement. Given that the article was written in 2007, by a long-time editor who writes his own original prose, I think it's more likely that this was drawn word-for-word from the Wikipedia text. Mandsford 20:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The long essay referred to by the nom wasn't added by the original author, but by a user with only three edits, all to this one article [5]. That's now been trimmed down to sourced statements. I can't see the copyvio problem. It's just mirrors. The subject is represented in museum collections, has had at least one solo show in a museum, was awarded a Guggenheim fellowship, and is the subject of numerous profiles in surveys of African-American art. His papers are held by the Smithsonian. He passes WP:ARTIST by a wide margin. Is there something I'm not getting? --Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In its current condition, this obviously shows notability and is very well-referenced. Congrats - it obviously took some work. First Light (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article for rescue because, while this article is about a notable person (There are over 20 references, and about half are books), the information in the article isn't sufficient. This article needs to be edited to include more information from the references listed. This might establish notability better. Matthewrbowker (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The work of this artist is worth a place in Wikipedia. This also means that the artist deserves a mention in Wikipedia. Is it really that difficult to rewrite this article to conform to WP guidelines? --JHvW (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a blatant hoax. —Soap— 21:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Tonner is the best! (Paramore song)[edit]

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

Future release, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Access Denied 21:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~redirect~~ to Paramore discography. It was a pre-existing redlink, and the artist is notable, so no need to actually delete. —Soap— 21:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought this might be a hoax, in which case the IP who added it to the Paramore page would be likely the same person as the creator of this article (perhaps he only registered an account because he realized IP's can't create pages). It's unsourced, unlike most of the rest of the songs, and despite the fact that it isn't out yet it seems to have "charted". —Soap— 21:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax. It should been obvious, but I'm really gullible and didn't realize the discography article had been vandalized. Delete unless someone can come up with a source. —Soap— 21:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETEi think this probably a joke. first of all, that would be very silly name for a song. second of all there are no sources or links that say this is a real song and even if it is a real song, there is nothing to say this is a NOTABLE song so on the whole i say we delete it.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I said I wasn't going to delete any "1 !voters" but this is a mostly unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Benrubi[edit]

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

No evidence of notability offered. Macrakis (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Could find nothing at Google or Google News except this [6] reference about his contributions to the Jewish Museum of Greece. Not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Miss Basketball[edit]

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

This article is about nothing in particular. It is a grouping of people who won the title of Mr. Basketball in their respective state that doesn't have an article yet. Not encyclopedic at all. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this makes no sense; if the state's Miss Basketball winner list has not been created, the it should be created.—Chris!_c/t 21:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete/Delete As stated above, this article is intended to be a warehouse to hold female players who have been named Miss Basketball in states that do not yet have an article listing all/a majority of past winners. The thought was to give recognition to all identified players, whether or not a comprehensive list was found for a particular state. I agree it may look senseless now since only 2 players, both from South Dakota, are listed. I ENCOURAGE help in identifying other players who would be appropriately on this list in order to make the list more meaningful. If you have a list, forward the citation/reference to me, and I will publish it if you prefer not to. Sadly, my research thus far has not produced a list for the states where a list has not yet been documented. The ultimate goal would be to have a list for each state that names a Miss Basketball, but lists for the remaining states have not yet been found. That being said, I defer to the Wiki world. If you all collectively think that this article is worthless and not worth expanding, then delete it. I would prefer to expand this article as new players are identified. Jlhcpa (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then a Miss Basketball list should be created for the states. I don't see the point of creating this temporary list. Same for Mr Basketball.—Chris!_c/t 02:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETED OK to delete. Creating author consents. Content now being warehoused as a subpage in my userspace. Jlhcpa (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Mr. Basketball[edit]

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

This article is about nothing in particular. It is a grouping of people who won the title of Mr. Basketball in their respective state that doesn't have an article yet. Not encyclopedic at all. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this makes no sense; if the state's Mr Basketball winner list has not been created, the it should be created.—Chris!_c/t 21:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With two people listed from South Dakota for '09 and '10, looks like this was a trial run to see what the reaction would be. As the template to the article shows, there are 24 states for whom a "Mr. Basketball" article is written. I'm not sure if the idea was to name all the winners in the other 26 states until articles could be created, but it's not that difficult to make an article called "South Dakota Mr. Basketball" of "South Dakota Miss Basketball". I'm sure someone will suggest moving the title, but "Other Mr. Basketball" shouldn't be a redirect to anything. Mandsford 22:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete/Delete As stated above, this article is intended to be a warehouse to hold male players who have been named Mr. Basketball in states that do not yet have an article listing all/a majority of past winners. The thought was to give recognition to all identified players, whether or not a comprehensive list was found for a particular state. I agree it may look senseless now since only 2 players, both from South Dakota, are listed. I ENCOURAGE help in identifying other players who would be appropriately on this list in order to make the list more meaningful. If you have a list, forward the citation/reference to me, and I will publish it if you prefer not to. Sadly, my research thus far has not produced a list for the states where a list has not yet been documented. The ultimate goal would be to have a list for each state that names a Mr. Basketball, but lists for the remaining states have not yet been found. That being said, I defer to the Wiki world. If you all collectively think that this article is worthless and not worth expanding, then delete it. I would prefer to expand this article as new players are identified. You will notice in the editing that players were formerly on this list from South Carolina. Once a list of all SC players was found, those names were deleted from this list and incorporated there. Jlhcpa (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You could always just start an article in your userspace and move it to mainspace when the list is completed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETED OK to delete. Creating author consents. Content now being warehoused as a subpage in my userspace. Jlhcpa (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MedFriendly[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/MedFriendly

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

--Not notable per insufficient third party references. Being added as spam.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page has been on my watchlist for a long time and went completely unedited, an uncited orphan, for over a year. Despite the recent introduction of a link from the CDC and a single mention on TV news, the subject remains unnotable. Vectro (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is currently an ad for a non notable website. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find a reliable source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable secondary sources. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 02:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Urban Debate League[edit]

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

I think this is the first time a good article has ever been nominated for AFD, but seriously all the sources, with the exception of http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/05/60minutes/main557188.shtml this one] are either not independent of the subject, has nothing to do with the subject like the fire news stories, or are local news coverage which I don't see as significant of the subject, and they talk about different high schools that use debate, not the debate society in general. The news source I linked talked about debating in Inner-city schools and just used a Baltimore high school as an example not about the league, that's not sigificant, non trivial coverage. Fails WP:N, borderline WP:COATRACK article. Anything mergeable should be used on the school's article, not here. Delete Secret ^account 20:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Note when I mean about COATRACK is that it talks about all the leagues achivements when it acually it's the schools debate programs that achived those accomplishments, not the league. Secret ^account 21:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG this is just not a notable organisation. Codf1977 (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think both of you need to look at Google news and Google Books. There's way more than enough hits to show notability. The article just needs to be improved with them. Silver seren^C 06:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in google books are directories and one passing mention, I'm inspecting the google news hits sources closely. Secret ^account 00:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance most of the sources are local news stories or passing mentions, but there's several that may claim notability. I clicked on one random source this doesn't claim notability, still inspecting, if i see several that aren't local news stories or passing mentions I'll withdraw the nomination. Secret ^account 00:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Baltimore Afro-American news stories are promotional in tone to the group, that's about half the links, the CBS news link I already mentioned, this Washington Post is a passing mention, this is a college newspaper source passing mention. Some other sources duplicate each other, the only claim of notability they have is that they were honored by the White House, which many groups are honored every year. It makes the local news of course, but that doesn't claim notability by our standards. Secret ^account 00:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In light of finding this and this, among a number of other references, I feel that this article certainly has enough notability. Silverseren^C 01:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two are passing mentions, not about the subject themselves, one is about a school that is in the league and another one is about urban debate in general. Secret ^account 02:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Start on page 3. That has a good amount of coverage of the BUDL that is non-trivial. Silver seren^C 02:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrew Secret ^account 02:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arie Rip[edit]

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

~~Unsourced since 2007. No reliable sources found to verify the information (all the sources I could find were written by Rip himself)~~ -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see below

Delete, unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently verify the contents of the article. Does not meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 20:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Keep, per the improvements and sourcing done by Silver seren. J04n(talk page) 00:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears to be a major socio-technologist who is frequently cited or asked to contribute to mainstream nanotechnology books and publications like Nature. Silver seren^C 22:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS h index around 33. A less than competent nomination. Nominator is reminded of WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - he has "published extensively on various topics" and "introduced the widely used method of Constructive Technology Assessment".... Bearian (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am convinced from the added sources and comments here that the article should be kept. If J04n wishes to change to 'keep' then this could be closed early, otherwise I would suggest that it is kept open for the full 7 days -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Still[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable economist/documentarian whose article was deleted once before, there are still no sources from which to write a BLP. Sources just show that his films won awards at non-notable film festivals. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per before. Nakon 19:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I don't know what the previous deleted version looks like. But this version certainly doesn't look good because of the lack of reliable sourcing. I searched on Google but I don't see anything useful. Should be salt to prevent re-creation.—Chris!_c/t 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. 22:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matty the Damned (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per poor WP:BEFORE and send to WP:CLEANUP. Even in ignoring his being a film producer who has won awards whose notability is undetermined, we have a decent assertion of notability per WP:CREATIVE #1 in that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." If THAT is sourced, the individual will meet notability criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my reserching and cleanup, I do note that not only was an earlier stub article on Bill Still deleted in 2007, but a stub article on William T. Still was deleted by prod in 2008.[7] Each time with the same concerns toward sourcing. But again, if his work being cited by peers can be sourced, that works toward notability... and it also must be noted that his film The secret of Oz was released and received its awards and critical comentary as an event in the man's life which took place AFTER the two earlier deletions. The current article is not a stub... and nothing stays still or remains the same. Still working..... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of significant coverage needed to write an article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Minor places in Middle-earth. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Middle-earth inns[edit]

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

I don't see any reason why this is notable - completely in-universe fancruft Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per wp:indiscriminate. Merge as suggested below Yoenit (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- yeah, it is unfortunately indiscriminate fancruft. Reyk _YO! 19:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure if this would even be notable in a Middle Earth wiki? VikÞor | Talk 20:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor places in Middle-earth. Roscelese (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Roscelese. Note that at least the Prancing Pony appears to have various mentions in Google scholar. Jclemens (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor places in Middle-earth. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor places in Middle-earth as stated above. --Julie22193 (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor places in Middle-earth. Otherwise not bad at all. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 08:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flow binding system[edit]

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

A quick search revealed some press releases but no significant coverage. Article lacks references, and subject apparently not notable. What do others think? --Nuujinn (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam about a particular company's product. References are not to Reliable Sources, they are to blogs. Everything found on a Google search relates to the company; nothing much found at Google News (one mention at the Colorado Springs Gazette [8]). --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 17 September 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just to be clear that that's my !vote. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding[edit]

The result was no consensus. 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 Speedy Delete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdi Dahir[edit]

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

This biography already exists under the name Ayub Daud. --Spartan008 (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...then merge them? Why is this at AfD? Silver seren^C 18:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because Abdi Dahir doesn't seem to be a person? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see...i'd just redirect the name then. Silver seren^C 18:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a simple redirect then I would have done that, but as Ten Pound Hammer stated, I don't believe this is really another name of the person. --Spartan008 (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a C&P job from the existing article. Giant Snowman 12:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vandalism C&P, someone has taken the text from the other article and simply pasted it under (most likely) their own name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. C&P from another article using the creators own name. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A10. Tagged accordingly. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri "El Boss"[edit]

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

The article cites no sources, is thoroughly non-neutral, and does not establish the notability of the subject. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found. No indication that the subject meets any of the criteria at WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for rappers. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability established, no references at all. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Touch Me and Say[edit]

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

The book doesn't meet the notability criteria. New author published by a vanity press. Pichpich (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely failing WP:NB Nancy ^talk 17:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE i think this is a bad article becos it does not have a source that is saying this is an important book. plus i have read a lot of book, and i have never heard of this book.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable book. No evidence of reviews Vrivers (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This fails WP:BK. M J ₉₄ 17:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published - Pothi appear to be an Indian equivalent of lulu dot com (the bots don't like the version with a real dot in it...). Only ghits seem to be Wikipedia and Pothi. While I wish Mr Pathak good luck, I don't think the time is ripe for an article here. Someday, maybe... Peridon (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the author of this article have something he would like to say.[9].--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bad edits r dumb. To make life easier, I'm copying it to here: "This is a recently published book, just 2 days back. It should be given a chance before deletion." Posted by Jatin229 on the talk page for the AfD. Jatin229, I'm sorry to say that this isn't a valid reason for keeping. Please look at WP:CRYSTAL - this is an encyclopaedia for recording things already of note, not things that might be some day. As I said above, some day... Peridon (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and everyone else. Maybe a WP:SNOW candidate. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got me boots on... Peridon (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for books. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Thompson[edit]

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

~~Created by someone who really should know our criteria better.~~ (struck... case of the two bobs) Subject does not pass the WP:GNG, and does not EVEN meet WP:NFOOTBALL, which sets a pathetically low bar. --W F C-- 16:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What is the 'case of the two bobs'?--Echetus Xe 10:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken identity. --W F C-- 00:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't yet played a fully-professional game and calls up to any national team below the full team don't grant notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has played a fully professional game. The League Cup is a competition for teams of the Football League, all of which are fully professional clubs.--EchetusXe 10:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't meet the letter of ATHLETE, nor does it meet the supposed spirit (which is to provide guidance on when an individual meets the GNG). For the uninitiated, clubs routinely field weakened teams in this competition. For instance, Manchester United rested 11 players from their previous league match against Liverpool when they played Scunthorpe, and Sir Alex Ferguson missed the match to go scouting. [10] That is indisputedly an extreme case, but there is a good reason that we only consider league appearances; at least it can be argued that 95+% of the time teams are trying to field their strongest possible team in a league match. Regardless, there is an expectation that the subject demonstrates general notability. Otherwise, we are merely spending this charity's money on a duplicate copy of information that is going to be written about in the context of what they are actually notable for. --W F C-- 08:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in a fully-pro competition, so meets WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 12:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He does not meet "WP:ATHLETE", as he has not played in a fully professional league. As low a bar as WP:ATHLETE sets for association footballers, the wording is quite explicit. Players have to have played in a fully professional league. --WFC-- 00:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - He has played in a fully-professional competition, and therefore does meet ATHLETE. The wording is not explicit; read the intro to ATHLETE, which states "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense." If you are seriously arguing that there is a difference between playing in a fully-pro league and playing in a fully-pro competition with regards to notability then you should heed those words. GiantSnowman 14:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It also says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline." If you believe that playing in the league cup against lower league opposition because the manager doesn't want to pick more established options meets the WP:GNG, then you are either acting in good faith but failing to heed the very words you quote, or taking the letter instead of the spirit in a desperate bid to defend football's near-exclusive right to have non-notable biographies. --W F C-- 22:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has now passed the WP:NSPORTS#Association football bar. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is factually incorrect, as noted above. --W F C-- 00:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of coverage in reliable sources: notability not established regardless of fotball game. Sandman888 (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -precedent seems to have been set long ago for an appearance in the FA/League Cup or even the Football League trophy to make a player notable when appearing for a fully pro team. If the consensus is otherwise I can point you in the direction of many, maybe dozens, of articles which need deleting!--Egghead06 (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Precedent has long been established that rules of thumb are descriptive, not prescriptive. Articles must demonstrate notability. Meeting an arbitrary measure such as one (or two, or ten) professional appearances is an indication that on the balance of probability a subject is notable, not ~~an indication~~ a demonstration of notability in its own right. As an aside, the fact that there are other articles out there is not a good reason for keeping a non-notable article. --W F C-- 00:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC) (corrected at 00:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Cannot believe that, as stated above, spending this charity's money, by debating/deleting/reinstating etc each one of these articles on a piecemeal basis is a good use of resources. Demonstrating notabilty is very much a subjective thing. One person's notability is anothers trivia. Surely all that's needed is a set of non-wooly rules for footballer notability. Played for a pro team or international level/in these leagues(level 1-?). Too simply or do we really like the way it is?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The creator is entirely at fault for this discussion taking place, given that he knew full well that this would happen. In answer to your question, football editors (on the whole) like the de-facto status quo, because it makes it extremely difficult to actually force the subject of an article to prove it is remotely notable. They enjoy having a notability bar that is completely out of step with every other biography on the site. And from my experience, they will violently defend the letter of WP:NFOOTBALL (1 professional league appearance = eternal notability) over the spirit (a good faith attempt to provide a rule of thumb that will reduce the need for discussions of this sort). If we are going to use NFOOTBALL as a hard-and-fast rule, it should be set at a level where nigh-on 100% of people that meet the criteria will pass the GNG, rather than the current situation, where the majority of people that narrowly meet the criteria fail the GNG.
  - But in the context of this AfD, my answer to your question is irrelevant. Why? Because this guy does not even meet that criteria! --W F C-- 08:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandman and Jess. I'm sorry, Adam. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 11:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Watford is one of those teams that floats between top league and the second league. Plus this guy has been called up for a national team, the U-17, which plays competitively in FIFA tournaments. Considering these things, I'd leave the article in existence. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The league detail is irrelevant, given that he hasn't played in the league. And we've already got acknowledgement of his international participation on Wikipedia. While worthy of a mention somewhere, youth caps do not justify full-blown articles. --WFC-- 03:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also think he's being a bit generous referring to Watford as "float[ing] between top league and the second league", given that they've only spent two seasons in the top league since 1988...... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The supporter of a team one league above Luton makes a good point :-( --W F C-- 09:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Qichao[edit]

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

Is this musician truly notable? When I conducted a Google search, there appears to be very little about him, and most of the pages that were in fact about him were mirrors of Wikipedia. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He appears to be a rather important musician who played a role in the musical development of the zheng instrument and of Asian-American musical culture as a whole. Silver seren^C 18:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article, those found by the Google Books and News searches linked in the nomination and others found by Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL demonstrate that the subject is a leading exponent of his genre. I'll leave it to those with a better reading knowledge of Chinese than I have to evaluate these sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both Phil Bridger and Silver seren – Voceditenore (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad-Hashem Mohaymeni[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to sufficiently verify the contents of the article. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. J04n(talk page) 16:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: has some good quality G hits in Farsi ( محمد هاشم مهيمنی) Iran's Parliment. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I didn't get any GHits in the Farsi (although I copied and pasted the above, so perhaps I made a mistake). The Iranian Parliament mention is a minor one (confirming his appointment as governor), but I do not feel that this is the significant coverage mentioned in the notability guidelines. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see below for revised !vote -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: here is the link to Farsi G hits [11] Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at those tomorrow, and if there are some at reliable sources, I may change my delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the source confirms that the subject is a provincial governor then he clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. Would we even consider deleting an article about the governor of a US state? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment, this is still an unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 23:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That can pretty easily be fixed without deleting the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you J04n(talk page) 00:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As the sources confirm the governorship. However, I have removed the other biographical information as unsourced - if it can be sourced at independent reliable sources, it can of course be re-added. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Phil. The subject has not a good press coverage, but he served as a provincial governor.Farhikht (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrel (video game)[edit]

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

non notable video game. Nothing substantial in Google. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This game was one of the last games developed by Loriciels Game Companies: Loriciels, a well-know video game developer. It was not a hit, but it was programmed by a professional team[12], distributed worldwide and review by leading magazinesGame reviews at AMR. --El Pantera (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – received plenty of reviews in magazine (i.e. offline) sources here. Easily satisfies notability. –MuZemike 22:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few issues with this:
1. Transwiki to http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/Quadrel before considering for deletion. Just because an article doesn't meet requirements here doesn't mean it should be erased instantly.
2. Redirect to parent before considering deletion. Even if notability isn't inherited, redirects are acceptable.
3. It was referenced in multiple sources, even though the article doesn't mention it just yet. As such, it should be handled with the ((expand)) tag instead.
While it's nice to remove cruft from Wikipedia, consider other options before tagging for deletion, especially when an article is being created. --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that you are inable to locate Web references for a game that pre-dates the creation of the World Wide Web is not grounds for deletion. Check here to see if you can find any more. SharkD Talk 04:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close It's notable and sources are available, there's nothing else to discuss. Someone another 22:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Loriciels and their output are all notable. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 08:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dulcis foetidus[edit]

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

Non-notable single event. Initially identified on Wikipedia as a hoax until a single BBC article revealed the coverage around Dulcis foetidus to be part of a single, non-notable crowd psychology experiment. This event does not fulfill Wikipedia:Notability. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to crowd psychology or delete. No lasting notability; may deserve mention as a notable example in the crowd psychology article, but I'm not even sure of that. Ucucha 15:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this was an elaborate public experiment and despite how recent it is there already exists one reliable 3rd party source about it. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may have begun as a hoax article but now it is an article about a hoax. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm seeing just a single news hit on this, so it looks like it wasn't a very notable hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - redirection to an article that doesn't mention it isn't helpful. If kept, there must be a better title, but it seems that it would fit better into some other page anyway. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails Wikipedia:Notability (events), specifically lasting coverage. mgiganteus1 (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (events) says "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." This is a recent event. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into crowd psychology. Otherwise Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronk01 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the plant wasnt even real! also i am concern that the scientific journal references r fake.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WT:BIOL#Dulcis foetidus on that. Two refs merely verify that a few other (real) plants are smelly; one verifies the meaning of the alleged native name of the plant (although it was slightly suspicious that a Brazilian plant would be named in a Canadian language); the fourth I could not access. Ucucha 19:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG ("significant coverage") as a hoax. First Light (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Two sources do that. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'second' source is the same BBC author as the first, this time in his blog. WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." "Multiple sources are generally expected" surely means more than two, anyway. First Light (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was started as a hoax article [13] on the 8th. The reported hour long lecture/experiment followed on the 15th. It was subsequently amended to be an article on the lecture. A single article in BBC Local news does not make the subject notable.--Melburnian (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not assume the person who created the Wikipedia article knew it was a hoax. But if you do assume that, then it would be reasonable to also assume the real psychology experiment is here on Wikipedia. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the Wikipedia article was part of the hoax or not isn't important. The hoax itself still has not received significant coverage in multiple mainstream sources. First Light (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per most of the above. KaySL - 16:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable hoax. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There have been thousands of psychological experiments and this one is not any more notable than most of them. --Beirne (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out, damned spot. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have worked on the article. Lavateraguy would like a better page name. Please comment on Talk:Dulcis foetidus. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought this 'smelled funny' from the very beginning (11 Sept when it was made live); I noted my concerns in the Feedback request, and posted on WikiProj Biology. Now, OK, we know it was a hoax; but it isn't a notable hoax. Articles require significant coverage, and the one Beeb article ain't that. Chzz ► 01:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. One short article from the BBC isn't enough to claim "significant coverage". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are also the WP:SELFREF concerns, The false information in Wikipedia included such information as... etc. This really needs to go, ASAP. Chzz ► 13:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage - note that the BBC ref is local coverage, not the main BBC website. Can't see any potential for further improvements. Smartse (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hadley's theorem[edit]

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

Delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Article provides no references; removed PROD; and indicates that the subject may be original research. After removing the PROD, author stated, "Theorem not previously noted, most likely because it is far from obvious. Theorem is surprisingly nice, and reminiscent of Pythagoras. The 'simple' proof uses a little-known theorem from Euclid." The request for feedback stated, "A hitherto unrecorded mathematical theorem after Pythagoras is presented." Recommendation to delete based on original research and lack of notability. Cindamuse (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'pleasing' though it may be, the only thing I'm seeing on Google is a youtube video. At best, this is original research, at worst it's pitiful youtube spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, since you write as you do, I must surmise that you don't actually know who Norman Wildberger is. Let us note that the research involved is not his, and he's a competent professional who reviewed it. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:MADEUP. If it's a real theorem, it is not for sure known by this name, judging from looking in sources. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. A google turns up lots of references to the Youtube video and little else, so no reliable sources. The 'proof' itself indicates it's not original, based on an older one by some illegible name, so seems unlikely to be named after its transcriber.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Any Wikipedian mathematicians here? Michael Hardy, who kindly fixed my original crumby rendition of this page, certainly is one. The theorem is proven correct, it's interesting, and it has a prior literature reference in the form of Professor Norman Wildberger's treatment of it in the video modestly pointed to by the "External Link". Prof Wildberger is a well respected authority in the field. I believe the name attributed to the original proof is "McCloskey" [clarification: if the article survives this process there exists an earlier, geometrical, proof by Frank Hadley himself c.1980 which is noteworthy in itself, for the article, I think Extcetc (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)] but the prover doesn't necessarily get his name attached to a theorem, more often it would be named for the theorem's propounder. In this case that would be Frank Hadley (whom I am not).Extcetc (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Don't wait, add the earlier geometric proof now, or at least add the reference so others can look at it now and maybe add it later. A Youtube video is not usually enough for notability on its own, so in this case having another more traditional source could make all the difference to whether notability is established.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thanks for this suggestion (sorry I've only just noticed it). Shall do, but a proof by the theorem's author probably doesn't help much with the test for "notability" Extcetc (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps Wikipedia's conventions call for refereed publication, but calling this "made up" is silly. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That the theorem is correct or interesting is practically irrelevant. A single Youtube video is not a reliable source to establish notability. Are there academic papers on the theorem? These would help a lot. --Cyclopia ^talk 03:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thanks Cyclopia, none of which I'm aware Extcetc (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's sad. Is there any chance that there is a merge target for the article, under some other article on Euclidean geometry? --Cyclopia ^talk 02:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I considered the suitability of the article as an addition to an existing page but found none. Then, I'm not an authority on the subject (Norman Wildberger is). Extcetc (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is apparently no published proof, so there are no grounds for calling it a "theorem", nor is there any evidence of notability. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what you take to be the definition of a theorem? A proposition whose proof has been published? If we adhere to a standard of forbidding Wikipedia articles on results not published in refereed journals, that in no way means that a theorem is not a theorem until its proof is published. I've never heard of that definition before. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A theorem has to have a valid proof, but under WP:OR and WP:V, we can't claim that a valid proof exists until we have a peer-reviewed published source. -- Radagast3 (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: pure YouTube BS with no backing from non-trivial reliable sources. Protector of Wiki (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have some sobriety here? The comment above is pure Wikipedia BS. Saying it hasn't been published in a refereed source is one thing; calling it BS is another. Wildberger is an eccentric with some axes to grind, but also a competent mathematician. There's no reason to accuse him of "BS". Michael Hardy (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy and Extcetc need to STOP BABBLING about the merits of the author and the validity of the theorem. This page WILL be deleted if you do not provide non-trivial reliable sources that mention this theorem. The YouTube video DOES NOT CUT IT. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about the merits of the author. I know nothing about the author. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Note that there are accepted Wikipedia standards of civility in discourse. Also note that Frank Hadley and Norman Wildberger are separate individuals Extcetc (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've checked. By a plodding pedestrian method---reducing it to the law of cosines and taking into account the constraints on the angles. It is indeed a theorem. Hadley's proof is probably far more elegant than that. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But your checking, valid though I'm sure it is, constitutes WP:OR, and doesn't substitute for a published source. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further to Michael's comment (thanks Michael!) I'd add that any competent mathematician shown it will accept Hadley's offered proof of the theorem as valid, and/or be able to prove it him/herself from scratch. So it is a "theorem". Wildberger's peer-reviewed publication record makes him an authority by Wikipedia standards as I read them Extcetc (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both statements are nice but, I suspect, not entirely relevant to the issue. Are there publications mentioning the theorem and its proof? --Cyclopia ^talk 22:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is now whether to regard the youtube video as a publication mentioning the theorem and it's proof. No one doubts that Norman Wildberger, whose youtube channel it is, is a competent professional who has doubtless refereed various publications, and the research involved is not his, but someone else's. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not peer-reviewed, it fairly obviously doesn't satisfy WP:RS. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-review is a gold standard, not a minimum standard. It seems clear that it doesn't obviously fail WP:RS. Wildberger is an authority more than capable of passing the peer-review standard himself, and he has reviewed it. But is there a good reason people wish to hold this particular article on an uncontentious subject to the gold standard of peer-review? Extcetc (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is a core principle of Wikipedia, not a "gold standard." And YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources. Also, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article... if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's silly. The question is not whether youtube is a reliable source; obviously it's not. The question is whether peer-review by Wildberger satisfies Wikipedia's need for peer-review. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where Wildberger is the editor of a journal, then yes; where Wildberger is the author of a YouTube video, then no. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's still silly to speak of whether youtube is a reliable source. If you get a letter or a phone call from Norman Wildberger and are wondering about it's reliability, would you say that the postal service or the phone company are not reliable sources, and base your decision on that? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on reliable sources is here. It describes two main classes of reliable sources: published academic works from vetted sources and reports published by mainstream news organisations. Neither applies here. Immediately after it classes self-published content as "largely not acceptable", and these YouTube videos are self published.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy, it is not silly: it is all what it counts. We are not debating the theorem correctness but the notability of the topic. Now, I am quite a strong inclusionist, so you're talking with someone who has a lenient approach on notability; yet for sure if there's something should not be on WP, this is things that a guy happens to put on Youtube, and it not discussed anywhere else. It is irrelevant if the guy is a Nobel prize or my grandma. It is also irrelevant if it's a groundbreaking mathematical theorem or a lolcat farting. All what it matters is that we're talking of something that hasn't been published directly in academic papers, nor indirectly discussed by secondary sources. It falls under WP:MADEUP: If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia.. That's the case. This theorem and its proof are still not published by anything reliable. So, we can't take it as a subject for a standalone article. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: That a primary source the subject created himself is being waved as establishing notability demonstrates that these people clearly do not COMPREHEND the policies that ALL commoners (and even mods in rare cases) abide by. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Note as above that Norman Wildberger is not Frank Hadley Extcetc (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but neither Norman Wildberger nor Frank Hadley seem to have a peer-reviewed publication of the theorem. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as much as I hate removing some of the too-few science articles, the notability here is not established in the article. Nergaal (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Away from the issues being debated acrimoniously above, would some mathematicians clarify a point for me? If this is an obtuse angled triangle, how does it have a hypotenuse? I was under the impression that "A hypotenuse is the longest side of a right-angled triangle, the side opposite the right angle." Peridon (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, a hypotenuse is normally the longest side of a right or right angled triangle, and the usage here is incorrect. I had not noticed that when reading it but the way the proof is presented, as a barely readable scan, means it would require an unreasonable amount of work to judge its correctness, so I did not try.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the word "hypotenuse" was used just to emphasize the analogy between this and the Pythagorean theorem. But of course it's not correct. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peridon, it was allusion to the Pythagorean theorem which this theorem resembles that motivated me to use the word. The etymology of "hypotenuse" would support this usage at a short stretch but I'm not aware of any precedent for it. It was brief and allusive, sorry; I just liked it. Extcetc (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: It really doesn't matter how competent Hadley is or how valid the theorem is. As long as the proponents of retention cannot provide non-trivial reliable sources to verify the information, this article is headed down the deletion path. They have yet to provide sources, save for an unreliable YouTube video. Protector of Wiki (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly did you conclude the video is unreliable? I find someone above saying youtube is not reliable. But it's the reliability of the person who put the material on youtube that is the relevant question. Obviously youtube itself is not reliable in this matter. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Protector: Hadley's competence is irrelevant to the article and the discussion (Wildberger's is not). A mathematical theorem either exists or it doesn't. Extcetc (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You basically reiterated my words. I said that it "really doesn't matter". Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is basically exercise in geometry and while the proof given is unusual, it's straightforward to find a proof based on the law of sines and the law of cosines. There is no historical interest and the theorem has no applications. It might be fun so assign it as an extra credit problem in a geometry class but there's no encyclopedic value here. This is in addition to the fact that it doesn't meet notability criteria.--RDBury (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am also uncertain of the copyright status of the images in the article. They are scans of hand-written notes by Hadley, and are presumably not public domain. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no third-party published sources for "Hadley's theorem" or "Hadley triangle" on either Google books or Google scholar. Notability obviously demands something more than a Youtube video, whoever it might belong to. I suppose it is possible that this result might be called something else more commonly in the literature, but better sources need to be presented. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The proof, regardless of its correctness or elegance, has no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did find a "Hadley's theorem" with a small t, but it was a reference to something quite other, to do with "Reciprocity, World Prices, and Welfare" (whatever the heck that is...). I do like the theorem in question, partly because it would seem to be virtually useless, and partly because I can understand it..... Peridon (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah Peridon you write like a pure mathematician :) I think the theorem is notable (in the normal sense) in that I know of no others that deal with thirds of angles; for its elegance; and for its resemblance to the Pythagorean (yet need only for Euclid to prove it) Extcetc (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after incorporating this as an example in some other geometry article. Perhaps Pythagorean theorem, or maybe some trigonometry article (there are lots of those). Maybe rational trigonometry. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A geometer has just reminded me of Morley's_trisector_theorem dealing with trisection and triangles. Perhaps Trisection itself? Extcetc (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How would you incorporate this theorem as "an example in some other geometry article" when no reliable sources verify its existence? Protector of Wiki (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment it has nothing to do with trisection. From "C [is] 2⁄3 the complement of A" I get 3⁄2C + A = 90° or B = A⁄2 + 90°. No way I can see to derive one-third a given angle from this. It's easy to show that the general solution of trisecting an angle is algebraically a cubic, so the algebra is also too trivial.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See the proof, wherein an angle (your 3/2C) of the construction is trisected. But no this theorem itself is not about trisection, which is why I put it up on its own. On the other hand it may have originally appeared in the course of somebody's exploration of angle trisection (see the construction in the proof). Do you have a suggestion to add to Michael's? How do you like Hadley's original proof, by the way? Extcetc (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's not how trisection works: the general idea is take an angle and trisect it, not start with a triangle with two angles related by a factor 2⁄3. On your questions the 1980 proof is no more legible than the first, and as it still has no reliable sources my recommendation is still delete.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The theorem is not about trisection and you would rather delete it than find somewhere, as Michael suggests, to add it? - your position seems clear, thanks. Extcetc (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As in the case of Morley's theorem, nothing in this implies that every angle can be trisected; rather, it deals with those angles that can be trisected. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT DIVERGE FROM THE TOPIC AT HAND. We are discussing the article and whether it merits inclusion, not the validity of the theorem. Protector of Wiki (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not diverge from the topic. One of the proposals was to merge and redirect, and the question was which article to merge it into. My comment was on that topic. My comment was not about the validity of the theorem; I don't see how you find that in my comment. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You DID deviate from the topic. Perhaps I was wrong in characterising your comment as pertaining to "validity of the theorem", but you continued babbling about other mathematical concepts that have no connection to this discussion. Even if you suggest a merge, the analysis above by JohnBlackburne, Extcetc, and you qualifies as original research, and we cannot merge on the basis of that. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was on topic. If you fail to see its connection to this discussion, that is your failure to see, not my failure to be on topic. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the content of your comment, but please avoid yelling at users with all caps and using this kind of tone. You are an editor like everyone else, you don't shout orders at us. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mattador[edit]

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

Band does not appear to be notable per WP:Music. I took a quick look to see if the band's only album even charted on any of the Billboard charts in which the band's name isn't even found. Additionally, there's no sources for this statement: "The band enjoyed critical success in USA and Japan, but was a commercial failure." Not only that, but it seems like a contradiction to what is being stated. No awards either for the band have been found. Magiciandude (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for band. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no contradiction in being a critical success and a commercial failure. they may have received great reviews from the critics only to have their album sell only a few copies and nobody attend their concerts. However, I can find no reliable sources to substantiate this critical success. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge may be discussed on the series article's talk page, to determine how to proceed. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main Street (novel series)[edit]

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

I have searched for references for this series of books, and expected to find some as the author is clearly notable. However, the only mention in a reliable source that I have found is a short review of one of the books in the series, here. I do not think that is enough to show notability. I will nominate the individual book articles as well, as part of this AfD - of eight books in the series, five have articles, none of which contains more than a plot summary. bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the articles for the individual books, see reasoning above.

--bonadea contributions talk 13:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —bonadea contributions talk 14:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reviews can be very hard to find on the first try without knowing good sources. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] More reviews are generally avaliable on the barnes and noble site as well. Derild 49 21 ☼ 14:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge individual books into a list. While perhaps not timeless classics for the ages, there's no doubt that Ann M Martin is an important author by way of overwhelming popularity. That said, I think handling the individual books as a list, as we do with her much more popular Babysitters Club series, makes far more sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep but merge per Andrew, Sadads (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Heavenheld[edit]

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

Creator removed PROD template without comment or improvement. PROD was based on: Fails notability for WP:AUTHOR. Although the subject has written and published two plays, searches have failed to reveal any WP:RS reliable sources that clearly assert the notability and importance of this author/playwright. Kudpung (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, the PROD was removed with a comment left on the talk page. It stated: "Removed deletion request as subject satisfies WP:AUTHOR criterion 2: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. As far as I'm aware, subject is the only Australian playwright writing in this (neoclassical) style, and one of only a handful in the world." -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite the assertion of notability in on the article talk page when removing the PROD, there are no reliable sources writing about this person. In particular, nobody has taken note of him being the only Aus playwright writing in this style in the form of articles or biogaphies written about him in reliable sources. His collection of plays appears to be self-published based on the Publisher being Heavenheld Publishing. I can find no coverage about this collection of plays either. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete no coverage in gnews [19]. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bui Dzinh[edit]

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

This may qualify for a speedy. I feel that the subject of this article fails WP:N and WP:BIO. The list of facts about the person, besides being essentially unintelligible, are back up by references that do not verify any of the information provided. They're either to pages that don't exist or to references of dubious reliability that don't even mention the subject of the article. It could be tagged for a speedy with A1/G1, A7, and/or G3. The person may also be alive and as no references that I checked even mention the subject, it may qualify for a prod per unreferenced BLP. OlYeller^Talktome 13:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article appears to be a machine translation. GBooks shows that much of the article could be verified, but I'm unsure the subject meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable. I can fix this. HE was a general and division commander and tried to stop the 1963 South Vietnamese coup without success YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per YellowMonkey. Three star general involved in the Vietnam War. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep: the article is a mess, and I got confused just attempting to read it. I really have no idea if he warrants notability because I just couldn't make much sense of the content. If it can get cleaned up, then I will re-assess. Best of luck, YellowMonkey! bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a badly written and formatted article, but the subject is notable and his achievements are verifiable. A candidate for improvement, not deletion. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've had a go at trying to get some sort of order out of the mess. I've made no attempt to verify any of the information, and some stuff just made no sense whatsoever, but at least it's an article now (albeit likely to be an inaccurate and incomplete one). Others can take it from here. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Towers 1[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Galactic Traveller (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Rabbabodrool (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Jenga[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I'm sure that this is great fun, but notable ... no. No reliable third party sources, and no real claim of notability in the article, indeed it's acknowledged that this is only played at a "secret campground" in Canada. Deadly∀ssassin 10:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can you say... WP:MADEUP by an WP:SPA! It brings me back to Eddie Murphy Delirious... "Now THATS a fire!!!!" Pmedema (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fully per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. See these links to view an update on the battle. The Interior (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gustaf Birger Anders Holm[edit]

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

Contested Prod. No evidence given of notability, in fact no description of why this person may be notable. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was a bit brief, but I have added some more information. Holm has an entry in Nationalencyklopedin and is mentioned in at least three other biographical encyclopedias or biographies, as seen in the Further reading section. --bonadea contributions talk 14:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still don't see anything approaching encyclopedic notability. He was chairman of a publishing company (though that part isn't sourced) and he owned a fancy house. I'm sure his mum was proud of him, but he didn't do anything to get in an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict, but now I've written this long comments with wikilinks and all so I'll post it even though my point was just made by Edward321 :-)Comment Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the fact that there are individual entries about the man in three different encyclopedias (Svenskt biografiskt handlexikon, Nordisk familjebok and Nationalencyclopedin, the first two being contemporary with Holm and the third being a current work), as well as non-trivial mentions in several other printed works (as seen in the Further Readings section of the article - one of those is a 20-page chapter in a book, devoted entirely to this person) indicate notability? I agree that it doesn't seem particularly relevant to our lives today who was the boss of one of the largest publishing houses in Sweden 100 years ago, but that's not really the issue, is it. --bonadea contributions talk 18:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If he's notable enough for print encyclopedias, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks bonadea! I didn't even notice those other encyclopedias. This should be more than enough sources to establish notability. Melchoir (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - included in several printed encyclopedias, in essence all standard sources for Swedish biographical information. Tomas e (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has now successfully established the notability of the subject. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question, can someone provide translations of the relevant sections of the cited sources? Given that this is the English Wikipedia, these sources are not readily accessible to many of us. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These are relatively short biographical articles with the type of information you would expect in such. If you don't read Swedish, I don't see why you would trust the translation of the original sources any more than the rephrasing of the same information in the Wikipedia article. You can use Google Translate to get the gist of the sources available on the web, this one and this one (there is OCR text on the pages if you scroll down to below the facsimile). The Nationalencyklopedin article is very short and still in copyright, which makes translating it pointless from a source-reviewing point-of-view and a bad idea from a copyright point-of-view. --Hegvald (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but according to WP:NONENG it is reasonable to ask for translations of non-english sources used as references in articles. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia E7-00[edit]

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

Delete. Advertising/promotional article about a company product that is currently in development and not yet released. The announcement of the product was just made in September 2010. No independent references provided to establish notability through significant sources. WP:CRYSTAL. Cindamuse (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: more sources can be found under the name Nokia E7 (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Andries (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can you add some references culled from reliable sources that are independent of the subject? An independent source is a point of media or publication which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective. Media publications and advertisements presented on behalf of manufacturers, companies, and commercial outlets that benefit from the sale of the product are not considered independent. These published announcements and advertisements are established affiliates of the subject and are not considered reliable. Most of the sources that I find from a search, relate to parties with an affiliated, direct interest in the subject and are therefore, not independent. I am concerned about the promotional nature of this article. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise products which have not yet been released. That said, if you can locate significant coverage, reflected in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, I would be happy to retract the nomination. Best regards, Cindamuse (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allaboutsymbian seems to be independent. It has a corresponding disclaimer at the bottom. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yeah, Allaboutsymbian is a blog, which is considered an unreliable source. Cindamuse (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not think that Allaboutsymbian is a blog, though it has aspects of a fansite. Andries (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure whether allaboutsymbian (all about symbian) is a truly reliable source. The website is clearly very knowledgeable and write in depth reviews, but it also has a pro symbian bias. Andries (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First page of Google results has [20] [21] [22] from sources widely considered reliable (TechRadar is (one of?) the web outlet(s) of tech news publisher Future plc, the other two should be familiar). Whether this should be moved to Nokia E7 I'm happy to leave to those who have an opinion on it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was some confusion over recent Nokia products e.g. with Nokia C6, Nokia C3 and Nokia X3, so that is why I prefer it to have the article stay at Nokia E7-00, instead of Nokia E7. Andries (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think I saw somewhere that the article was originally at Nokia E7 and was moved according to consensus. (Look for sources that are not blogs.) I have looked for reliable, independent references but have come up empty. That said, I will keep looking. Other editors will weigh in with their recommendations to keep. Don't let the process discourage you. Cindamuse (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is one in the Netherlands' most prestigious newspaper NRC Handelsblad google translate from Dutch newspaper It does not make so much difference if the article is userfied, because everything indicates that more reliable sources will follow. Andries (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I admit that there are not (yet) many independent reliable sources, but one can expect them to be coming, because this is together with the Nokia N8 a flagship product from the world's largest mobile phone brand. This article is not WP:CRYSTAL, because the product has already been announced and shown to the press. Besides detailed specs can be found at the company's website. If this article is deleted then please userfy before deletion. Andries (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog or a directory of gadgets which a crystal ball says will have multiple instances of significant coverage independent and reliable sources "real soon." Edison (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It's too early to talk about deletion of this article. It's brand new. It's still developing. It's about flagship business model from world's largest mobile phone brand. E7 is continuation of Nokia E90. E7 is comparable to phones like iPhone which are totally accepted in Wikipedia. Besides there are articles about Nokia C6-01 and Nokia C7 and those aren't on articles for deletion list despite the fact that those are quite similar articles. It's about probably most influential Symbian^3 phone which is coming out. Nokia N8 is for home consumers while E7 for professionals. These phones form a pair. I think there are enough reliable sources to support the article. Also most certainly this is not WP:CRYSTAL because product exists. It has been announced and fully functional device has been shown to the press (ie. Nokia E7 Hands-on). I strongly think that E7 article has it's place in Wikipedia. --Mikitei (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, articles about upcoming phones can exist in Wikipedia (exempli gratia T-Mobile G2). Comment:Move it to Nokia E7 because we have no idea whether Nokia E7-01 will exist. --116.49.64.162 (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Leave it as Nokia E7-00 as that's the product's official name. And I agree, articles about upcoming phones (especially announced and demoed phones) can exist in Wikipedia. Antonyh3 (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, There are plenty of other articles about unreleased devices. I think the line should only drawn at unannounced and/or (un)leaked phones. The E7 was demonstrated at Nokia World, so this would not fall under those categories. 68.33.48.100 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As per all above - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 12:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Fisher[edit]

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

Non-notable model. I am having a difficult time in looking for anything to support this BLP's notability, aside WP:COI edits and all its sources are all personal sites.

Also as she only had one decent role, every other appearances are minor one-episode roles, therefore she fails to meet WP: ENT. Donnie Park (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impressed by the number of people that have edited that article, including one purporting to be the subject. Covered by imdb including photos (why, Google Images?) - maybe that's a better place for it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are the WP:SPA WP:COI edits that makes it appear that it was edited by more than one person. Examples (check the user contribution and you will realise that its they have everything in common) ... User:98.149.133.227, User:71.177.119.15, User:Kimberlyfisher, ~~User:76.29.216.150~~, User:75.84.249.118, User:70.228.160.203, ~~User:76.226.114.83~~, User:Kimberlyfisher1, User:98.18.34.179, User:70.59.28.50, User:166.214.108.23, User:65.130.70.108. You can tell easily, other than the SPA edit the removal of her DoB (some people like to think they re younger then they are). Donnie Park (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't account for nearly all of the edits. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unclear why she is notable, all roads of sourcing return to Rome VASterling (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. I'm sorry, Kimberly. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 08:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Söderberg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable footballer who has not made a first-team appearance ina full-time professional league Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has played first team for BK HACKEN and forhiscounty at under 21 User:triplelou

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - eligible under G4 - "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion." Giant Snowman 11:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD G4, still fails the exact same criteria as before, nothing has changed. --Jimbo^[online] 14:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per G4. This article is just as non-notable as it was last time around. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 08:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Wards[edit]

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

Non notable player per Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Rugby_league. Has not played professionally or represented his country Mattlore (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like this one was missed in the big batch deletion of US-based rugby league players a couple of weeks back. Clearly fails the NSPORT inclusion guidelines. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE RahulChoudhary 08:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ball Park Music[edit]

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

Non-notable band from Brisbane. The article was previously deleted under WP:CSD#A7 but was quickly restored by the original creator. I nominated under CSD#A7 again but this was changed to a prod by somebody which was then contested. Other than a couple of music directories there seems to be very little coverage about this band. The references in the article include some primary sources and even a facebook page to pad the list out but this still doesn't give the band enough coverage to meet the general notability guidelines. AussieLegend (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No album yet, and very little coverage found. --Michig (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spatulli (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete original speedy was correct. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band with very little or maybe no coverage anywhere. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National rotation on Triple J [23], satisfying wp:music#11. For coverage there is dBMagazine, Mess&Noise and Tweed Heads Daily News ("New kids in the Ball Park strike right note", 4 February 2010). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very much looks like coi editing to this and other articles with article creator and band manager. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:BAND only says "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria", not "will be notable". The general notability guidelines still apply and the sources you've provided don't constitute "significant coverage". The "Mess&Noise" reference you provided doesn't seem reliable since anyone appears to be able to contribute ("You need to be logged into Mess+Noise to contribute to the Releases. Go on and Log In or if you you're not a member, feel free to Sign Up"). --AussieLegend (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they may be. I say they are. National rotation is a good one for me. Especially considering the amount that song was thrashed. Wasn't thinkin much of the validity of this article till I checked the claim of rotation and downloaded the song and heard which it was. The amount I'd heard it was good enough for me. If everything goes back to the general notability guidelines that makes all the other guidelines redundent, wasting all the considered discussion that went in to them useless. The common misconception regarding the GNG is that while having that coverage verifiable may make one notable, lacking that easily verifiable coverage does not mean one is not notable. Other things make one notable, awrds, titles, public recognition, etc. Regarding coverage, the coverage I provided alone would not have (always) got a keep from me, probably just a comment detailing the coverage (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyager (metal band)). The coverage here adds to the notability given by the rotation. Re Mess and Noise, haven't totaly made my mind up about them but am current leaning towards a good source based on who I've seen writing for them. Shall look further.)duffbeerforme (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and I tend to look down on people recreating bad articles after they are deleted. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rome, Georgia. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rome, Italy's history in Rome, GA[edit]

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

Mistitled article about Rome, Italy gifting a statue to Rome, Georgia; there's nothing here that couldn't frankly be dealt with in two lines at Rome, Georgia. Previously prodded, but creator removed the prod template with no rationale or improvement. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content about statue to Rome, Georgia; the backstory doesn't need to be there. Roscelese (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Roscelese said. At the very least retitle since the article is about the statue and nothing else. It is probably notable enough but would be just as well covered in a section in the article on the city as in its own article. Wolfview (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete after heavy trimming. Edward321 (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merge and delete is not a valid AFD outcome. riffic (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. This really should have been an uncontroversial move. freshacconci talktalk 21:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above...Modernist (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Burge[edit]

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

Speedy declined. Fails notability. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These two books appear to cover the subject: [24], [25], but this isn't suitable for an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry but an autobio without evidence just don't qualify. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few sources, notability unclear VASterling (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks pretty non-notable to me, and has no sources except a couple of url links. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: no non-trivial reliable sources to indicate notability. Just another bloke with Asperger's. Protector of Wiki (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Last Letters Home. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Cowherd[edit]

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

Soldier whose only notability was being profiled in a single documentary. While he is not living, the notable for one thing only rule still applies. Dondegroovily (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per recommendation on the pageSadads (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure there's even enough to merge here --Deathawk (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this would even be used as a search term. Dondegroovily (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Last Letters Home. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Last Letters Home per Bahamut0013. Redirects are cheap. Location (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: seems like a valid search term given coverage in the documentary, but unfortunately I don't think he is independently notable. Redirecting per Bahamut0013's suggestion seems like a valid solution. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 08:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Poker[edit]

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

81.8.110.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Poker website. Could not find evidence it meets CORP with no reliable coverage of the site. Lots of press releases and other spam though providing routine announcements. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Redirect to Online poker. Reasonable search term. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAz GaA 17:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. Site doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as spam, no coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retro Force (The Video Game)[edit]

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

Non-notable and unverified. PROD (not mine) removed by creator without explanation. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like all games of its age the vast majority if not all relevant sources are magazines (like this). Even then, there's at least one good source online here. Someone another 22:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – also featured and reviewed in the April 1999 issue of Dutch magazine Power Unlimited (6 out of 10). –MuZemike 00:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep video game from a notable publisher which, although Euro-only, appears to have amassed the requisite amount of reliable source coverage for our needs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D.D.S. M.D.[edit]

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

This is a non-notable article, not much more than an Wiktionary entry. At best, this should link to articles for DDS and MD. There's nothing to be gained from the conjunction. This article has just about zero content that would not appear in the DDS and MD articles. Should we have a separate article for BA BS, as some college students graduate with a BA and a BS? Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No relevant content that could not be guessed from looking up both D.D.S. and M.D. separately. For irrelevant content, the article describes a university which offers a D.O. and D.M.D. joint program, and while a D.M.D. is equivalent to a D.D.S. in the United States, a D.O. is not equivalent to an M.D. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would contest notability here, but this is content duplication. Ronk01 talk 19:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplication. If we were to redirect, would this go to D.D.S. or to M.D.? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Logical Cowboy. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Gippsland Umpires Association[edit]

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

This a local, community, non-fully professional organisation that provides umpires for local, community, non-fully professional sporting leagues. I think WP:NOTWEBHOST covers this. Completely unreferenced apart from two self published official websites. The-Pope (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also fails WP:CLUB. Go get your own website! WWGB (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Country football is the heart and soul of Australia's own great game, and its umpires are the princes and princesses of its regulation. Unfortunately, this article fails the general notability guidelines, or in the alternative, WP:CLUB and WP:ORG.--Shirt58 (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd like to echo some of the above comments. "Go get your own website!" Lacks the coverage needed. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [26]. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taral Wayne[edit]

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

Claims notability through multiple redlink awards and Hugo nominations. I have been unable to verify any of the Hugo award nominations, nor can I find any reliable secondary sources that discuss him or his work in any detail. Article was tagged for notability over a year ago, and has only 9 edits in the past two years. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. Nominator's failure to check the standard reference on the Hugo Awards [27] is completely inexplicable, as is his failure to refer to the award's official site [28]. Both of the sources are clearly identified and linked in the Wikipedia article on the relevant award, and indisputably verify the supposedly questionable claims. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still see absolutely no reliable sources beyond that. It's possible to be nominated for a major award and still fail WP:N, and the very low number of Google hits seems to point to an overall lack of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the key is notability in his field, which he seems to have obtained. here's the citation for one of those awards: http://www.scifiinc.org/rotsler/2008-wayne/; the others are verifiable (I checked). he also seems to have illustrated a number of notable works. VASterling (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete though the Hugo is a notable award, this person appears to have been nominated only for fan art. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? I don't see anywhere on Wikipedia where it says making fan art means you are non-notable, regardless of what you win. Silver seren^C 22:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as per Starblind. --89.211.97.159 (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Has had significant coverage in Science Fiction Chronicle and in The Globe and Mail. In the Globe, there's a long article from 1982 that's entirely about him and his work. I've added a few citations, and will add a few more when I have a chance. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Edward321 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. A minor figure within the world of fan art, the sources found are minimal and do not establish notability. One very old G&M article isn't enough. freshacconci talktalk 21:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily so. The Hugo, eight times, is more than enough for notability. He fits under #1 of WP:ARTIST, as he is indeed important within the scifi fandom, his "peers". Silver seren^C 22:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One Hugo nomination is sufficient to establish notability; this artist is notable many times over. Sources are sufficient; the above comments seem to be dismissive of fan art as a genre, but that's simply not our place: if a major award covers it, then the award's nominees are notable. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple authors, cited, and seems notable enough. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Tanakashi: Dynasty of Blade[edit]

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

Not notable. Primary source. IMDB returns nothing; Google hits Wikipedia and Facebook plus obscure news. Article edits have been few and nonsubstantial. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources. Per Armbust as well. Derild 49 21 ☼ 14:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having had a look around, I'm not even convinced this actually exists. All the web coverage seems to lead back to Wikipedia in one way or another. It's either a hoax or very, very obscure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable or made-up film. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. From Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates: "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other." Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. Editorial decisions such as merging should be discussed on the talk pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball players who played for Penn State[edit]

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

Unneeded listcruft. Create a category if absolutely needed, but this list is not. Note: previously a no consensus discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major Leaguers Who Played for Penn State. Grsz¹¹ 22:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:
- Major League Baseball players who played for Arizona State University
- Major League Baseball players who played for Rice University

Delete all unnecessary - especially when there are no third party sources connecting the school to the fact that they play in the MLB.—Chris!_c/t 00:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Categories work fine for this. We have Category:Rice Owls baseball players and Category:Arizona State Sun Devils baseball players. ~~As of this moment, there is no Category:Penn State Nittany Lions baseball players, but I'll create it.~~ I have created it. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all All three meet the definition of an indiscriminate list, and categories are superior to something that never aspired to be nothing more than a boring list of blue links. If someone wants to make a list that honors Penn State and the "L" in WP:CLN, consider adding details like, say, when and where they played in the big leagues, like they do in a media guide. The article on the five-time NCAA champion Arizona State Sun Devils baseball team isn't very good, so the list of players would be a welcome addition there; the place for this info is within the article about the program itself. Mandsford 02:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised it took this long to get these deleted. Alex (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categories and lists do not serve identical functions, and having both on a particular topic is not a bad thing. In particular, lists allow you to provide item-by-item ciations on the items in the list, while inclusion in a category is always uncited (unless the information is included in the body of the article and cited there). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Major League Baseball players who played for Penn State back into List of Pennsylvania State University people. Merge and redirect Major League Baseball players who played for Arizona State University to List of Arizona State University alumni. Merge and redirect Major League Baseball players who played for Rice University to List of Rice University people. In all three cases, a substantial amount of the same content is mirrored there anyway, so there's no point in having separate baseball-exclusive pages. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The lists could serve different purposes than the categories such as "years at school", "debut date" and "final date". They are not the same thing. Just because they are not up to those standards now doesn't mean they should be deleted. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better served at Penn State Nittany Lions, Arizona State Sun Devils baseball, and Rice Owls baseball than at separate pages. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Hit Bull, win steak, no reason why it should be deleted, nor any reason why it should be kept. Secret ^account 23:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Muboshgu as per a merge target. The Rice University list is already (in a much better form) at Rice Owls baseball#Former players, and that the Arizona State list would be more logical an addition, in similar form, to Arizona State Sun Devils baseball. There doesn't seem to be an article about the Penn State baseball team; maybe someone who spent a few years at State College PA will be drawn to the discussion by the mere spotting of the name of the alma mater, and have a suggestion. Mandsford 12:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss possible merge as suggested by Muboshgu. One thing is clear, the list is not indiscriminate; how can a list of major league baseball players be indiscriminate, since we accept that every one of them u is notable by our standards? A list of anyone who ever played for Penn State, might more reasonably be considered indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Seems to be leaning towards a merge right now, but I think some more discussion on the merge targets will be helpful. T. Canens (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be merged to the pages I suggested above: Arizona State Sun Devils baseball, Rice Owls baseball and Penn State Nittany Lions (as there is no Penn State Nittany Lions baseball). --Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this should be a category not an article. Nergaal (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the suggestions by Hit Bull, Win Steak. Vodello (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Club Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Just a few non-local appearences as support act to other more notable bands and at a couple of festivals. No chart singles/EPs and no albums. No significant mention in reliable sources. Doubt they meet WP:BAND. Astronaut (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet the standards for bands. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the band are prominently featured at http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/festivals/readingandleeds/2010/artists/clubsmith/ and are featured in multiple music reviews, a summary of which can be seen on their website. Furthermore the band have recorded and released a full-length album in Japan available at (sorry for the unicode link) http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%82%A4%E3%83%B3%E3%83%87%E3%82%A3%E3%82%B7%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A7%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BA-%E3%82%B6%E3%83%BB%E3%83%98%E3%82%A2%E3%83%BC/dp/B000WGUJEO/ref=pd_rhf_shvl_3 . The band's Maida Vale session with Huw Stephens on Radio 1 was around half an hour. The band could arguably fit three of the WP:BAND criteria although I accept there inclusion is subject to debate. User:thomasf2811 02:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.186.146 (talk) [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, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Subject has had significant coverage in such newspapers as The Press [29] and the Sunday Sun [30]. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Paul - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Press and The Sunday Sun are both local North East England newspapers. What's more, with The Press describing Club Smith as "up-and-coming " and the Sunday Sun article saying things like "It’s a great opportunity to draw in some more fans" and "Club Smith are wary of getting carried away and assuming the festival date will be their big break." it seems the band is not yet notable enough to meet the criteria of WP:BAND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronaut (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underdog Productions[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can find nothing to justify their claim to be "one of the largest animation production houses in the USA"; their output seems to be limited to a single TV series. --MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect will be created to Mumbai University Institute of Chemical Technology as it is a viable search term. Mkativerata (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manzar[edit]

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

Non notable event. I've only found one trivial mention about it here. Mattg82 (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: no non-trivial reliable sources to indicate notability. Protector of Wiki (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mumbai University Institute of Chemical Technology at best, delete if no decent refs can be found. Pedro : Chat 21:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability of this event. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holding Our Breath[edit]

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

Non-notable release per WP:NSONGS as there's no charts, no significant idependent coverage and no other info apart from the track listing. Such pages should not exist per the given guideline. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for eps. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morningrise (Slowdive song)[edit]

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

Non-notable release per WP:NSONGS as there's no charts, no significant idependent coverage and no other info apart from the track listing. Such pages should not exist per the given guideline. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for songs. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Song / Take Me Down[edit]

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

Non-notable release per WP:NSONGS as there's no charts, no significant idependent coverage and no other info apart from the track listing. Such pages should not exist per the given guideline. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for songs. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She Calls / Leave Them All Behind[edit]

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

Non-notable release per WP:NSONGS as there's no charts, no significant idependent coverage and no other info apart from the track listing. Such pages should not exist per the given guideline. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for songs. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alison (Slowdive song)[edit]

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

Non-notable release per WP:NSONGS as there's no charts, no significant idependent coverage and no other info apart from the track listing. Such pages should not exist per the given guideline. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for songs and it is an unlikely search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Souvlaki (album), per WP:NSONG's treatment of non-notable songs. Rlendog (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 EP (In Mind Remixes)[edit]

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

Non-notable release per WP:NSONGS as there's no charts, no significant idependent coverage and no other info apart from the track listing. Such pages should not exist per the given guideline. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for songs. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 EP[edit]

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

Non-notable release per WP:NALBUMS no significant independent coverage, exists just to promote the EP's track listing. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical Research Investigative Studies Program[edit]

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

University program that seems not that important to the university in question. Dondegroovily (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be merged to Oregon Health & Science University but doesn't seem to be worth more than a mention. --MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worth merging. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice to pagemove. Feel free to discuss on talk page or be bold. Jujutacular ^talk 03:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of American ancestries[edit]

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

Has been tagged as WP:Original research since April 2008. This is a well written essay about a very interesting (at least to me) and important subject. Also the maps are quite nice and represent a lot of work. However I think it really should be published somewhere other than an encyclopedia. The facts about the ethnic makeup of the United States are already available in other articles, this one is mainly about one person's opinions and speculations. Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as firs half of the article is an essay and second ha i a repository of images. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. WP:NOTREPOSITORY does not apply - you can't claim both that it is an essay and that it is nothing but a repository of maps. Specific changes, rewrite or merge would be more reasonable to propose. --JWB (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with JWB above--this was content split off from other articles. I would rather see specific changes and improvements proposed than see it deleted. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 05:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page has existed for over 5 years. I find it very suspicious that Jaque Hammer's profile is only 5 days old and that he is already proposing to deletes. M stone (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my home page.Jaque Hammer (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with a legitimate reason can nominate articles for deletion. Your comment seems WP:BITE-y to me. Also the article's length of existence has nothing to do with whether this should be kept or not.—Chris!_c/t 22:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that I am biting a new user. I believe that this editor created a temporary profile to obscure their regular profile. The article's length of existence and the amount of effort should be considered before deletion. It takes a long time to build a house and very little time to burn it to the ground. All comments presented here seem to be great arguments for fixing the page or leaving tags up until it is. Not deleting it. By the way there are clearly links to existing content. M stone (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nominator said this is original research. It seems to consist of two parts, both of which are OR, probably by two different editors. The first part, an essay, says that most American's don't know too much about their ancestry (true enough by my experience), while the second gives detailed maps about the relative locations of members of various ethnic groups which the first part said don't even know who they are.Wolfview (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be very destructive to delete rather than fix this page. Don't forget that creating images is an exception to wikipedia's original research policy. See: WP:OI.—Preceding unsigned comment added by M stone (talk • contribs) 15:02, 19 September 2010

Actually, images aren't exempted from WP:OR, though the bar is set lower than prose. It reads "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" (emphasis mine) That said, I don't agree/disagree with Wolfview. Just trying to clarify what our policy said.—Chris!_c/t 22:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that these maps are recreations of ones located in other places see Map Gallery of Ethnic Groups in the United States. Therefore they do not violate wikipedia's original research policy. Seems like such a shame to delete such great content. Editors took a lot of time and effort to put this page together and it seems like it would be very useful for potential users of wikipedia. Deletion is such a blunt instrument. M stone (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Race and ethnicity in the United States. If there is content that isn't already there, or if content there was taken from this page. Taemyr (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be adequately covered in Race and ethnicity in the United States. Still, it is amazing that so many states have a German plurality, including Florida. Edison (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good subarticle of "Race and ethnicity in the United States" where visualization of the distribution of ethnicities can be the focus. --Polaron | Talk 17:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to Race and ethnicity in the United States; the maps are definitely useful, but Wikipedia should not be a repository of these maps. Commons is the right place for them.—Chris!_c/t 19:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, and work on a better title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I say MUST KEEP and IMPROVE, and work on a better title. This is a good article of "Race and ethnicity in the United States" where MANY MAPS should be with it for visualization of the distribution of ethnicities can be the focus YES YES . -- Henry Gurr, a long time Wikipedia User and Contributor of $ and content. 22 September 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.253.225 (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then improve it, not just say "It needs improvement", if you clearly has no intention to do it. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a page needs to be improved does not mean it should be deleted. It seems like black mail. Improve the page or I will delete it. This is not a valid reason for proposing deletion. 157.93.17.23 (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This is a summary page, and the information is well-sourced. We have consistently held that creating maps is not OR--and this applies to thematic maps as well. I suggest the title Distribution of American ancestries. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Distribution of American ancestries is a much more accurate title. M stone (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that topic is treated at Race and ethnicity in the United States. Taemyr (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a valid point. An even more accurate title would be Distribution of American ancestries according to 2000 US census. This would allow the main article to treat the topic more generally while this page could be devoted to specifically to the 2000 census data. This will be more important as the 2010 census has just been completed. It looks like this would only require significant modification of the introduction since most of the article and images are based on the 2000 census data. M stone (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and give author opportunity to improve. Clearly notable content. BlueRobe (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments of DGG. Yworo (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Distribution of American ancestries and get rid of the maps, as Wikipedia is not an image gallery. The main topic is notable and very relevant to society today, and has been discussed in various academic publications. It's not wholly OR (articles actually can be improved), and can be saved. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Hogan (executive)[edit]

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

BLP for someone only known for one thing Dondegroovily (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well covered industry recognized CEO of a major corporation. I think you're mis-reading WP:BLP1E; his position and notability are an ongoing concern. Kuru (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That one thing is leading the largest radio group in America. Notability is automatic and there are no BLP concerns to speak of. Nate • (chatter) 02:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD is mainly prompted by a merge suggestion that he be merged into Clear Channel. This didn't seem totally appropriate to me, and I felt that deletion or keep were better options. Dondegroovily (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, simply ignoring or removing the merge request would have been a better option here. Can you please comment on the logic of your deletion rationale? Kuru (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring it doesn't fix the backlog. Removing it when there wasn't clear consensus to do so didn't seem so good either. Finally, the BLP mentioned at the top suggested that an AfD might end with deletion, and it was worth opening it to discussion. Note that I didn't PROD/BLP. Dondegroovily (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what "BLP mentioned at the top" suggested that this might end in a delete? I'm looking for the reason you've nominated this for deletion so that we can discuss the merits of the position. The fact that you'r trying to clear a backlog is completely irrelevant; you should not have nominated this without an actual rationale. Can you be specific in your concerns or did you really put this here because you could not evaluate a poor merge request? Thanks! Kuru (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what does prod/blp have to do with this? It's a fully sourced blp that's been here since 2006. Kuru (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "BLP mentioned at the top" I meant that I mentioned it at the top of this page. The rationale is that Wikipedia has tougher standards for BLP than any other topic and if an article shouldn't be here it's important to get rid of it, rather than do nothing. There's not much harm in an AfD ending in a "keep", compared to what could happen if the discussion never occurs. The point about PROD/BLP was that I didn't do it - I recognize that this article is not a clear-cut violation of BLP policy. Dondegroovily (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a violation of our BLP policy in any way, shape, or form. Are you saying you feel there is a notability issue? Last time: what is your specific rationale for nomination? If you do not have one, I would strongly suggest withdrawing this. Kuru (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do have a notability concern. CEOs usually aren't very notable. Most people, asked to name CEOs, would be able to name Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and no one else. The corporation itself is much more notable that its CEO (usually). Dondegroovily (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I'm glad you have an actual point. I disagree with it; there are thousands of published books and papers on notable business personalities with any amount of in depth coverage you could wish for. I would agree that simply having the verifiable title is not enough (a "CEO" of a two person garage business, for example), but the specific coverage that is likely to result from being the head of any Fortune entity satisfies any permutation of our notability guidelines. Indeed, we likely have hundreds and hundreds of legitimate business related biographies. You may want to spend some time crafting a specific permutation of the GNG if you're inclined to seriously make this case. Kuru (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the sources are a bit thin (one is a dead link already) and there is very little about him on the Internet, the USA Today link documents his achievement, and what the subject has achieved is notable enough.Kudpung (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies the GNG. The "known for one thing only" standard is a figment; by this broad rationale, we could delete Mariano Rivera, Laura Bush, Sirhan Sirhan, John Kennedy Toole, and most models, Playboy playmates, and porn performers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most CEOs, even of huge corporations, are much lower on the notability scale than most of the people you named above (Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as rare exceptions). Sport stars, politician's spouses, assassins and authors all get way more attention. CEOs rarely receive more than a passing mention in the news - many business articles about huge stories about corporations (like mergers and bankruptcies) don't even mention the names of the CEOs of those companies. Sirhan Sirhan probably gets more news coverage in today's news than John Hogan, even though Sirhan's major notable act was over 40 years ago. So, I don't think your names are exactly relevant to this discussion. Dondegroovily (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO, some awards as well. Notable enough for a dedicated article RadioFan (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore (EITC)[edit]

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

Article was dePRODed following the addition of a reference proving the subject's existence. Notability, such as for example, a military award or remarkable conduct or action in war, does not appear to have been asserted. Kudpung (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I added a PROD a while back ago, but never went back and checked up. I guess that the article creator removed the PROD and added a dubious citation. I still don't see any evidence of notability.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree. If the Wikipedia were to have an entry for every brave, but unawarded soldier, sailor, or aairman killed in action - even in modern times - , the entries would run in to the millions.--Kudpung (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability (and I would want a better source to confirm existence, given the one quoted appears to be a novel...) Shimgray | talk | 19:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can confirm that the V.A Stuart book is a novel (I'm reading it currently). Moore receives quite a few mentions in factual accounts of the Cawnpore siege (as per this search: [31]), but I'm not sure that even then he would be independently notable. Perhaps a redirect to the Siege of Cawnpore article might be warranted? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why Not? With Shania Twain[edit]

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

Seems premature. Only one source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little info, no specific date to when it's premiering and show probably hasn't begun production yet. Unless more info is announced soon, no need for article. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mkativerata (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Peace of Jerusalem[edit]

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

This article is about an online document that purports to provide an "evolving 'way forward' proposal which aims to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East." The title has no Google News hits, and the Google Web hits that I see look to me like the result of first-party promotion. This article, too, is, I believe, a case of first-party promotion. None of the cited sources mention the document, other than the document itself. My view is that this is a document of no import, and that it would not be possible to find third-party sources to sustain an article about it. Delete as non-notable. Hesperian 00:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No contest. Imahd (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable plan and per article creator's consent to deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a work in progress, not very notable until it is adopted by some major organizations and/or parties to the ongoing peace process. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No source in the article except the URL of the document itself even mentions it. Article obviously only exists to promote the document. Should have been speedied. Zero^talk 10:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having no coverage in independent reliable sources, but without prejudice to reinstating the article if and when the initiative becomes known. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus on whether the Web Cartoonist's Choice and Col. Warden's source are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Obviously, WP:USEFUL, WP:NOHARM, and WP:NOTAGAIN on the "keep" side, and WP:PERNOM and WP:ALLCAPS on the "delete" side do nothing to help their respective cases. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ozy and Millie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem notable. All sources are comixtalk (deemed unreliable in the past), personal blogs or the comic itself. Claims to awards are sourced, but the Web Cartoonist's Choice award is generally deemed insufficient (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures). The fact that it was printed in book form doesn't convey notability, nor does the fact that it lasted for 10 years, nor does the fact that it's hosted on Keenspot. Notability is not inherited from Keenspot.

A search on Gnews found only four hits, none of which amount to non-trivial coverage: in fact, one just mentions that the cartoonist will be at a convention. On plain Google, the first hits are its website, this article, TV Tropes, WikiFur, Cafepress, Deviantart, Comixpedia and the comic's forum. Also listing the author's article for similar lack of notability.

Yes, I know it has a green disc in the corner, but don't let that stop you. Zig Zag (character) was somehow ranked as a GA only months before its deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So wait, winning three separate awards - the last on three separate occasions - isn't enough? Didn't the discussion in April settle this? And for the artist, winning a publishers' comics competition adjudicated by a juried panel is "a similar lack of notability"? Moreover, you didn't add the deletion template to the article about the artist. Filing multiple deletion requests in a topic area in a single day is a recipe for mistakes. You need to slow down. You also keep trotting out a deletion discussion referencing the WCCAs from 2008 when there is a far more recent and more relevant discussion indicating its notability. You should know that one very well because you were the nominiator. GreenReaper (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On a more general note - and perhaps this needs to be raised elsewhere - I think you should seriously consider whether your actions are actually improving Wikipedia. When you're not filing deletions on often questionable grounds, a large portion of your edits appear to consist of changing articles into redirects (without putting the content anywhere), then removing the links to the articles, causing them to become orphans even if the change is reverted. This concerns others, and it concerns me. GreenReaper (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see nothing seriously wrong with this article, and I don't see any reason to delete it. It contains good and useful information and is well-sourced. The only objection you have against it is that it's not notable, but I disagree with that for the same reasons noted above. Beside that, it's a very weak reason to delete an otherwise good article. CodeCat (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:NOHARM. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those arguments aren't any less subjective than notability, so I don't see what the issue is. I'm staying with my position. CodeCat (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, does not appear to pass WP:WEB at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —-- Quiddity (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of this webcomic has already been established by a vast majority in the last deletion discussion. This is therefore a bad-faith nomination since the nominator is the same one as in the first discussion. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're still not answering one thing: WHERE ARE THE RELIABLE, SECONDARY SOURCES?!??!?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- TPH: putting comments in large text[32] does not increase the strength of your arguments. Instead, it usually tends to weaken them. --El on ka 19:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the clear consensus established in the prior AFD, which the nomination provides no reasons to reject. Posting one's opinions in oversized type is not a substitute for reasoned discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Award-winning comics are notable, by definition, and this one has won in categories for both the Ursa Major Awards and the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. I'm a bit disappointed by the AfD nomination here, which is bringing up a very old discussion from 2007 as though it set a permanent consensus on the notability of webcomic awards. In actuality, consensus can change, and has. As this April 2010 discussion shows, the award is notable. --El on ka 19:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple award winning comic, this is notable. VikÞor | Talk 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you guys just ignoring me or what? I see almost nothing in the way of reliable sources. You can tell me these awards are notable until you're blue in the freaking face, but I still don't buy it. WHERE. ARE. THE. SECONDARY. SOURCES. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, no secondary sources to back up claim of notability fails WP:WEB Mo ainm~Talk 20:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, a logical response. I think everyone else who !voted here has been replaced by sheep who blindly follow "award of any kind = notable" thinking. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, Wiki is supposed to be a NEUTRAL site, so I would recommend getting off your high horse and stop critizing those that don't agree with your childish tantrums here. TyVulpine (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki. Given sites such as Wikia, where any person can create a more specialized wiki, it can be transferred to another site where notability is much less of an issue. --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not promotional in nature, comic's run has terminated. Useful historic information would be lost with no corresponding benefit to the Wikipedia project. Carrite (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources. Where are they? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are printed, mainstream, secondary sources the slightest bit important in documenting the history of a no-longer-extant web comic? It seems like common sense, eh? Carrite (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HERE'S the question: Is Wikipedia better off with or without this article? Carrite (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had no trouble finding a source: Attitude 3: the new subversive online cartoonists. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. The April 2010 debate doesn't automatically add that award to the "Webcomics are automatically notable if they won this" list, but it helps to show some additional notability here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AfD seems nothing more than trolling and gives extremely weak "evidence" as to why it should be deleted. TyVulpine (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no meaningful (i.e. non-trivial) secondary sources, what exists appears to fail WP:V / WP:RS, and thus serious questions exist as to its notability. I think Sigma 7's solution of making it available for transwikiing would be good - this is a well written article suited to another publication without Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Orderinchaos 00:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator and Orderinchaos. I don't see notability and significant reliable sources. --KFP (contact | edits) 00:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I do agree that this article would be useful on some other wiki, even though it doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. --KFP (contact | edits) 00:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in reliable sources. Colonel Warden's source is helpful, but as it is an interview it does not appear to constitute the secondary coverage that is needed to establish notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Col. W's source is adequate to provide WP:V for the award. Comics that win such awards are notable, and the inability to find more or better references is irrelevant. The source is not by itself enough to provide for meeting the GNG, but it's enough to establish meeting other criteria such as awards. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets neither WP:WEB nor WP:GNG. Lack of coverage for the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards and Ursa Major Awards show they are extremely minor awards that are not indicators of notability. They do not meet the "well-known and independent award" standard of WP:WEB. The only nearly good source with any significant coverage for this article is the interview in Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists. Interviews are primary sources, and sources for notability purposes should be secondary sources per WP:GNG. Also, it is a single source. We do not have the multiple reliable secondary sources that are needed to meet article standards. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agnimitra Paul[edit]

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

Notability Reqluce (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Fashion designer/businesswoman who does not meet notability standards. Has not demonstrated significant contribution to fashion in any way. Has not achieved any significant award in fashion. Does not have any reliable 3rd party references to back up the 2 notability factors. Official website is deadlink- even more unnotable.Reqluce (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.
Keep per [33], [34], [35], [36] and plenty more. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 9 September 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, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 08:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vampire Hunter D. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fiend Corps[edit]

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

It's a fictional gang. Little notability and probably either has a better role in Vampire Hunter D#Characters or could be cut. Raymie (t • c) 03:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vampire Hunter D. A quick bit of searching reveals no reason to think that this fictional gang has any notability independent of its parent work. It's passable content, though, so I think there's reason to salvage anything usable prior to deletion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 14 September 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, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for the sake of building a consensus. No sources to WP:Verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine / At the Drive-In[edit]

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

I prodded this yesterday with the reason "Unnotable split single - cant find coverage, no references, charting, nothing". Prod was removed by an editor with the reason that At the Drive-In are notable. Indeed they are, but not every release by a notable act has sufficient coverage in reliable sources for a stand-alone article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't inherited; no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, userfy for me if deleted: You'll note that when I removed the PROD, I didn't just give "the band is notable" as the reason...I said that because they are notable and received wide coverage, I suspect (or at least hope) that sources for an article on one of their releases would be obtainable. I intend to make a good-faith effort to find some, but I suspect that will take me longer than 7 days (between real life, other on-wiki projects, and my internet being out for a couple of days). I can't really argue strongly against deletion at this point, since I don't have adequate sources at the moment from which to improve the article, but if it is deleted I'd like to hold it in userspace so that I may have more time to search out sources. Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to keep due to improvements and sources added by Theornamentalist. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - New Wave of American Heavy Metal (some info) The new Rolling Stone album guide (3.5 stars) Giant robot, Issues 16-23 (not much at all, but can't hurt/released as 12") Artist Direct (track info/basic) Film Junk Review (review/not entirely a RS) Band Stereo Killer (Bio of Sunshine, mentions in passing) Vh1 (tracklisting) STNT (review/info. in French) IMPACT Press (Review) AllMusicGuide (very basic) Mowno (info/possibly blog?) CMJ Chart (#3 Debut, pretty impressive for a split EP/debut IMO) CMJ chart #60 - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing that any of these qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources...Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There aren't entire articles on the album, just wanted to show there is reliable information on the album, and in my opinion, enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the sourses, Theornamentalist, I'll have a look when I get home and see if I can use them to improve the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - eh, added in references/general info and wikified and bit, still could use a copyedit though. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:13, 16 September 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, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on new sources found by theornamentalist riffic (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love Songs (Kenny Rogers album)[edit]

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

Released by a non-notable label. Not an official compilation, absolutely no secondary sources; even the Allmusic listing is blank. Prod declined simply because another article linked to it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny...the article that links to it is Kenny Rogers discography.

And yes, I did create it...during the time I felt completeness was the goal. I learned that these types of albums have no place here, and never cleaned up the Kenny Rogers work, which is still missing a couple of studio albums I really ought to go back and write something for. In any case...yeah, this can go. CycloneGU (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Album of a performer well-known for decades. Dew Kane (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 14 September 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, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:One of many trivial compilations by KR which was released on a non notable label. Mattg82 (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casinokontanter.com[edit]

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

CKwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gambling website. Appears to fail CORP as lacks sources and could not find any that would enable it to meet CORP. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:CORP and WP:MILL. It's a gambling website, it exists, but that's nowhere near enough to make it significant, memorable or notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Treat this as an uncontested PROD. Courcelles 03:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aku Cinta Padamu[edit]

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

Poorly written, unsourced article. Unsure of song's notability. Dondegroovily (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. leaning towards a Keep, at this point in time, due to improvements post time of AFD relisting. -- Cirt (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film with a cast of unknowns. Has never been released to theaters, nor even to DVD. Has won awards, but all at non-notable film festivals. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTFILM; lots of reviews, but all basically from blogs. PhGustaf (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs cleaning up and expansion. A film does not have to be full of notables in order to be notable itself, nor does it have to have a theatrical release. For notability we look to the criteria of WP:NF... and for a film that has mainly hit festivals, this one is getting more genre coverage for an independent than might be expected. Independent Critic, D.H.Schleicher, Pilp Movies, Rogue Cinema, The Moving Arts, Cityspur, Sonic Cinema, Reel Film, Celluloid Dreams, S. James Wegg, The Critics Word. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does need to meet WP:NOTFILM. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:04, 17 September 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, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This film has potential to be notable, but isn't yet. I say keep the crystal ball at home and leave this off of Wikipedia until this film makes it big. Dondegroovily (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote - see below

Delete given that it's now been released on "internet television", if it's not notable now it's unlikely it ever will be, unless by some miracle it turns into a cult film of some kind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Incubate~~ for continued work, as the many potential sources used as external links should be incorporated as references, or as it only rcent was released on DVD, incubate it for a short while for it to receive its proper cleanup and additional sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment article has been under construction to address issues. Perhaps an admin might consider a relist while issues are being addressed, prior to a decision to either delete, userfy, or incubate. So far, what was nominated as this uncited mess has become THIS... somewhat better, and still under work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator made an unfortunate error in his opening comments, as the film has indeed been released on DVD. It just took some WP:BEFORE to ascertain. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I based my claim on the fact that there is no indication of a DVD release on the movie's imdb page. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - IMDB and it is not allowed as a source within Wikipedia, so why would you chose to limit your search to them??. Had you looked past the "unacceptable" IMDB, you might have found the DVD release reported by WJBF-TV,[37] announced on the production company's own website (allowable because a DVD release is not an assertion of notability),[38] and even found the DVD itself reviewed on Reel Film.[39] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm changing my vote based on improvements by Michael Q Schmidt. He suggest Incubate, but he's made the article far better than that. Dondegroovily (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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