< 26 April	28 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It was already deleted when I came to this AfD and I am closing procedurally. CycloneGU (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed khatiz[edit]

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

Appears to be some sort of essay about neo-naziism. Not appropriate for Wikipedia in any way. — e. ripley\^talk 23:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research, unreferenced essay. Cullen328 (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11: unambiguous advertising. If you look at the bottom of the article, it says "These are examples of some texts Khatiz has written, with rumors of a publication deal in the air. All content was verified by consultation with Mr Khatiz (2011)." And by "Consultation with" he apparently means "talking in the mirror to". --Closeapple (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that, just before that, at the end of the big huge paragraph, is his resume/CV with his skills as bullet points. The "essay" is just a writing sample to prove to you he's gonna be big one of these days. --Closeapple (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nominator withdrawn (NAC). --NortyNort (Holla) 11:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Energy audit[edit]

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

The tone and EL usage is inappropriate. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concept is widely used, even if this article is rubbish. I'll edit it savagely. Greglocock (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has been notable for four decades, and a book was written in 2009 about the topic, Handbook of Energy Audits. The solution to problems of "tone" is careful, judicious editing, rather than deletion or "savage" editing. Cullen328 (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the thing I think that this AfD is malicious or at least not useful. There are a few problems in the article, but you are right, it needs a bit of a look, not savage editing. Greglocock (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:UGLY is not a reason to delete an article. Nimuaq (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Improve and Keep. Which external links are problematic? The embedded ones, or the ones listed in the External links section? I've read the WP:EL page and fail to see how that's a rational for deletion; at worst, proper citations should be done, with some housekeeping on the more spammish links. The tone could be improved (parts read like a brochure).--E8 (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The links are in the wrong places.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this AfD.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 00:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering

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

Non-notable research organization with no evidence of passing WP:ORG. I could not find any sources mentioning them in Google news archive. This seems like a case for WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion, but since a prod was already declined it may be better procedure to take it to a full AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:N. Both of their sources (which are also the websites of the institute) haven't been updated for more than 250 days, which is odd for an institute website. Not even a single source can be found on search engines. Nimuaq (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:N. Can't find any evidence of notabiity. Looks very much like a private initiative of one person or a very small group of embers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Above arguments seem sound. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 00:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stand Up For Your Rights Comedy Gala[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. it might have a lot of notable comedians but it gets nothing in gnews [1]. also nothing in a major Australian news service [2]. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Google search shows that this has been a long-running annual event, and over the years it has received significant coverage and therefore passes WP:N. Auseplot (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please provide evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some hits, mostly press releases. I'm not seeing any significant or in-depth coverage. Wickedjacob (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Helpful One 23:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little coverage, most web hits seem to be non-notable comedians saying they appeared at the event. Oddly enough, I can't find mention of it on Amnesty Australia's website. Per WP:EVENT, I struggle to believe that it's of "lasting, historical significance." --Thepm (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 00:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why your fingernail leaves a mark on your leg when you press hard[edit]

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

It is a answer to a question, and doesn't have valuable encyclopaedic material. It has no references. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTGUIDE. Nimuaq (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Requested Speedy Deletion - Don't see why it won't be. CycloneGU (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, and not a notable topic for an encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A serious problem is the article title, which is a totally implausible search term. Why not the mark left by a toenail on one's chin? Does it have to be a keratin nail? I'm sure you can get the same effect with a hard-plastic plectrum. Even more severely problematic is the fact that the content is not verifiable from citations of reliable sources. Nevertheless, I would expect this phenomenon to have been researched and described in the medical literature, so it is not necessarily completely unencyclopedic. (I don't see anything like this in List of cutaneous conditions or Cutaneous conditions; these appear to describe generally more lasting conditions; but wheals, mentioned in the latter, are typically also not long-lasting.) --Lambiam 23:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per user:Nimuaq Francium12 00:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Okay, now this would be the correct implementation of WP:IAR at great benefit to the project as a whole. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but my speedy delete request was first completed, then reversed. CycloneGU (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know that WTF? is not a valid deletion rationale, but sometimes it seems like the only appropriate reaction. --MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. If wtf? is not a valid reason for deletion, it ought to be. --Thepm (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The Helpful One 23:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of historic inventions[edit]

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

About 5-10% of the edits were by user:jagged 85, a notoriously badly researched and sloppy Islamic POV pusher. His edits were done in 44 blocks, which have been listed, either people should go through the list and remove his work (roughly 10 hours person hours work to do that maybe), or we should completely trash the entire article and start again (I can't begin to estimate how many hours work that would take, probably hundreds). The article is about 50-100 pages, most of which is well meant by others. Please vote either, KEEP (and fix) or DELETE if you want it blanked (I propose by default we should keep the history, unless you specifically vote for a complete delete). Rememberway (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure this is the right place. Over here you reverted the article content with the edit summary rv: and called for deletion review- it's the only way to be fair. But this is AFD, not DR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, this is very, very poorly done. However, it meets the criteria for WP:NOTABILITY because it can be a very good historical article. It's gonna take a lot of work to clean up, but it has too much potential to just delete.. We need to just delete the stuff that seems quite unnecessary to mention and just start over with the very good stuff on there. It's gonna take a LOT of work. But it should be done. Soxrock24 (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD is an abuse of process. No-one (as far as I know) is proposing to delete the article. Therefore I vote speedy keep; this AFD should simply be closed as meaningless. Since there is no proposal to delete the article, any discussion here isn't going to be meaningful. Anyone interested in the article *content* should join the discussion on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a bad faith personal attack. This venue is precisely intended to discuss whether articles should be scratched out or not. They didn't delete the article and start rebuilding it, they just deleted and left it.Rememberway (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Rememberway is clearly unaware that his proposal is incongruent with WP guidelines. Afd are not platforms for votes on particular contents, but on whether a topic is notable as such or not. The current proposal is mixing the two things and trying to make a keep for the article a thumbs up for its present contents. This is clearly not in accordance with Afd guidelines, the admin should immediately abort this Afd, subject missed. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stub as editors have been doing and rebuild. Having an article which is demonstrably 20% incorrect (for example) is worse than having no article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it's 80% correct though? And people are supposed to check references.Rememberway (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we cannot presume anything. Gun Powder Ma did a quick check of only a subset of items and listed all the errors found. Stub the article and add items after references have been verified. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as improper. If nominator wants this discussed on AfD, they should follow proper process – but an RfC seems a more reasonable approach. Also, AfD is not a voting booth, and nominators should refrain from giving instructions on how people should "vote". --Lambiam 21:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is they're saying that the article doesn't meet the "relevant criteria for content" for the Wikipedia and are planning to axe the lot. That's a deletion. Fine, if there is consensus.Rememberway (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The person that 'stubbed' the article did a delete of all the material and simply left it for 4 days until some anonymous reverted it, that in my book is a delete, in which case there should be a deletion review. YMMV.Rememberway (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who are saying that the article doesn't meet the "relevant criteria for content"? One of the content requirements – not for an article to exist, but a requirement on what can be included in an existing article – is that the claims made in the article are verifiable. In this case we know that one editor has been extraordinarily diligent in putting large amounts of fabrication into the article, which means it is totally unreliable: no one knows what can be trusted and what not. So should we keep that article with all its falsehoods in full view of unsuspecting readers who don't know what has been going on here? Of course not. So that is why it has been reduced to a stub in order to rebuild it reliably, which is essentially different from deletion. --Lambiam 22:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, there's no credible way to rebuild the article after as you put it 'stubbing' it, so this amounts to a deletion. You can't copy material from the old article without checking that it wasn't done by Jagged, and there's no easy way to do that (there is a history search tool, but it's dog-slow). And there's also issues that Jagged deleted stuff, so you'd never find that material in the old article. The article is 9 years old, and 80-95% of it is nothing to do with Jagged.Rememberway (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But if we kept it we could remove 100% of jagged's work with just a few hours work, with complete certainty, simply by going through the 44 diffs of his edits.Rememberway (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and polite warning: if the extent of your argument is that there's too many Muslim inventors... we might need to create a reflective mirror on the WP:NPOV guideline for your own benefit. This is not what AFD is for. It's not even what Wikipedia is for. It's forgivable but you have to accept verified fact and the ordinary editing process. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 00:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Kruger[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability guidelines. While you can find Kruger's works on Amazon, they appear to be solely self-published. The references offered within the article fail WP:RS or WP:INDY, and I haven't been able to find usable citations for the two magazine article claims. — Scientizzle 21:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, unless a notable source can be found this article should be deleted. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 21:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not qualify for ((speedy)) deletion. but clearly does not satisfy notability criteria. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google search turns up nothing significant. Search of YOU magazine[3] yields no articles. Notability has not been established. Seaphoto^Talk 21:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question can be found on her blog adiscoveryofvampires.blogspot.com and her publisher according to her good reads is fifth avenue. Also her book reconciliation is in the top 40 on amazon.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanbunton (talk • contribs) 21:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Tristanbunton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - 5th Avenue Press is a self publisher[4],~~the Amazon rank is a bit misleading as it refers to an edition given away for free (which by definition is not bestselling); the paid~~ version is ranked #282,783 overall[5]. This is not to disparage the author, who is just starting her career; she may become notable at some point, just not there yet. Seaphoto^Talk 22:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot give away free copies on amazon.com ! Sorry but you obviously have no idea how amazon works. She may be self published but I have also noticed that she has another book la paquet in the top 100 while I was doing some research. Amazon.com only allows the free option from expanded distributions aka published by big houses . I also did a quick check of the external links they all look legit and she seems quit popular . I find most of these deletion articles sad , simply because it's done from a malicious point of view I've had this discussion a hundred times with people on wikipedia. James Franco's page was deleted and I almost fell on my face . I just don't get why some people choose to delete articles when there are heaps of referals. -Tristan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanbunton (talk • contribs)

I stand corrected, while her download is # 282,783 overall, it is # 32 in playwrighting. It is indeed not free, selling for .99 cents. Seaphoto^Talk 00:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there's been no serious attempt at deleting the James Franco article...I have no idea what Tristan is on about there. As for the external links, they all fail WP:RS (many are Kruger's own blogs) and/or WP:INDY. Without quality, dedicated, independent coverage, Ms. Kruger does not pass our notability guidelines. — Scientizzle 12:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG without any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nimuaq (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bestselling book in question is definitely not free and in the top 100 please check here http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/digital-text/154712011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_kinc_1_6_last and here there are two books in the top 100 http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/digital-text/154712011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_kinc_1_6_last#2—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanbunton (talk • contribs)

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per A7 by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeism[edit]

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

Non-notable personal philosophy, religion, or essay. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The discussion here really just serves to illustrate that this type of article does exist on the borderline between the function of a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Ultimately, the prevailing opinion seems to be that it's more useful to include an article that's just on the edge of Wikipedia's scope than it is to delete it - particularly when the article is as innocuous as this one. ~ mazca ^talk 13:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salad days[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite numerous claims in the previous AfD that this article could be expanded or improved, no such expansion or improvement is visible. The article consists entirely of definition and usage. There is nothing to be said about it that can't just as easily be said in the Wiktionary article. Please don't just repeat: "Keep and expand" or "Keep; it could be improved", but rather please explain what, exactly, could be added to this article to make it encyclopedic. Powers ^T 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it is a dictionary definition of a phrase already in Wiktionary. Edison (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous discussion closed as a consensus to Keep and, in that previous discussion, there was no pressing need for improvement - I myself was reasonably content with the current state of the article. The nomination is therefore an annoying attempt to undo the previous discussion per WP:NOTAGAIN and WP:NOEFFORT. The phrase is from Shakespeare - an author who is of such standing that all his works are notable and that includes Shakespearean phrases. If we were to develop the topic beyond its current state then it would be to generalise it as youthful naïveté or youthful inexperience but it is not clear what we already have covering this topic. Our editing policy is to retain such worthwhile material for further work in the fullness of time. As for Wiktionary that is a rival project of no great merit. When one googles for "salad days", then it is our article here which is the number one hit while the wiktionary equivalent is way down the list. We should reinforce success not failure. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary is a sister project; it is not our place to usurp its remit just because you perceive it to be less successful. If "we should reinforce success not failure", then the Foundation ought to drop every project except Commons and a few Wikipedias. Powers ^T 12:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Through a cursory look through Google book search (note: try ' "Salad Days" phrase' , or ' "Salad days" etymology' as search terms for a better scope) I've noticed a few sources discussing the history of the phrase in question. This would presumptively satisfy the notability guidelines for inclusion in this project. Colonel Warden is correct when he says we should presumptively regard shakespearean phrases, especially phrases where other works have discussed their meaning and usage, as notable. riffic (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not our only inclusion criterion, and nowhere in my nomination did I suggest that this phrase was unnotable. However, content must also be encyclopedic; in this case, the content here is not encyclopedic in the slightest. There is a severe misunderstanding on this project of the differing domains of "dictionaries" and "encyclopedias", and there seems to be a strong movement toward making Wikipedia a comprehensive reference work instead of just an encyclopedia. But our founding principles are clear: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we can't include articles on every little two-word phrase that Shakespeare bothered to coin. Powers ^T 19:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of the nomination argument reminds me of article content deletors arguing that content belongs in An article that does not exist (which common event is the real backstory to the scenario proposed in POVFORK), as there is no way that this article's content can be included in Wiktionary.

I agree with User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words (previously WP:Articles about words). WP:DICT does not relate directly to this issue, and this issue is not covered by a WP rule with consensus; Deletors believe that articles about words do not belong on Wikipedia; Keepers believe they do. Decisions are made, over and over, without consensus, according to the preponderance of Eventualists or Immediatists in the discussion. There is no objective standard within DICT for articles about words specifically, and the removal from mainspace of WP:Articles about words itself in 2007 was a bulldozing attempt to bury not only the debate, but the best evidence that a debate is essential. The responsible thing to do is to close No Consensus, as the definitive policy is in doubt, and begin a debate on this issue once and for all. Anarchangel (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I've tried, but no consensus has been forthcoming. Contrary to the simplistic view you describe, I don't object to all articles about words. But I do object to articles about all words. =) Just because some words and phrases have been studied in depth and have had a notable impact upon society and can have good encyclopedia articles written about them doesn't mean that all words and phrases can. A comprehensive dictionary should be covering everything that is currently in this "encyclopedia" article; if Wiktionary doesn't, that's not our problem. (In a dictionary, it would be written somewhat differently, of course.) "Salad days" is a notable Shakespearean phrase, but really -- aside from defining it, and listing where it's been used, what is there to say about it? No one has yet answered that question. Instead we get mere assertions that "It's notable because people have written about it!" Powers ^T 12:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an expansion can be made. if that is the only main issue then I dont see any reason for deletion. Also per Colonel Warden.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please describe what expansion you think is possible. There's nothing more to say about this phrase than what's already here. Powers ^T 12:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Transwiki. Belongs on Wiktionary. I can find dissertations about the etymology of practically any given English word and phrase, this does not automatically merit an encyclopedia article. I can find mathematical proofs for 2+3=5, 2+4=6, 2+5=7, ad infinitum - this does not make these equations meriting of an encyclopedia article. Arguments along the lines that "it can be expanded" fall especially flat given the fact that it hasn't been expanded since the last time these tired old canards were trotted out. Badger Drink (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue and Keep based on WP:OUTCOMES - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisu (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velleity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos. Core concepts and well--attested idioms are kept, rather than deleted or sent to WikiSiberia. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please describe what kind of "rescue" is possible. No one has yet done that. Powers ^T 02:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much more than just a definition. I just added a scholarly reference to the article, as well as a half-dozen examples of the use of the phrase in book titles. --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples of use are part of a dictionary entry. I never said it was "just a definition". Powers ^T 12:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, please. English is not my mother tongue. When I first saw the expression in Shakespeare I googled it immediately and this page had the only clear explanation of its origin and contextualized usage. Isn't this exactly what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be? --von Tamm (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's what a dictionary is for. Powers ^T 12:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Q=Phrases about which there is substantial secondary discussion--as there certainly is here--are appropriate for coverage in Wikipedia. There is a certain degree of overlap between the function of a dictionary and an encyclopedia, and, if the matter goes beyond a definition and etymology into an explanation of the possibly derivations for a very significant expression, I think it can be included here. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible derivations are part of etymology, not "beyond" it. Powers ^T 12:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had this same discussion last year at the first AFD for this article. This is a notable expression, and the article shows the history of where it came from, various places it was used, such as in Shakespeare, and other information that makes it more than a simple definition. Dream Focus 12:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's like talking to a brick wall. I never said it was a simple definition. History and usage are properly part of a dictionary entry! They can go in an encyclopedia, but only if there's other information that is encyclopedic in nature. No one has yet -- despite multiple requests -- provided a single example of additional information that is encyclopedic and could be added to this article. NO ONE! Will you be the first? Powers ^T 12:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was the first. I added a scholarly reference to the article. BTW do you really feel obliged, as nominator, to respond to every single comment here by repeating your rationale for deletion? --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I abhor doing so, but when I specifically asked for suggestions of what could be added, and that request was ignored... Powers ^T 17:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that several comments were misrepresenting my deletion rationale, and needed correction. Powers ^T 17:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: analogous to WP:NOTDICTIONARY, Wikipedia is not a database of figures of speech. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article as currently written is not merely "definition and usage" so the nominator's one substantive argument for deletion (based on WP:NOT) is no longer pertinent. Thparkth (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is hard to see how a definition, history & usage differs from a dictionary definition one might see in a reasonably comprehensive dictionary (e.g. the OED -- which likewise includes the Shakespeare quote in its listing). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 01:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic of Rhomm[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published book by a non-notable child author. CreateSpace, the publishing house that is printing the book, is a self-publishing service. In the absence of coverage of the book in secondary sources, it is utterly non-notable. —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely non-notable book. This should really just be Speedy Deleted if there was a way to tag books for such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorshacma (talk • contribs)
delete - absolutely not notable. I wish we could CSD this, too. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also wish this pay-to-publish book could have been CSD'd, but couldn't it have been PROD'd? was the PROD removed or something? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Publications (software)[edit]

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

This company appears to fail WP:CORP. I did several Google searches, and after intense filtering to remove scientology related results, I came up with [6] as the most relevant results, and that shows nothing in the way of significant reliable secondary source coverage. However, given the intense filtering I had to do, it's entirely possible I missed stuff somewhere so I'm bringing this to AfD instead of PRODing. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability made. OSborn^arf_contribs. 19:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This software article lacks 3rd party refs to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nn-autobio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Ashley Power[edit]

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

Unable to find information on him. Editor who created the article, RobertAshley, is the same person the article is about. Bgwhite (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nom, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP. J04n(talk page) 19:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Obviously a COI and it's an unsourced BLP, tagging as such. Surprised it lasted since October. CycloneGU (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fluent (rapper)[edit]

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

I can't find any sources that verify the claims in this article. Google search for fluent "ladies man" results in nothing relevant in the first five pages. I also can't find any track by Krayzie Bone called "Metaphysical". Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 18:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:BAND. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article, not notable. Keb25 (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced BLP article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all of above. Gsearch pulled no mentions.Readorama (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result was Speedy Delete as a hoax (WP:CSD#G3), by RHaworth (talk · contribs)

Boobop[edit]

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

Prod removed by article creator without explanation. Rationale is WP:MADEUP. No sources indicate widespread use of this term. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed madeup. Szzuk (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Madeup and probably vandalism. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Hoax, google turns up nothing. I have tagged it G3, but if that doesn't go, delete it here. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Cobblers. Peridon (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coerver Method[edit]

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

Contested PROD; as far as I can tell, this is a non-notable football skills coaching compamny, and the article lacks reliable sources to verify information. I would suggest we delete the article, or merge into the Wiel Coerver page, where it is already briefly mentioned. Giant Snowman 17:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wiel Coerver. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources for a stand-alone article. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Rewrite - after doing a Google search (omitting the links to various company websites), this seems to be a widely used coaching method which may well be notable in itself. However, the article as it stands at the moment is largely commercial, focussing mostly on the business (which is borderline notable at best) rather than the method and if kept would need a substantial rewrite to make it encyclopaedic. —BETTIA— ^talk 09:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Torrance[edit]

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

Nothing more than plot elements from The Shining (novel) and The Shining (film)/The Shining (TV miniseries). Entire article is unsourced, and refs included in header discussing status as "best film villain"/"best film character" can be linked in the parent articles. Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we're going to have any fictional character articles at all, Jack would have to be near the top of the list of those who are notable enough to merit their own articles. Not to mention that the existence of famous book and famous movie and notable miniseries complicates that question of where you'd merge the comparative content. And besides, All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment–A proverb with the name "Jack" in it does not inflate this character to meet WP:N requirements, and the existence of the book and films do not provide any basis for the notability argument since there is no content in this article now to merge other than the "best film villain"/"best film character" notations. There are no references in this article that show how the character meets WP:GNG, and the article as it stands now likely falls under WP:PLOT. Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could use a lot of improvement, but the character, in his film and book incarnations at least (don't know about the miniseries) is definitely notable. I'd be extremely surprised if there wasn't any scholarly writing about his character in either incarnation and I don't see how the article's potential is less than that of, say, Randall Flagg another Stephen King villain article that is considered a "Good" article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. I haven't had time to evaluate their depth of coverage or suitability, but a cursory Google Scholar search suggests that the character is at least referenced by quite a few sources. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, A quick look at books.google.com shows the Jack Torrance character being spoken about specifically in numerous books, seems to be notable. Mathewignash (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ellerslie United Methodist Church[edit]

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

No indication of notability, only third-party sources cite it in lists of churches, nothing notable about this particular church — Frεcklεfσσt|Talk 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable church. Article appears to have been written to pay "props" to lots of folks and get their names on Wikipedia. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical local church, lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, thus failing WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A brief history and a list of pastors at the church does not constitute WP:ORG. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable church. St Anselm (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nuclear explosion. There's a general consensus here that a separate article here probably isn't justified. However, there does appear to be a valid discussion to be made about some of the physics involved here, so the history is best left intact to allow discussion on the talk page and potential merging of sourceable information. ~ mazca ^talk 13:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moderated nuclear explosion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

User:Yakushima attempted to nominate this page for deletion, and I'm helping fix the AfD nomination. No opinion on my part. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Met. This article as previously closed as "delete" in 2007, apparently for WP:NOR and WP:NEO, though the closing admin wasn't specific about reasons. I don't see what's changed in the relevant literature since 2007 that would justify a Keep today. Yakushima (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either redirect to some appropriate article or just delete. There are literally no Google Books hits for this term, no Google News hits, and no Google Scholar hits. All of the very few Google Web hits appear to be derived from Wikipedia itself. Hence, this term appears to be a neologism not in actual use. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator See the author's reason for restoring this deleted article, here [7]. See also his user talk page comment (which I will assume he wrote):

I may sometimes break all rules and take very bold actions, normally only reserved for administrators. This is done under the following assumptions.

I believe that the action to be taken receives unanimous support.
I will undo any action if I am explicitly asked to do so.
General sounds of displeasure do not count as a request to undo.

-- Petri Krohn (talk)

The author is an experienced editor, who I think would be aware that a couple of media mentions do not qualify a topic under WP:GNG. These mentions were of a "nuclear explosion" (not sure whether of "moderated nuclear explosion") by one scientist, Christopher Busby, with known anti-nuclear leanings. These mentions were moreover made on Russia Today, which is not exactly a reliable source. (Which is, in fact, often accused of promoting conspiracy theories). Is it safe to say that restoring this article from user space after it had been deleted years ago is one of the author's WP:IAR actions? If so, I don't think it would qualify as one that he can undo when "explicitly asked to do so", because he isn't an admin. And I'm not sure how he could possibly believe that this action of his would receive "unanimous support", although that's perhaps a matter of individual worldview. Nevertheless, under AGF, we must take it as given that the author is not simply disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but really believes that notability criteria have been met. Two Russia Today broadcasts with interviews of Christopher Busby are his declared basis for thinking so. Any discussion following should therefore focus solely on those two broadcasts, unless other corroborating sources emerge. Yakushima (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from (re-)creator Here is a short comment on the nomination. I will respond in more detail later.
There has been wide speculation for almost two months that at least one of the explosions that destroyed the reactor buildings at Fukushima I was a “nuclear explosion”. (See: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22nuclear+explosion%22+fukushima&tbm=nws)

For the notability of the topic, it is totally irrelevant if this theory is true or not.

Much of this speculation originates from nuclear experts. When these people say “nuclear explosion” they are not referring to what is described in the Wikipedia article nuclear weapons design. There has also been a change in the way the event at Chernobyl are described. The term nuclear explosion is now regularly used in this context.

I admit that the title is a neologism. However, Wikipedia has to give names to its articles, sometimes these titles take forms that have not been used in literature. Alternate names for the article include Nuclear explosion (moderated), Highly energetic moderated criticality event

As to IOR, yes I have ignored the rules. This is however not an administrative action, so whatever the nominator has copied from my talk page does not apply.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. – With the the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident the event has come to be called the “Chernobyl nuclear explosion”. A Google search for the term (with quotes) now gives “about 228,000 results” (out of a total of 18 million). Most of these have appeared on-line in the last few months. In 2007, when this article was first created and deleted, it was extremely difficult to find any source – general or scientific – with the words “Chernobyl” and “nuclear explosion” in the same context. Searching for “Chernobyl nuclear explosion” in pre-2008 pages only gives “about 142 results” (out of a total of 5,120,000).

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. Has anybody written any book or article about the type of event described in this article? If yes, what did they call the event? If not, how can this article be sourced? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Short answer: Most likely multiple books and articles have been written. Does Wikipedia have the security clearance to access this material? No! In fact it is possible that most of what should in theory be in this article is born secret. We may be discussing the most horrendous terrorist weapon imaginable.
    For the physics, we have to rely on what is in the public domain. There are bits and pieces lying here and there. None of them are called "Low-Cost Nukes for Dummies." -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment' In other words, WP:V and WP:RS are impossible in this case? Yakushima (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further comment from nominator There is an apparently false claim above: "With the the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident the event has come to be called the “Chernobyl nuclear explosion”. A Google search for the term (with quotes) now gives “about 228,000 results"". I get more hits for "Chernobyl disaster", "Chernobyl nuclear disaster", "Chernobyl accident" and "Chernobyl nuclear accident." In the Google ranking for what Petri claims is now the accepted term, the first site to characterize the accident as simply an "explosion" doesn't say that it was a nuclear one; and the site's tag line suggests that the article was a student-written contribution anyway. The second one to seem RS-ish is http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-2/0-what-happened-chernobyl.htm#0, which cites the UN report: "[The] power surge caused the nuclear fuel to overheat and led to a series of steam explosions that severely damaged the reactor building and completely destroyed the unit 4 reactor." An incorrect term ought not to be uncritically enshrined on Wikipedia as the proper term for what happened at Chernobyl, especially when there are apparently four others that are significantly more prevalent. Yakushima (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTABILITY Merge to nuclear explosion (see article (re-)creator's "Time out" comment below.) – Even as a conspiracy theory, the idea that nuclear reactors or even nuclear waste can blow up big time in a nuclear chain reaction resembling the one in nuclear weapons is notable in itself.
As to the physics, if you have sources to indicate that you need 10 kilograms of weapons grade highly enriched uranium or plutonium in metallic form to achieve anything resembling a nuclear explosion, please add them to the article.

And yes, Russia Today may not be a reliable source on nuclear physics but it is a reliable source on the notability of conspiracy theories.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - a few points:

WP:FRINGE issues - The very editor who originated the article in 2007 and who recently revived it in mainspace is now suddenly characterizing it as being about a notable "conspiracy theory." Really? Then why does it begin with this sentence:

A moderated nuclear explosion[1] results from a nuclear chain reaction mediated by moderated neutrons.

There might be a case for a section of nuclear explosion, called something like "Claims of nuclear explosions at nuclear power plants". In fact, I would be willing to assist with the editing required. At least according to Chernobyl disaster, something like a prompt criticality event might have ~~been~~ caused one of the explosions (with hydrogen and steam also hypothesized as the cause.) However, to qualify as an article under some such name, while at the same citing somewhat problematic sources like Christopher Busby talking to Russia Today without actually using any term more specific than "nuclear explosion", it remains to be seen whether there has been enough work on the subject per se to satisfy WP:GNG. (I don't think it could satisfy the notability guidelines under which mainstream nuclear physics theories generally fall.)

WP:NEO issues - In any case, I think it's clear that the author has confessed openly above to WP:NEO, at least.
WP:IAR rationale: Really? Above, the author explicitly claims safe harbor under WP:IAR. However, I have yet to see this editor's reasons for believing that breaking the rules in this case makes Wikipedia better.

Finally, about the Google Web search hits on "Chernobyl nuclear explosion", the pages I've looked at so far all fall well short of discussing, with any technical or scientific authority, the physical phenomenon claimed as a fact in the article. They seem to be using "Chernobyl nuclear explosion" as shorthand for "the nuclear reactor accident at Chernobyl, during which there was an explosion that worsened the situation dramatically." Where that's the meaning, however, it's implicitly wrong on the facts: there was more than one explosion at Chernobyl. Yakushima (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- As you have started discussing physics I must ask you, what is your expertise in nuclear physics? Are you sure you understand any of the terminology used here? You seem to have no understanding of what happened at Chernobyl. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  P.S – You are misquoting me. I did not say this was a conspiracy theory. I say that even if it was nothing more than a conspiracy the mainstream media attention this is getting would make it notable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for (slightly) distorting your (deeply) confusing position. But you should make up your mind what your defense of your admitted WP:IAR action is, and how the article qualifies under WP:GNG, especially since you openly admit the title violates WP:NEO. What is this article actually about? If it's about some controversy over whether Chernobyl and/or Fukushima have seen nuclear explosions in some technical sense of the word "explosion" (see deflagration and detonation distinctions), then call it that, and don't present your definition as a fact. Yakushima (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as for my understanding of relevant physics, I note you cite a video by one person who claims that hydrogen and oxygen can't detonate, only deflagrate. As I now document in the article, this source (Gundersen) is clearly wrong on that point: see Google Scholar on "hydrogen-oxygen" and "deflagration-to-detonation".

Speedy delete (WP:CSD G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.") and trout the creator for not following normal procedures (WP:DRV) and recreating his neologistic WP:OR against consensus. As determined in the original AfD, which I closed, there are no reliable sources discussing a moderated nuclear explosion. There are sources discussing nuclear events, which the article's author interprets as a "moderated nuclear explosion", but that is obviously original research. That he or she can now add a few new sources (not all what one would call RS for such a topic though) to his speculation doesn't change anything, as they present the exact same problem. Fram (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, I have just userfied a recent version of the article that I have just finished editing; this version shows that the author's statement, "It has been speculated that some of the explosions that destroyed the Fukushima I nuclear reactors were moderated nuclear explosions", apparently backed by numerous citations, was in fact mostly backed by citations of sources that

suffered from questionable technical accuracy, or
didn't actually assert anything about nuclear explosions of any kind, or
probably would not support the idea that either Fukushima or Chernobyl saw what this article's author calls a "moderated nuclear explosion".

There was one Russian paper proposing (claiming to have proven, actually) that prompt recriticality explained a particular explosion at Chernobyl, as opposed to the mainstream theory that they were all chemical explosions. That, as far as I can tell, is about it, for WP:RS. I think it's worth userfying the article as a resource for debunking claims elsewhere on Wikipedia, or perhaps for a Claims of nuclear explosions at nuclear power plants article. Yakushima (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yakushima's fork of the article to User:Yakushima/Moderated nuclear explosion violates our WP:Copyrights rules. The copy paste edit does not attribute the original authors. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Yakushima, Please delete (use WP:CSD#U1) the fork, and wait for this debate to be closed. If the page is deleted, you may request userfication, which involves a page move, not a copy-paste. Otherwise, you have to go to some effort to satisfymandatory attribution, or the page must be deleted as a copyright violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't familiar with the details of proper attribution in this case -- and had assumed that a Speedy Delete recommendation from the original admin who first deleted this article meant that it was, at that point, about to be deleted. And I was acting in anger, not long after Petri had reverted some constructive edits of mine with an accusation of "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point." In any case, whatever the violation of the letter of the law, it was no violation of the spirit: I commented here (a permanent page) about what I was doing, after having explicitly identified the (re-)creator of the article in this AfD discussion. But I see now it now: of course you need all of the contributors accessible (at least indirectly) for proper attribution, and there have been a few other contributors. Thank you for pointing this out. Yakushima (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be making two claims at the same time: 1) The topic is not notable. 2) The physics is wrong. You should stick to only one at the time.

Here you are making statements about the "mainstream theory" on Chernobyl. I must ask you again, are you an expert in nuclear physics? If you are not, I am not going to start discussing physics with you. And even if you are, this may not be the place for the discussion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are valid criticisms, though. The physics of actual criticality incidents in moderated uncompressed solutions precludes events with more than about 10E21 or so fissions in a single pulse, and very few have reached that level. That corresponds to about 1E-6 mole, or .25 mg of material reacting, with explosive yield equivalent of about 4 kg TNT. The neutron yield is the dangerous part (and fission products).

Because of moderated reactions' inherent time scales, the only way to get high yields is to both highly compress and highly tamp the materials, to get maximum credible alpha and contain it long enough to get you credible weapons yield. That's only possible with large implosion assemblies. The Ruth and Ray shots used a Fat Man sized (54 inch) implosion assembly and very large tampers.

IMHO - The only valid parts of this article refer to the Ruth and Ray shots, and the rest is unreliably sourced speculation. I argued for a mild keep last time around (2007) on this basis, not for the article to be used as a soapbox for what is unfortunately quite literally pseudoscientific gobldeygook that a few nuts are using to try and increase hype over the (quite conventional) accidents in Fukushima. If the coverage of those fringe views is notable enough to be in the main articles on them, that's fine. This article is being unwittingly used to promote theories that are not valid.

Petri - I respect your contributions in general, but on this point, it's just wrong. The physics is wrong, and the people who are arguing it are off on the non-credible fringe, and any press coverage of it I can find is in sources I would not consider notable.

With the article being used in this manner - I argue now for Delete. I can move a footnote paragraph into the main Nuclear weapons design article on Ruth and Ray and hydride weapons. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator Petri, could you tell me where some requirement to "stick to only one [criticism] at the time" is enshrined in Wikipedia policies or guidelines? As for "making statements about the "mainstream theory" on Chernobyl" with no basis in personal expertise, please note that I supplied those statements in the article itself, CITING AND QUOTING AN EXPERT SOURCE THAT YOU YOURSELF CITED BUT WITHOUT QUOTING. The source happens to claim proof that one of the Chernobyl explosions was nuclear in nature, but also characterizes the claims that it was only chemical as mainstream. Specifically (my bold added):

To date there is no general idea regarding the physical nature of the Chernobyl NPP accident. According to the main version, it was an explosion of chemical character, that is, the explosion of hydrogen formed in the reactor at high temperature as a result of water reaction with zirconium and other elements ....(Pakhomov, Sergey A; Yuri V. Dubasov (16 December 2009). "Estimation of Explosion Energy Yield at Chernobyl NPP Accident". Pure and Applied Geophysics (Springerlink.com) 167: 575.)

I see no Wikipedia policy requirement that I be an expert to edit this article or to comment on it in AfD; as long as I responsibly use WP:V and WP:RS, and avoid WP:NOR, I don't see a problem with what I've contributed to the article so far (most of which you reverted onsight.) By the way, Google Scholar shows the above article as "cited by 1"; of the mere 5 hits I get at Google Scholar on its title, one is the Russian original, another is a translation of it, the remaining three are wikipedia mirrors [8][9][10]. The paper was in a geophysics journal, not a nuclear physics or nuclear engineering journal. And the one paper Google reports as citing it? Its abstract says nothing either way about Pakhomov, et al. It would be interesting to see what the citing paper says, but I'm not going to pay money to find out. What I see here: we don't have the kind of extensive treatment of the topic meriting a judgment of WP:N in scientific terms, so that leaves WP:GNG of what's arguably WP:FRINGE theory. Yakushima (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No there is absolutely no requirement to be an expert or to know anything about the topic one is writing about. However, if I am confident that you understand the concepts, I will phrase my counterarguments differently. This discussion may quickly turning into a discussion about nuclear physics.

Anyway, thanks for adding the material about 100 ton TNT equivalent underground explosions from the new source. I was planing to add it my self but did not yet have the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petri Krohn (talk • contribs)

Petri - I was forwarded copies of the two articles you referenced (Chernobyl and the autocatalytic / hollow moderated spheres w/boron layers papers), plus I reviwed the video from Gunderson at Fairewinds. As I stated on your talk page yesterday, there are significant factual problems here now, after review.

Neither of those two papers referred to a moderated nuclear explosion by that terminology. The Chernobyl radiation signature paper suggested that a transient high energy prompt nuclear event was responsible for some fraction of the total energy release, based on fission product spectra, but didn't hypothesize about the nature of that transient prompt event. It basically was "The Xenon ratios here suggest that the reaction happened all at once for some fraction of the reactor volume, and wasn't just release of built up fission products". It's WP:SYNTH to assume that the paper is claiming it was a moderated nuclear explosion event - it simply doesn't say that is or could have been what happened. If it did happen then there's a limited set of things that it could have been, but the paper doesn't speculate into that set at all.

The autocatalytic spherical systems one never uses the word explosion, though it demonstrates some edge case energy releases that would likely be moderately explosive in nature. That's in alignment with other prior hydride critical assembly tests and Ruth and Ray - but again, they never use the word "explosion".

Gunderson has a bunch of factual issues. One, he asserts that hydrogen explosions are only deflagrations and not detonations. Hydrogen is well known in the explosives community for gas-phase detonations in air or other oxidizer mixtures. He's simply wrong on that point. On the reaction point, he asserts that a prompt nuclear explosion happened in the fuel pond due to collapse of the rods in the hydrogen explosion. The problem with that is that there is no fast fission critical mass for reactor grade LEU - even an infinite assembly is not critical. It couldn't be moderated fission either, as A) the water was gone already, B) if water was present, collapsing the assemblies reduces the amount of water that neutrons would travel through, and the assembly is already at the optimum spacing to create maximum criticality in water because the reactor function requires that - and any collapse or explosive separation takes it away from optimal, reducing criticality not increasing it.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I checked the paper used as a reference for the term "Moderated nuclear explosion", but it failed verification[11]. --Martin (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You'll find a lot of that. In violation of WP:PRESERVE, the creator of this article reverted all of my edits showing what certain sources cited actually said, characterizing my changes as "speculation about the motives of "experts"" and as "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". Oh? Pointing out that Christopher Busby "is controversial for his theories that low-dose radiation from Chernobyl may have caused 1,400,000 deaths" is hardly speculation about his motives. It's a fact, from which the obvious inference can be drawn by a reader who is otherwise unfamiliar with Christopher Busby and his main claims to fame. Pointing out that one author cited claimed that nuclear fuel spent fuel pools could explode with a force greater than any other nuclear explosion to date is not casting aspersions on the writers' motivation -- it's making sure the reader knows that this writer says flatly incorrect things about nuclear explosions. I could go on. But read for yourself. Yakushima (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are serious problems with at least some of the references, and the concerns from the original AfD still seem to apply. Most of the actual content seems to be synthesis or duplication of material already better-covered at nuclear meltdown, nuclear reactor, and nuclear weapon design. The objections about it being recreated out-of-process also apply: get consensus from several other editors that the problems have been addressed before doing a straight move-restore. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with Petri Krohn's comment as follows:

Here is a short comment on the nomination. I will respond in more detail later.

There has been wide speculation for almost two months that at least one of the explosions that destroyed the reactor buildings at Fukushima I was a “nuclear explosion”. (See: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22nuclear+explosion%22+fukushima&tbm=nws)
For the notability of the topic, it is totally irrelevant if this theory is true or not.

I have been following this topic, and it is a useful reference on these theories whether proven or not. I have not been aware that these theories have been speculated on for over two months before seeing the Gunderson video. "Prompt criticality" and gunderson results in hundreds of citations, even though it has not hit the mainstream press. The fact that the "conspiracy" oriented press as Russia Today is still notable given the sizeable following and marketshare that it does have. If the national enquirer covers a story, it is certainly notable. Even if original story is not verifiable, the news coverage is Redhanker (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response from nominator - if the topic actually were (as I proposed myself above) Claims of nuclear explosions at nuclear reactors, I'd probably be at Weak Keep myself. However, when I provided background on the bona fides of those making the claims, or on the article (re-)creator's claims about sources (starting here [12]), the article (re-)creator (and admitted neologism-coiner, and WP:IAR claimant who has yet to explain why) reverted all of my edits with the comment:

You seem to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point! Please save your irony to the deletion discussion. – Speculation about the motives of "experts" is outside the topic of this article.

My edits did not, in fact, involve any overt speculation about motives. I simply made it clear that the sources were all problematic for the thesis that "moderated nuclear explosion" is a term of art, or that some such concept had been credibly applied to explain explosions at Chernobyl and Fukushima. In other words, it seems that you found the article a useful resource for learning about the status of such claims in large part because the person who'd nominated it for deletion (me) had made it a more useful resource. The (re-)creator of the article apparently begs to differ on issues of utility: it's almost as if he doesn't want you to see so clearly what the problems are with these claims and/or sources. And is willing to attack as "disruptive" certain attempts to clarify the nature of the sources. I have restored most of the reverted edits, characterizing the reversions as a violation of WP:PRESERVE. The (re-)creator of this article has since (so far) let them stand -- apparently having figured out that I'm not so easily intimidated. Yakushima (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nuclear explosion and protect. Allow for merging of content from the history, but this title is too specific and has served as a little watched backwater. Any valid content in this article needs to be assessed by editors at a more active page, such as Nuclear explosion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time out – Looking back at the history I now see why this article was created in 2007, with its disambiguated "neologistic" name. At the time there was no article on nuclear explosion. The part of Wikipedia namespace was used by the article that now resides in Effects of nuclear explosions. At that time the article covering the physics of explosions was nuclear weapon design – another article equally unsuited for this content.
I now see no problem in merging the sourced content to nuclear explosion. It is also a far better place to discuss the physics, than this deletion discussion. Unfortunately it may take several days before I have time to do any merging.

As for the content created by User:Yakushima it could go to Claims of nuclear explosions at nuclear reactors. I have no position this. Besides, if these claims turn out to have any merit, then real world events have overtaken any discussion here.

-- Petri Krohn (talk)

In view of the fact that Petri Krohn claims justification from WP:IAR for reviving this article without discussion, but hasn't responded to repeated requests to explain why the action was for the good of Wikipedia, I don't think he should be allowed to edit nuclear explosion or the proposed claims of nuclear explosions at nuclear reactors -- or even moderated nuclear explosion while it lasts -- until he does provide credible explanation. "Time out"? You mean, actually stopping the AfD clock, Petri, because you don't have the precious time this week that you need to do things your way, your WP:IAR-at-any-time-for-reasons-I-don't-have-to-explain-to-anybody way? How does one earn that remarkable privilege? Yakushima (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only hits "moderated nuclear explosion" has on Google are from Wikipedia. -- Kolbasz (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HBQVBAA[edit]

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

Non-notable apparently local organization; no third-party sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Hollis Bell-Aire Queens Village Bellerose Athletic Association) is a non-profit private league funded by numerous grants and donations from city and state officials, as well as citizens of the community. They organize baseball and softball games in the community. Best acronym ever! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - crufty, promotional article. To quote Tallulah Bankhead: "There is less here than meets the eye". Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence that this is a notable organization. Rlendog (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of people on different committees or with responsibilities does not meet WP:ORG. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Aristidis-Stavros of Greece and Denmark[edit]

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

Ladies and gentlemen, today I have a real delicacy for you: An article about an almost but not quite three-year-old boy, created two weeks after his birth. (Fortunately His Royal Highness little Sir Aristidis-Stavros cannot read yet. Otherwise he might have googled his name and found out how many adults(?) appear to be obsessed over him. Quite spooky.) In the short period of this child's existence, his article has seen a veritable POV conflict, someone added and someone else removed a notability template, and someone even abused him verbally by calling him a "pretender". But to top it all, the article contains precisely two bits of information that go beyond his date and place of birth and his ancestry: One is sourced to a blog, and the other to a broken forum link.

The similar articles on his brothers Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark and Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark have recently been deleted. Is there any reason to believe that this child has inherited his grandfather's notability? Hans Adler 12:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A little bit of respect might be appropriate for those Wikipedia editors who created and have edited this article - clearing believing that Aristidis is notable. It is possible to nominate an article for deletion without mocking other editors. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me of the universal principle that whenever people do something ridiculous, it is the fault of those who laugh. I am not aware that I attacked anyone. Back to the topic: Genealogical websites have one line for him. His parents' website has one line for him. Wikipedia has the same amount of information on him but blows it up to the point that printing the "article" takes three pages. I don't understand how anyone can think that such Potemkin articles are acceptable. One shouldn't have to follow a link only to find that someone is so utterly non-notable that even Wikipedia hasn't found anything. Now if we had reliably sourced information that Aristidis-Stavros had the measles last November, or that unlike his siblings he doesn't like to eat mushrooms. Or that he goes to a kindergarten and all the other children there like him. That would be interesting information that would obviously justify an article. Hans Adler 13:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any reason to believe that this child has inherited his grandfather's notability? He's notable because of who his grandfather is, so technically, yes, he has inherited his grandfather's notability in the sense that his grandfather's notability makes him who he is. If he'd been born into some regular middle class family with no public notability whatsoever, I could see where your statement would make sense. But being the grandson of the former King of Greece (and son of the former Crown Prince) makes him somewhat notable, whether you like it or not. Whether he deserves a Wikipedia article is up for question, but your statement is simply wrong--or at least worded wrong. Morhange (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He would never get an entry in Britannica or anything like it. At his age he would never even get a separate page in any genealogical work. He completely and utterly fails WP:GNG, and the other notability guidelines are just approximations to GNG whose purpose it is to avoid repetitive discussions in borderline cases. Therefore a notability guideline saying that second generation descendants of kings are automatically notable would be invalid. But it so happens that there is no such specific notability guideline. Let's check the (potentially) applicable parts of WP:BIO:

WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources [...]." But: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." And this is explained further: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing". — Here we only have a one-line directory entry, blown up to an article for no good reason. This is similar to the case of a film, which is not notable just because it appears in IMDB. Note that this is the main test. The below "additional criteria" are just for fine-tuning this and in some cases allow redirects for non-notable people.
WP:ANYBIO: No well-known or significant award or honour, no widely recognised contribution to a field.
WP:POLITICIAN: Arguably he is a politician because some people fantasize he might inherit the currently nonexistent office of a Greek king at some point. But he has not (1) held any office, is not (2) a major local political figure who received significant press coverage, and in a sense point 3 applies: "Just being [...] an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability [...]". His situation is analogous to that of a non-notable candidate for the presidency of a republic. Just being on the ballot is not enough.
WP:BIO#Invalid criteria: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)"
WP:BIO#Family: "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person"

To all this I could add that he is notable only for one event: his birth. So even if he were otherwise a borderline case, which he isn't, he would at most fall under WP:BLP1E.

If there actually is a wider guideline of type WP:The wider family of a monarch is notable, then I have missed it. In this case, please provide a precise pointer. Hans Adler 14:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either redirect to his father, Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece, as I recommended in the AfD for one of his brothers, or just delete per the precedents of deleting the articles on two of his brothers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the personal attacks in the op are necessary. Hans Adlers, if you are serious about wanting to discuss the deletion of this article, as opposed to just being interested in a fight or something, you should confine yourself to notability argumentation. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any personal attack "in the op". If you think otherwise, you need to be more precise. Otherwise I will continue to believe that the claim by Noel S McFerran above, now repeated by you, is where the first ad hominem argument on this page was made. Criticising an article is not a personal attack, even if by some bizarre coincidence the article happens to have been created and/or written personally by an editor.

I am currently in the process of nominating five obviously non-notable "princes" for deletion, one after the other, because they have been unprodded or light-weight removal of the pseudobiographies has been otherwise prevented. Among the so-called nobility there appears to be a wide-spread misconception that they are automatically entitled to real or perceived honours such as academic titles (the former German defence minister is a notable recent example, and before him a grandson of the last Kaiser went about it even more blatantly by just copying an entire thesis) or Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately there is a number of editors who are pushing this meme vehemently. See WP:Articles for deletion/Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois for a particularly blatant example. (A boy who died under the age of 3. He is not even mentioned in the official genealogies. We only know about him from his mother's letters, but even in her biographies he is just a short episode in her life.)

This article is no less irritating than an article about a minor Pokémon card or a random village mayor. Hans Adler 15:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "voted" in this deletion discussion (or the other Greek ones) because at the moment I have not developed a set opinion on the matter. I am concerned, however, with what might seem like a disrespect for other editors. In the merge discussion for Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois, only one other editor agreed with Mr Adler, while two editors disagreed with him. In spite of this, he merged the article. I'm not arguing in favour of an article on Alexandre Louis, but I would never merge an article with a 2 pro 2 con "vote" after a failed attempt at deletion. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the AfD. It was 3 keep and 4 merge !votes if you count me as well. The outcome was: "A merge discussion on the article's talk page would be highly encouraged." The article clearly failed GNG. No policy-based argument for keeping it was offered. The only new participant in the second discussion (Lampman) !voted merge. Together that makes 3 keep, 5 merge and all policy-based arguments on the side of merge. That's a clear enough result. Hans Adler 00:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to father or Delete as probably not necessary to have own article. - dwc lr (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or just do the same as was done with the articles on the other kids that you recently nominated. Nightw 19:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Edison (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 03:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Fedderly[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSICBIO, simply being principal tuba with the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra does not guarantee notability. gnews merely confirms his role in the orchestra nothing indepth about him as an indivual musician. [13]. LibStar (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~Week Keep seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO, but seems to have a notable feel. If anything I would lean delete, but stay neutral for now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable in the Tuba/Euphonium world: serves on the board of the International Tuba Euphonium Association, has held a permanent position as principal for 28 years, performs frequently as a guest principal, is on both the Julliard and Peabody faculties and has taught widely elsewhere—lots of professors and principals were taught by him. I've rewritten and added more references. - Pointillist (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Principal player at major orchestra and significant teacher; per Pointillist. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pointillist and close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ballotpedia[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. Hard. LiteralKa (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded the article, adding four reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of this electoral website. Cullen328 (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the editorial improvements made by Cullen and others. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 03:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

California Shuttle Bus[edit]

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

A Californian bus company. Despite the references listed, I can't see anything notable about this business. Speedy was constested by claiming both the addition of references and that other similar articles exist, neither claim convinces me yet. Anyway, listing here to get consensus for either inclusion or deletion. Thanks. Dmol (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep this user seems to admit that the article is references. He did not participate in any discussion on the talk page whatsoever. He does not have to see anything notable about it. But several newspapers have. This includes coverage in 2003 and 2008 and more recently as well. This includes several articles that provide non-trivial coverage, this coverage focuses on the subject entirely. This is the measurement for notability. The Los Angeles Times is a verifiable and reliable sources.Thisbites (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing has improved and is sufficient to demonstrate wide impact. This was suitable for a primary sources improvement notice rather than creating a speedy for a non-obvious case just 1 hour and 14 minutes after the article was created and now escalating for AFD just 6 odd hours after creation. Public transport companies are invariably considered sufficiently notable as they create press attention for all sorts of reasons of public interest and tend to have significant social and cultural impact. Fæ (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Underwhelming sourcing as it currently stands, but a competently done new article with some sourcing going on. We should all be tagging for "more sources" more frequently and proposing for annihilation at AfD less. Carrite (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While not all references meet WP:RS, in depth/significant coverage from the reliable sources Los Angeles Times would indicate that the subject can arguably pass WP:GNG. However, at the same time, the number of hits are very low, and only two books mention the company specifically, both of which are passing mentions, therefore one can argue that the number of in depth articles are insufficient to meet the significant coverage criteria set forth in WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively one could say that two pages of GNews results is not unreasonable (many well established articles produce no results, the GOOGLETEST page says this is "an extremely erroneous tool for measuring notability") and indicates that there is some prospect for further improvement of sources in the near future, particularly for an article so recently created. BTW, I have a temporary link on my talk page to some LexisNexis results that I produced for Thisbites which includes a number of sources not in the GNews results. Thanks Fæ (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the two mentions in the LA Times, including one lengthy profile,another in the Pasadena pager (requires registration, so I didn't read that one,establish notability. Seaphoto^Talk 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jono: The Musical[edit]

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

Previously speedily deleted and recreated. Lacks references and any credible sense of notability. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 22:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jono:_The_Musical&action=edit&section=1 At least this time we're being given a proper chance to defend ourselves. Hi. There can't be any references as I took the information off the Facebook page (unless I can count that) and my own knowledge. And as I said before it is notable as we are the main producer of musicals in our area. It has also gained publicity. We had a photoshoot with the KM on Wednesday and they are doing a follow up photo shoot a couple of weeks before the performance, when we will be in costumes. We have planned an interview with the KM which will be done in the coming months and also an interview is being arranged on KmFm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.putland (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you provide evidence that it meets any of the criteria listed at WP:N ? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 22:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to refer you to a copy of all the above interviews/photoshoots when they are published. Until then what other proof will you accept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.putland (talk • contribs) 23:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The usual reliable sources. Articles on Wikipedia must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If the sources haven't been published yet, it falls within WP:SPECULATION. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 00:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is Jono Ayling an individual we should have heard of? A websearch doesn't really come up with anything. I'm assuming from the article that he died of mouth cancer (?) Unfortunately, from the sound of it, this production is no different than any other amateur stage production, and hasn't even been performed yet. So, unless some sources can be produced, I don't really see any way to save it. Bob talk 22:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should qualify for a speedy deletion as it barely makes any claim to notability, but musicals aren't included under WP:CSD#A7. It's a one-off performance due to be held at The Sinden Theatre, which is based in a school/6th form college. There is no significant coverage at all from any reliable sources that are independent of the subject (no, the Facebook page doesn't count). It is a very very minor production. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources are available yet, and it is unclear how significant the sources will be when they do start to appear. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article can be resubmitted if the musical becomes notable. It was put on Wikipedia too early. --Klein zach 01:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Farewell Sermon. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khutbatul Wada'[edit]

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

1) 2 identical articles on this exists. The identical article is the The Farewell Sermon
2) Both articles give a quote attributed to Muhammad, i failed to verify both articles
3) There is a reference in both articles, the main article saying that the farewell sermon is just many different Hadith(words of Muhammad) placed together (i checked some of those hadith, even they are not similiar to the version given in the articles). This is a clear case of quote manipulation.
4) The article discuss Muhammad's final sermon, of which there is many, but the one given in the sources, i am 99% sure it is fake/hoax. As i searched on the internet, many Islamic websites do mention this version, but not a single one gives the EXACT Primary source, which mentions the quote word for word. "If a lie is repeated often,it might be accepted as truth, but its still a lie", and i have shown proof this is a lie, no primary sources.
5)I also found that on the internet many people, both muslims and critics of islam have been discussing the authenticity of this version of the farewell sermon.see links below:

In Yanabi.com discussing its authencity

Discussion on sunni forum about authenticity
Anti islamic website

This anti islamic website mentions that this version was compiled by somone called S.H.Faizi, most likely in his book Sermons of the Prophet (P. B. U. H.):. If this is true, then the quote should be removed, as it is not from a primary source.There is no debate that a 21st century book can not and must not be considered a primary source about Muhammad's life. Only old thigns like the quran and hadith dated back 1400 years ago should be used as primary sources. Most likely this version was made up or is a wild translation.
--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This is nonsense. The event of Muhammad's sermon (khutba) on his last pilgrimage, known as hajjat al-wada', is reported in almost every single seerah (prophetic biography) book. I agree that the article lacks reliable sources, but the rants of an anti-Muslim idiot on some website is not an acceptable reason to declare this story a hoax. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say there is no such thing as a last sermon, just that this version is fake, if you can show me 1 single primary source which mentions the exact version, i will retract my statements.

on the pages it says that various hadith mention the last sermon, but not the version on the 2 articles !--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some information about the origin of these quotes. It seems the publisher of the quote has been making up false sermons attributed to Muhammad. Although he does not consider it fake, he has just mixed many different quotes of muhammad (hadith) together with his translation. (this should confirm that the version is not authentic)

Sermons of the prophet: Arabic text with English Translation by S.F.H Faizi. Lahore, Islamic Book foundation, 1987. Thus neither of them is a collection exclusively of the sayings and sermons of the holy Prophet, as both are a mixture of the English translation of the Qur'anic verses and the Prophetic Traditions.

Source

i think an expert should try verify this--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right that the version included in the article is fake, I think that should be removed immediately. However, the article needs to remain as the event of Muhammad giving a sermon on his last hajj is notable enough to have its own article. The event can be reconstructed from numerous hadith sources and there are sufficient modern sources that attempted that. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i agree with your view, i also think that only the actual primary sources i.e quran, hadith which mention this event, should be quoted. There are so many different version of this sermon, i found 4 different ones, sunni version 1,2 and shia version 1,2. i also found another version on an anti islamic website. but dont know if it is authentic, as i cant verify it using google book.

1. Sunni version 1, mot popular, no primary sources: only says that the farewell sermon is mentioned in soem hadith
2. Sunni Version 2, less known, contains anyalysis, again no primary sources

3. Shia version 1, fully sourced and verified

4. Anti islamic website quoting Tabari, Ummah.com Muslim website quoting tabari, with alternate translation

5. Islamqa.com mentions some hadith which refer o the farewell sermon --Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Farewell Sermon. Many misconceptions here, indeed. External links don't have to be Reliable Source, for example (Misconceptions2 has removed some major Islamic site from External Links as "not reliable.") I'd think that our article, where available texts vary, would point to multiple sources, and if quoting from texts, would attribute them to the specific translation as published and available. --Abd (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Abd; We need only one article on this subject. That said, should the English title be moved to this title with a redirect, or should this title be redirected to the English title? Probably something to consider - either way, the merge target should be the English title, as it is far superior in terms or sourcing and content. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete unsourced content (or redirect), also abd, you said that if the quote/sermon is put on wikipedia, we should give translation and original source, Well there is no traslation or original source mentioned in any of hte exteneral links or in the links that were there previouslly (used as references). I was unable to verify them, they all say that the sermon is mentioend in various hadith, none of these hadith are even close to the version that was on wikipedia before it was removed by al andalusi.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per abd. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 03:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Playmates of 1961[edit]

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

PROD contested with "fits WP:LISTPEOPLE criteria for list of persons "famous for a specific event") However, WP:LISTPEOPLE states: "A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met... #1 The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement" Yet consensus has determined, both in an earlier discussion, and through current deletion/redirecting that the unifying theme of the list does not confer notability. Every subject on this list has had an article deleted/redirected without controversy, indicating consensus of Non-notability. Also, the unifying subject of this list-- Being a Playboy Playmate-- was determined by earlier discussion to be non-notable. Being a Playboy Playmate is the only claim to notability for the majority of the subjects on this list. Further, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) states "Stand-alone lists... are articles that primarily consist of a list or a group of lists, linking to articles or lists" None of the subjects in this list have stand-alone articles, indicating this List is invalid. While Playboy, and the Playboy Playmate feature may be notable, Wikipedia is not a directory "A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Full disclosure: I started this article believing it was a valid listing of articles. It is no longer that, and no longer belongs on Wikipedia. Dekkappai (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There may be a technical problem with this nomination, because it is not showing up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 26 (or at WP:AFD/T).--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator quotes the first sentence of WP:LISTPEOPLE but omits the next sentence: "An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is especially important in the list's group; for example, if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met." And WP:LSC notes that one common type of list is that where "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names." This list properly (and completely) covers a group who share one common notable event. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Arxiloxos, it has been consensus that lists of non-notable subjects are not allowed. Many such have been deleted. You say, "This list properly (and completely) covers a group who share one common notable event." But being a Playboy Playmate is not a notable event according to consensus. Since not one subject on this list has a stand-alone article-- indeed they did have them, but they were noncontroversially removed-- this is a list of entirely non-notable people. Obviously, the other yearly lists will also need to be removed, so this one may be a bit premature. But we can have a bundle-discussion after we know the exact percentage of notable-to-non-notable subjects in these lists. Notable subjects-- Marilyn Monroe, etc.-- will have their own articles, and no information will be lost by the removal of these non-notable lists. Your Other stuff exists examples do not apply to this case either, since a good percentage of the items at List of Dilbert characters actually do have articles. That "Minor characters" is a subset of this list does not apply to a stand-alone list such as this one. Also, significantly, we are dealing with twelve Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in this list with sourcing inadequate to these requirements. We don't have reliable, significant secondary sourcing for any of these BLPS. The sourcing is not independent (Playboy.com), or part of a database (wekinglypigs.com). This is not acceptable for one BLP-- especially concerning a controversial subject matter-- much less twelve. Dekkappai (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note: Notability (Lists of people) states "Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the notability criteria above." The criteria above being Wikipedia:Notability (people), which every one of the members of this list have failed. The list is invalid. Dekkappai (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. No valid basis given for deletion. As Arxiloxos quite correctly points out, the nominator has misleadingly quoted a single line from the MOS (not that noncompliance with the MOS is generally a reason for deletion) and ignored more applicable standards, such as "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." The nominator "created" the article in an attempt to create a new home for content deleted by consensus despite his opposition; he did so by cutting-and-pasting without proper attribution, etc. Now that the article has been repaired, by me and others, to solve the problems he created, he's trying to dramah-tize the situation for no constructive reason. The nominator also misstates the consequences of article redirects; the redirection of an article about a member of a group to the group article, when whatever notability the member enjoys stems mainly or entirely from membership in the group, is not necessarily a determination of notability, but an editorial judgment; see, for example, WP:MUSICBIO. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AGF Dekkappai (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo and Arxiloxos. The nomination seems like a WP:POINT violation. Epbr123 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos, Hullaballoo and Epbr123. It looks like WP:POINTy and borderline disruptive nomination. --Reference Desker (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos. Lists seem a reasonable compromise than having a bunch of stubs. Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, bunches of stubs are acceptable, as are lists of such. But the important thing is that they must have a valid claim to notability. Neither the stubs redirected to this list, nor the subject of the list itself have any claim to notability whatsoever. It is especially alarming in that these are BlPs in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists are OK. Individuals biographies on every one, not so...♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos, Hullaballoo and Epbr123.Cavarrone (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. I don't think there's bad faith here, but there is fairly heated debate on articles in this area, and that makes this precisely the wrong time to bring a nomination like this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 01:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is fine and within policy while in list form. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. holy baloney. doesn't anyone write articles anymore? shall we just delete them instead?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, Milowent. Actually, just since August 23 of last year, I've started 1700 articles on Japanese films & film personnel. None of them here, though, of course, since it would have wasted a lot of time showing them to pass GNG. Dekkappai (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So this is a revenge nom?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean it up, please. It looks ridiculous with twelve sections, each with an infobox and a short paragraph all of which say Playmate Name (born month day, year) is a nationality model. She is best known for being Playboy magazine's Playmate of the Month for its Month 1961 issue. Her centerfold was photographed by Photographer Name. That is just data written as prose text, and can be merged with the infobox data into a single table, instead of the awkward layout now used. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a mess. Some competent editor who cares about the subject should clean it up, that's for sure. Dekkappai (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rage in the Cage events[edit]

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

Essentially I've decided to nominate this page, because it's woefully out of date, much of the information on it is listed as "unknown" and is otherwise insubstantial as either an article or a list to warrant it's own page. The amount of work that would be needed to bring it up to a reasonable quality is entirely out of proportion to the notoriety of the subject. For these reasons I think this article should be removed from wikipedia entirely.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR (trivial list of unnotable past events). I'm not sure Rage in the Cage itself is notable, but I will give it the benefit of doubt.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a signficant martial arts organization so their events are also non-notable. There are no independent or reliable sources and no indication of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent sources that show any of these events are notable, so I don't see how a list of them is notable. Papaursa (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matheus Thiago de Carvalho[edit]

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

A player never made a professional debut, failed WP:athlete Matthew_hk t c 04:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without significant coverage or fully pro appearances, he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that mirror server or something else, why some edit gone? It is not a matter of edit conflict. Matthew_hk t c 06:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What edits have gone? Giant Snowman 19:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Waters[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. No evidence given that he has worked with the notable musicians listed, and I can find none online. Short appearance on television documentary was as one of several people talking about OCD, so this doesn't really make him notable either. Mr. Credible (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mr. Credible (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many claims that, if they were verifiable in independent sources, could help show how the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. However, the subject has not provided the independent coverage and on searching none seems available. Nuttah (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity article. Subject is not notable enough. Keb25 (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity page. The subject appears to lack non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties or any other achievements which would meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Parkinson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rick Parkinson

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

My initial thought wast that this might be a CSD-G3, but no... the subject is a real person who has written and published a poetry anthology called "Growling at the Laying Hens". A brief search shows that this is a pay-to-print publication released through Lulu (company). Subject is highly unlikely to meet WP:AUTHOR criteria. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Usual Caveats apply, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional - this might even be tagged as G11 given how blatant it is. LOL at "Pulitzer Prize standard" photography: that phrase does not mean what the article creator thinks it means. --NellieBly (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly non-notable author. I'm surprised this one wasn't deleted using WP:A7, there's barely an assertion of notability here. Robofish (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by admin User:Nyttend as CSD#G12; a blatant copyright infringement of [14]. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do they put soft centers inside chocolate candies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/How do they put soft centers inside chocolate candies

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

Delete See Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO --Djc wi (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This is a straight copyvio from [15]. Unencyclopedic language and Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. Bob talk 08:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12 Wikipedia could do with a page on this subject, albeit not in a how-to format. Invertase currently doesn't cover it. This particular article is unsalvagable in its current state. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 08:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12 and tagged as such. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ponniyin selvan (2012 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An article of the same name was deleted after numerous discussions. Thalapathi (Ping Back) 05:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a catagory. but you need to work out what catagory and go do it since it wasn't clear to me at all closing this exactly what recirect is required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian landmarks[edit]

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

Unreferenced and unscoped (and un-scopable IMHO). An existing comprehensive category tree and state templates do this much better. See for example Category:Landmarks in Perth, Western Australia and Template:Melbourne landmarks. Perhaps redirect to Tourism in Australia. Moondyne (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Moondyne (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The topic of "Australian Landmarks" in general is best served by a category. CycloneGU (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - looks like an excuse to create an ad hoc gallery - no ref and little text suggest that category to state and location specific as suggested by nominator Satu Suro 05:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An indiscriminate list without any easily discernable criteria for inclusion. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think the redirect option is an entirely natural one either. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - plausible search term. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, meaningless list and collection of photos.--Grahame (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - agree with Yeti Hunter above that is this a plausible search term, and also agree with SatSuro that this page is an ad-hoc gallery. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the page is generalised and is mostly links and pictures (ColRad (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect. As stated above, it is a plausible search term. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 12:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oceania (Smashing Pumpkins album)[edit]

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

PROD was contested, though no improvements to the article were made. This unreleased album fails WP:HAMMER, WP:NALBUM and WP:CRYSTAL criteria. Currently, all that's known is the title and a tentative release date. Let's wait until there's actually something to be said about this album. (NOTE: Since the time of the nomination, the article Oceania (Smashing Pumpkins album) has been moved to Oceania (album). It was suggested at WP:GTD to mention this at the top and bottom of the discussion.) Fezmar9 (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist for now until notable sources exist. Album articles for Glee often don't exist until Amazon or iTunes or someone puts them up, similar rule applies here. CycloneGU (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the result of the discussion is redirect, it might make more sense to redirect it to Teargarden by Kaleidyscope than the artist's profile since this album is being released as a part of that project. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then when the album is actually released, a new page will have to be made anyways. I mean there is already a page for Teargarden, which is only a work in progress and is nowhere near to being released as a finished product. Rickvaughn (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not necessarily. The two previously released parts of Teargarden didn't meet the notability guidelines and were merged into the project article. What's to say the same won't hold true for Oceania? Teargarden has it's own page because there is an abundance of sources for one to write a reasonably detailed article on the subject. Please review the various policies and guidelines linked in this discussion. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with the redirect idea. This is a placeholder article, and we all know how erratic and mercurial album titles are (see Good Ass Job). StevePrutz (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Since the time of the nomination, the article Oceania (Smashing Pumpkins album) has been moved to Oceania (album). It was suggested at WP:GTD to mention this at the top and bottom of the discussion. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Album has been formally announced. Release timeframe is known. (Sept. 2011). Has received notable coverage. (For instance, Rolling Stones.) It may be a short article at the moment, but certainly should not be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 12:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, there is a date. Sept. 1st, 2011. Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of the published articles posted online with information about Oceania stem from a Facebook video of Corgan talking about upcoming Smashing Pumpkins plans. In the video he says, "hopefully it'll be out September 1st." That doesn't sound very set-in-stone or definite to me. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regardless, it's a tentative date, and a rather specific one. Who are we to measure how confident Corgan is of the release date? He gave a date he's aiming for, reliable sources reported on it. Anything else is subjective and opinion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The album has been announced and has been reported by authentic sources. Although a tracklisting has yet to be announced, this page doesn't violate any other of TenPoundHammer's Laws. It has a title, a release date and is not referenced from information off rumors posted to message boards, blogs or MySpace. The information has been reported from a reputable source, i.e. Rolling Stone magazine, with which the reference is currently included in the article. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The album will have its own title, story, production details, despite being said to be some part of Teargarden. My bet is that, although independently released, it's a part of the reissues deal with EMI. And that it won't be the only "album within an album" – as Teargarden was said to be recorded until 2014, and reissues are announced to be prepared until 2013). Simply because standard records would generate a substantial amount of publicity which will definitely help the reissues. And they will be undeniably expensive toys... – Kochas (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are all very interesting theories, but none of what you just said here is in response to the reasons stated in the nomination. There are various guidelines which suggest when it may be acceptable to create a stand-alone article for an upcoming topic and/or album. According to WP:NALBUM, "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release." Fezmar9 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - How many reliable sources do you really think are necessary for it to be not deleted? There are currently 3 separate reliable sources. None of the article is currently speculation. Why aren't these three enough? Sergecross73 msg me 22:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that the sources provided qualify as reliable, and I agree that everything stated in this article is properly verified. I am measuring the amount of information not by the quantity of sources present, but the amount of detail within in these sources. There doesn't seem to be an abundance of information available out there yet to write an in-depth article on this subject. This is the basic criteria given at WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM and WP:HAMMER. Does Wikipedia truly need an article dedicated to informing readers that Smashing Pumpkins intend on releasing a new album titled Oceania, and that Corgan changed his mind about something he said earlier? Or can this same information fulfill the exact same purpose at an already existing article such as Smashing Pumpkins or Teargarden by Kaleidyscope? The amount of information should always be the guiding factor in creating stand alone articles. The Smashing Pumpkins discography exists because the amount of information here is too great for the artist's article. That statement would not be true if the group only released one album. Would List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members exist if Smashing Pumpkins maintained the same lineup since 1988? Highly unlikely. But because the group had several official members and touring members, there was enough information to write a stand alone article. There's also no telling when additional information about Oceania may become available. The tentative release date is four months away. Will this article sit as only a few sentences for four months? The group hasn't even started on the album, and artists are notorious for breaking Hofstadter's law. It's not unreasonable to believe that this article will unlikely develop beyond where it is now for quite a while. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I guess it comes down to opinion at this point then. I feel like the TBK page is already getting cluttered, and I feel like this will get a lot of coverage, especially since they seem to be working with a record label again. Not to mention, I believe it'll be much easier to have information strictly on Oceania merely because it's named something different than TBK. (In contrast to names like "TBK Vol 2", where it's hard to tell if information is about the project as a whole or the specific EP.) Also, I can't help but think that, if your approach was the only way, then there wouldn't be any stubs on wikpedia as a whole. Not every article needs to be extensive right away. What matters is that it's clearly notable, and reliable sources are reporting on it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No one expects articles to reach FA status or even a B-class right off the bat. There just needs to currently exist sufficient evidence that one could plausibility write a decent article on the subject one day. If an article remains a stub and shows no signs of possible expansion, it'll likely get deleted or merged. The recently released SP song "Owata" has received arguably the same, if not greater, media coverage as Oceania. Why does it not have an article? Because all of the sources merely acknowledge its existence, and little more. The same could be said of Oceania. This article is hinging on the hope that one day enough information will become available. I'm simply suggesting that we wait for said time, whenever that may be. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis of coverage in reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tanekichi Onishi[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because of there being no biographical information about him and that this gentleman has not officially earned the title of 'World's oldest man' (yet). There appears to be no information (besides his birthdate) available at the present time, online. With ALL due respect to User: Brendanology, the source given is unreliable, primarily due to it being a blog. If Mr. Onishi is still living when he becomes the oldest man, he deserves an article. At this time, if there was more information about him I wouldn't have proposed deletion. Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are pictures available on the Internet. Old, but still. --Onewarmslime (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC) — Onewarmslime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I've referenced the fact that the subject is indeed the second oldest man alive. I don't know how we typically deal with world's-oldest-person articles, but that sounds like notability to me, and Reuters is a fine, reliable source most of the time. As for the pictures - well, yeah, they're gonna be old, given the subject. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im not voting one way or another, because theres good reasons one way or another, but heres why I can understand this particular afd, hes not even the oldest man in his country, and the source mentioned isnt even about him, its about Jiroemon Kimura, but Onishi is a supercentenarian which is a reason to keep. Longevitydude (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficiently notable. 1 incidental reference and 1 blog are inadequate references. If/when he becomes oldest in Japan then maybe he would deserve an article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot establish notability, even though he is the oldest man, it is one event and one event only, he must have a background history of influence or a potential background that would enhance his article and the notability factor, otherwise he should stay listed in here. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The oldest man in the world is Japanese and this guy is the second oldest in Japan and second oldest man in the world. He's in the top 3 oldest. Surely, that meets some kind of notability standard and if it doesn't then why doesn't it. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Blogspot? No, that is not sufficient for the likes of a BLP article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO lacking reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchie Nadal (album)[edit]

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

can't establish any notability or find significant coverage Alan - talk 01:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For some reason, I'm still finding this redlinked on the article. It does redirect to this discussion from there, kind of a strange bug. Also, if more information can be provided as to how she became notable before becoming a solo artist, this might be helpful to a decision. CycloneGU (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to Keep, this article by the Manila Bulletin calls the album a "tremendous success", while another source claims the album "went double platinum selling more than 100,000 units". Sometimes, when I see a nominator claim they "can't establish any notability or find significant coverage", what I think they mean is they just haven't bothered to look. riffic (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep. The ABS-CBN reference said this album was double platinum (sold 80,000 units or more). I'm all for deleting albums no one heard about but this sold well. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A debut album that sold well by a now famous singer. Moray An Par (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Good sources. CycloneGU (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"C" is For (Please Insert Sophomoric Genitalia Reference Here)[edit]

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

Non-notable EP, sources are primary, unreliable (Blabbermouth) or trivial. Subject is also a source of edit warring over capitalization of "is". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Some coverage, but not enough to satisfy WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Previous deletion here. Blabbermouth is unreliable though? I have always considered it to be, and it is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Rehevkor ✉ 18:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Previous consensus for deletion is not enough to justify a following deletion, as the facts and circumstances may change over time. WP:CCC also applies here. --Tathar (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attempt to imply it was, just linked for reference. People can make up their own minds about it. Rehevkor ✉ 19:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If the article has sold 10,000 copies it may be is notable enough. Also it would be merged into "V" Is for Vagina, sicne contains two tracks. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. I came to this AfD expecting something much different, but after seeing the article I decided to take a look for myself. A quick overview of the cited sources leads me to believe that the article meets "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as in WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. The IGN article in particular needs to be cited more than it is based on the depth of the coverage. The Blabbermouth articles are also somewhat useful as source material. However, source #3 seems to lack any instance of "Puscifer" and is an opinion article, which is generally not suitable as a source on WP. Also, I'm afraid that source #7 is a poor source as well. Not only is Twitter generally a poor source (with some exceptions), the link is prone to link rot as it doesn't link to the specific tweet's permalink. I also wonder why source #9 is used. As far as I can tell, it appears to be an ecommerce site selling the album, which I must recommend against using whenever possible. Is there perhaps a better source for that? Perhaps someone can clean up the page to meet album article guidelines. --Tathar (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Album received some media coverage from some reliable sources, this raises its notability factor. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Balser Skirvin[edit]

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

lacks notability and coverage Alan - talk 00:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If sourcing for this appears weak (Did you LOOK in google books search?), try "Bill Skirvin". AfD is NOT intended to be an article improvement process. riffic (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Skirvin was a major figure in Oklahoma City history. Here is his 1944 obituary from The Chronicles of Oklahoma.[16] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the second of the nominator's series of AfDs on articles created by one editor. This one also is for an article with a notable topic. There's both SNOW here and cause for a speedy close--a look at the other AfDs will determine how much good faith the nominator is entitled to. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepSkirvin is notable person any one who reads the page gets that.--SteamIron 05:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close Nominator appears to have a misunderstanding of WP:DEL#REASON, WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP. Even a cursory WP:BEFORE finds the coverage and notability the nominator claims does not exist of this man's historic import to American history. WP:BIO is met, and historical notability is quite fine with Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - connected with many important figures and moments in American history. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fyodor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

notability and coverage? reviews in article have 3 out of 4 being the same source, not much more found. Alan - talk 00:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This bio is not well assembled and could be easily improved upon. References include Rocky Mountain News (daily newspaper, now defunct) and Westword (major arts weekly newspaper). Madamecp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Teach me to sign notes in my sleep! Here's 6125 search results for Little Fyodor at Westword alone. Maybe some nice Wikipedia editors want to peruse it? http://www.westword.com/search/index?collection=blogs&keywords=Little%20Fyodor Madamecp (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added discography to show recorded output over past 25 years. More reviews and such to come. Byoung67 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Weakly, but still. There's a lot of Google News hits to be found. Seems a sour-grape nomination. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per discography. google hits.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is not weak, article is unfinished, that's the problem. Sorellasotero (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just did a lot of format work. Moved things around, referenced the Dr. Demento appearances. The bio could use a rewrite (and doesn't need the subject's name in every sentence), but my brain's not up for the challenge today. Madamecp (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Title and Art[edit]

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

lacks notability and coverage Alan - talk 00:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ahem riffic (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Comprehensive sources are not easy to find and piecing this company's history together will take work, but this was an important Hollywood company for many decades. The 2009 Variety article already cited gives some background, and here's some samples of stuff findable on Google: A 1997 Los Angeles Daily News article calls it "Hollywood's oldest post-production operation".[17] There are multiple sources about its early days under Leon Schlesinger [18] and here is a 1964 LIFE article confirming that Pacific was still making "the bulk of Hollywood's titles" at that point. [19] A 2007 Hollywood Reporter article gives more historical background.[20] --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References are available: Pacific Title and Art Studio - IMDB, Extra credits: The history and collection of Pacific Title and Art Studio by Harris, Adam Duncan, Ph.D.. Nimuaq (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reference added. More are available. Bad nomination (see creator's talk page): call for WP:SNOW. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed a bad nomination, it seems there were no attempt to find reliable sources prior to nomination. Nimuaq (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to this article, I also think neither of these nominations by the user support WP:DEL#REASON:

( articles are created by the User:Riffic and nominated for deletion by the user:)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dash_Express - nominated at 00:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skafish - nominated at 00:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Balser Skirvin - nominated at 00:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope the nominations are valid and the above list is just a coincidence and not to violate WP:GOODFAITH. Nimuaq (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A firm that's been in existence for 90 years, successfully navigated a technological change that made its original product line obsolete, and that's been credited for the production of dozens of culturally significant Hollywood films has earned a place in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close Nominator appears to have a misunderstanding of WP:DEL#REASON, WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP. Even the most minimal of WP:BEFORE finds in news books and schoar the coverage the nominator claims does not exist. WP:GNG is met. WP:CORP is met. WP:NOTABILITY is met. WP:HEY Anyone? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skafish[edit]

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

can't find coverage or notability Alan - talk 00:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the forerunners of the 1990s ska revival. Major label band on A&M via Miles Copeland's IRS. As they were part of the 1976-82 scene, they are undoubtedly seriously covered in various guides to the new wave. See, for example, Robert Christgau's books done for Rolling Stone Press, I think it was. This article needs a good deal of editing for style, of course. But the band was influential and undoubtedly the subject of independent coverage. Carrite (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

point of note, stylistically Skafish has little to do with Ska. riffic (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A shining example of an AfD nominator who fails to understand Deletion policy, and why it should be sanctionable to fail to make a legitimate attempt to at least confirm sourcing (in both Google news archive AND other periodical databases as sources may be offline or not indexed by Google) may exist first. riffic (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources appear to exist to establish this band's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Make a Google search to see over 18,000 results. They weren't the most popular band from the class of '76 but they're certainly notable enough. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--obviously notable, as for instance a Google Book search suggests immediately. I call for SNOW. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N easily.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close Nominator appears to have a misunderstanding of WP:DEL#REASON and WP:GNG. Even a cursory WP:BEFORE finds the coverage the nominator claims does not exist. And being "defunct" does not make a notable topic suddenly non-notable, else we'd have to delete articles on such "defunct" music related topics like The Frug , The Monkey, or The Twist. Historical notability is quite fine with Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW - this was a seminal band in the history of popular music, and the article can be well-sourced very easily. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul-Alain Beaulieu[edit]

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

This article should meet WP:ACADEMIC. Tried my best to reference the article, but no dice. With greatest respect to Professor Beaulieu, I haven't been able to find anything that meets the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject test. In particular, I haven't been able to find anything about his work at the University of Toronto except LinkedIn, FaceBook and passing mentions otherwise. Please, prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I do prove you wrong by clicking on the Google Scholar link supplied above. There are some respectable cites there for a poorly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He seems to be a well-established and well-respected Assyriologist. I'm finding multiple reviews of his books (four reviews of three books, so far) which I'll be adding to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pending rescue by David Eppstein. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BeeBole.com[edit]

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

After a good-faith search for secondary sources that would indicate that this Belgian company/software product meet WP:GNG, WP:CORP, or WP:PRODUCT, I have been unable to located any significant coverage in reliable third party sources. VQuakr (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:SPAM, likely WP:COI Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to prevent deletion

1) For the notability aspect, here are some secondary references I compiled and that could added to the External links section. None of them are press release but true interviews by independant journalists:

This link is a proof of our last year selection to Google IO by Google. Google IO is the biggest Google event of the year and only 100 innovative companies are invited from around the world. It's a huge event for a small startup especially when coming from Europe/Belgium

http://www.google.com/events/io/2010/sandbox.html

This link is our participation to a startup event in San Francisco:

http://sfnewtech.com/2010/05/10/518-sf-new-tech-the-belgians-are-back-details-inside-sfnewtech-webmission/ And a video of the given presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxswD7cisW0&feature=player_embedded

This link is an interview given to the biggest french speaking newspaper in Belgium. It is related to our selection by Google to participate to the Google IO. It is not a press release.

http://www.lalibre.be/economie/actualite/article/583766/le-reve-us-de-beebole.html

This link is a summary of our meeting in San Francisco with the Governor of the french speaking region in Belgium. The story is related by the minister himself on his website:

http://rudydemotte.info/b/?p=760

This link is a recent participation as speaker for the launch of a program for innovation in Belgium. The event was organized by the Minister for the new technologies in Belgium. (Yves Hiernaux)

http://www.creative-wallonia.be/forum/les-orateurs.htm?lng=fr#Hiernaux

This link is an interview given to an independent economist journalist:

http://www.entrepriseglobale.biz/2009/02/03/beebole-une-start-up-geree-a-distance-entre-bruxelles-et-new-delhi

Those 2 links are coverage by an important Software blog called Cloudave:

http://www.cloudave.com/2255/plugging-beebole/ http://www.cloudave.com/747/beebole-and-charts-the-joy-of-apis/

This link is an interview given while in Sevilla, Spain for a promotion event for Belgian startups

http://issuu.com/jely/docs/webmission_seville_betagroup

This link is our selection n final stage to the most important startup event in Belgium:

http://plugg.eu/media/blog/p/detail/these-are-the-20-finalists-for-pluggs-start-ups-rally

This articles are covering the technical aspects of our software due to the opensource approach and very innovative technology used:

http://blog.therestfulway.com/2008/10/beebole-erlangweb-tutorial-webmachine.html http://erlanginside.com/beebole-creates-a-sample-mochikit-erlang-web-application-with-video-tutorial-51 http://www.davidpirek.com/blog/show-case-ajax-aplication-beebolecom

2) As for the spam notice, we are a legitimate company that have existed for 3+ years now. I'm a wikimedia foundation donor and we respect too much wikipedia to spam it.

3) As for the Conflict of interest

When we saw the page like the Time tracking comparaison page [21] we found normal to add our time tracking solution to this list. We are in this matter as notable as other companies in this section. If the entry in the list does not point to a company page, the entry gets removed from that list by other administrators who monitor it. The article could be adapted to be more factual for sure. But deleting wouldn't be fair.

I hope this might help.

Yves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yves Hiernaux (talk • contribs) 15:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Conflict of interest from one participant. I am also thinking that the person who created the article, while I can't prove it, is also associated with the company. Strong COI suspected here. CycloneGU (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page creator was indeed the CTO of the company. We have nothing to hide there. Again, we created the page because of the [22] page that required us to do so. We are as notable as all solutions present in that list. We tried to be as factual as we could as strong supporters of Wikipedia ourselves.

If there are changes to do, we are more than happy to have an external review pointing at the changes to be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yves Hiernaux (talk • contribs) 21:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another enterprise that designs and markets business software on a subscription basis. They make BeeBole Apps an online business application for small and medium organizations. If you caught what it does, you're faster than I am. Petty trade awards, conference presentations, appearances on Top 100 lists and the like do not establish business notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we created the page as a requirement to be mentionned on the Time tracking comparaison page [23] that page is curated by someone who knows about this specific field. He initially rejected the entry of BeeBole as it didn't follow some rules, but after correcting and checking, it was ok. It is a quite unfair process to be considered next to nothing, even if we are notable in this particular field. May be move the beebole.com article to a software stub? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Business_software_stubs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yves Hiernaux (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarang Singapore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD on this subject closed as no consensus due to lack of participation (only discussion was between me as the nominator and the article's creator); this is a speedy relisting as suggested by the closing admin. As indicated, this is an interuniversity event with no evidence of coverage from reliable sources. The only information appears to come from a primary source, i.e., an organization at one of the universities which sponsors the event. While one could argue this is a national event, only three schools participate, and there appears to be no coverage in any external publications (e.g., the Singapore Straits Times) to show how it meets WP:GNG. Kinu ^t/_c 02:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While there are some videos of the performances here, I cant find any source covering the event. Nimuaq (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable event. Keb25 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Detele. No significant coverage by reliable sources. - Yk (talk | contrib) 17:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Can Talk[edit]

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

no notability shown for this song. lacks charting, awards, covers, coverage. sourced by shops, record company, youtube, blog, articles not about song. nothing satisfying WP:NSONGS. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject does not meet the relevant criteria at WP:NSONGS. Blogs and YouTube videos are not reliable sources. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoadies[edit]

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

Randy Rhoads was one hell of a guitarist and I would normally suggest merging this article there, but I cannot find this term in use anywhere (apparently it's supposed to be like Deadhead. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced neologism that smacks of WP:MADEUP. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with Orangemike above. WP:MADEUP is the clincher here. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (CSD G4) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush Tour nancy 07:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Pictures Tour[edit]

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

Declined Prod, Prod reason was "Per WP:CONCERT unreferenced and unremarkable list of dates/venues for the tour does not confer notability for the tour." Hasteur (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some notability of this tour can be established and WP:NOTDIRECTORY is no longer violated. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (CSD G4) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush Tour nancy 08:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signals Tour[edit]

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

Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable bands don't deserve articles. Also, this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I know "boring" isn't a valid deletion reason, but I don't see that this page of tour dates from 1982 is of any interest at all really unless something happened during the tour. No references either, so there is no assertion of notability. Bob talk 10:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digging into WordPress[edit]

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

Not notable, seems like advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foofish (talk • contribs) 00:01, 27 April 2011

Delete. The current version of the article is a serious advertisement (written in the second person), but after a good-faith Gsearch for the book, I couldn't find any significant coverage. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 01:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT. CycloneGU (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sadads (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but why? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seriously, this article is nothing more than an advertisement. WP:ADVERT applies. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blood and Water (band)[edit]

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

(Manually completing failed AFD nomination) Well written article, by and large, but band does not appear to meet requirements of WP:MUS. General lack of reliable sources, band has released two albums, but are signed to minor independent label that the band's guitarist is involved in running. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page of the band's guitarist:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Band doesn't even have an AllMusic page. Band can be presumed unnotable, making the guitarist unnotable. Information about his involvement with Eden Records can go in an article about the label if it exists. CycloneGU (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QuSheet[edit]

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

Delete Could probably be speedy deleted as spam, especially given the fact that the article was written by the author of the software. But even if that aspect is cleaned up, the software still fundamentally fails to reach the notability threshold. Pichpich (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question: can we have both this discussion and the one about deleting User:Rdevelyn/QuSheet simultaneously? Or do we really need to separate the AfD and the MfD? Pichpich (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, AfDs are for articles only. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Promotional material. CycloneGU (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject does not appear notable and the article does not assert significance. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. This is advertising copy, and completely run-of-the-mill at that. Thryduulf (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising. So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dash Express[edit]

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

notibility? no good coverage as the software/project is now defunct. Alan - talk 00:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct is meaningless as notability is not temporary. I feel that sourcing on the article itself is sufficient, but others may want to do a quick look through a periodicals database to confirm sourcing. riffic (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Holy cow? There are so many coverage in reliable source, and you call it non-notable? --Reference Desker (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although a defunct software which abandoned its GPS devices, sufficient references exist for notability as part of the history of GPS and software for GPS devices. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close Nominator appears to have a misunderstanding of WP:DEL#REASON, WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP. Even a cursory WP:BEFORE finds the coverage the nominator claims does not exist. And being "defunct" does not make a notable topic suddenly non-notable, else we'd have to delete articles on such "defunct" devices as steam locomotives and covered wagons. Historical notability is quite fine with Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by original nominator. For now, clean up tags on the page will be enough. If their aren't enough references added later, I'll renominate it. Non-admin close. JDDJS (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashenda[edit]

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

Does not appear very notable. Only one reference JDDJS (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm concerned about systemic bias with respect to this subject. I suspect that a regional Ethiopian cultural festival may be under-reported in English language online sources. It certinaly exists as confirmed by this, and this. It's difficult to judge notability with this sparse information, but what little information is present appears to be verifiable, and so tagging for improvement would seem to be the best choice. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added another reference to the article and a "further reading" mention of a book about this festival, substantiating notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Smith (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable biography (or at least not notable enough) lacking sources. The kid's got a slew of small parts, the biggest appears to be a recurring role on Make It or Break It. I stumbled across this article and uncovered a huge series of un-reverted WP:BLP violations spanning several months (see article history). Searches for dedicated, reliable sources didn't turn up much. The subject does not appear to be a strong case for an inherent notability that would overcome the lack of sources. — Scientizzle 19:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —— Scientizzle 12:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is a child actor with a recurring (not starring) role on Make It or Break It. It doesn't look like Smith meets any of the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER; I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, either. Given all of this, and noting the fact that the subject is a minor, I think we ought to delete this article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (1997)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (1997)

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

Contested PROD, accidentally re-nominated for PROD. No indication of notability, no indication of who received the award. A similar article had the following comment added: Article is part of a large group of rapidly created and then largely abandoned articles. A first batch of 25 (the most egregious ones) was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1966). Most of the remaining articles are similar to the one nominated here. They are basically empty, unsourced, and incorrectly titled, so deleting them and restarting from scratch (if anyone is inclined to actually write a real article on these) is a much better option than trying to save these. The award (in 1996) was actually called "The Queen’s Award for Export Achievement" . The disambiguation of the article title is completely unnecessary. The articles for 1976-1979, 1981-1982, 1984-2000 and 2004 are all equally empty as this one, despite all being prodded in January 2011 for this reason. The article creator removed the prods but didn't improve the articles. --Fram (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Wtshymanski (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The comment (by me) added by the nominator above gives my arguments. Fram (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, No indication of notability, no indication of who received the award. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Close to speedy delete as no content. The Queen's award for enterprise itself may be notable, but it would make more sense to list winners in an article about that first, and consider a split later. I know a lot of Wikipedia pages can be considered works in progress, but a page that says nothing at all is one step too far. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator The article Queen's Awards for Enterprise covers these awards. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 have discarded the new/spa/nonpolicy based votes and all the experienced contributors boted delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TheDigitel[edit]

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

Fails the criteria in WP:GNG and specifically Wikipedia:Notability (web). There is no sustained coverage of TheDigitel.com in any independent, third party sources. The article, which is obviously written as an advertisement, has a lot of links, but none show that TheDigitel.com is "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Not to be confused with Digitel Solutions, Ltd. www.digitelsolutions.co.uk, Digital Telecommunications Philippines (DIGITEL)} www.digitel.ph and various others (disambiguation). Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" and have added multiple independent media sources to the references of TheDigitel.com including TV news, online magazine, business print, and newspaper print. --Ken E. H. (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding sources to this thread

--Ken E. H. (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are examples of trivial, incidental and routine mention. For example, four sentences at the end of a NYT article on another subject. It's not what Wikipedia:Notability is based on. Also, can you clarify whether you do or do not have a conflict of interest on this subject? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the article as it stands reads like an advert, but the website is now a reasonably long-standard news source and product of Charleson, and other southern cities, with advertisers having paid money on the site. Thus it is established as an independent news source on the web, alongside many other similar websites which have similar wikipedia entries. Looks to me like it could just do with being trimmed down and written more succinctly. Geofftech (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite any any evidence that it is a long standing news source? And the fact that some web site has advertising on it doesn't mean it should have an article about it. See Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. If you know of other articles like this which lack independent coverage in reliable sources, they should be deleted too. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not lack independent coverage from reliable sources, see above.--Ken E. H. (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another argument for including this page is that it needs mentioning in, at the very least, the local media sections for the South Carolina cities of Myrtle Beach, Charleston, and Beaufort. Having a singular page frees the need to repeatedly describe the source and it's hybrid reporting environment. Would agree this posts needs cleanup to hone in on the role and collaborative aspects of the site, I'll do some work soon and update back here. --Ken E. H. (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Since TheDigitel sites themselves serve as an independent 3rd party news source to their respective geographic regions. Therefore, finding another independent 3rd party source that provides "sustained coverage" of TheDigitel seems like a guideline that does not fit well with the function of this, or any small town, news reporting entity. TheDigitel is notable and significant in that it let's any authenticated user contribute new stories and edit existing ones. I do appreciate the need to verify articles are not for an insignificant websites and their claims can be proven. Given that context, Dennis Bratland, how can that be proven to your satisfaction? Paul B Reynolds (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable news media are mentioned by other sources all the time. Non-notable media are ignored. That is precisely how you differentiate between a reputable source and a lone crank in his basement making a web site. If you read WP:Notability and WP:GNG, you'll see that there is no assumption that any category of subjects is automatically notable. There is no assumption that every local news medium will have an article on Wikipedia. The standard is the same for all subjects. Allowing users to contribute content is in no way special. Hundreds of thousands of forums and blogs and social media do the same thing. See WP:SPS.

How satisfy the guidelines is explained in the articles I just linked to, and in Wikipedia:Notability (web). Read those pages and if there are parts of those policies you don't understand, ask a question on the talk page or here. Whether I'm satisfied or not is not of prime concern. My opinion isn't any more important than yours or than anybody else's. What matters is whether the subject meets or does not meet the criteria. Ultimately, an administrator decides whether to delete the page, and that can be appealed if you want input from more editors. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "trivial" and "no way special" are assertions of opinion. Particularly when the subject being scrutinized is of much greater notability relative to the geography of the individual judging that notability. User contributed and editable content in itself may not be unique, but the way in which TheDigitel combines this feature with hyper-local news aggregation and presentation is certainly unique and notable. It seems the original article was too self promotional in tone which has derailed into an extremely subjective valuation. Perhaps Ken E. H.'s edits will change the deletion status for this page. Paul B Reynolds (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then the argument is that TheDigitel is notable for both it's workflow and as a news source? These seem to reflect mention on the technical note.

I'm not certain on how to find external citations for regional media either. Other Charleston ones (WAZS-LP, WMMP-TV, WTAT, WSCI_(FM), Island_Eye_News, WSSX, among many more) have no references. Seem all these be marked for deletion/citation discussion as well. --JonaLeon (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The crux, I think, is whether one accepts that the PBS and NYT coverage is sufficient or not. Instructions on how to cite sources are at Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine announcements of financing, startups, and puff pieces based on interviews with the founders simply fail as sources; they are not independent, and fail to establish long term historical notability in any case. The NYT coverage is a single paragraph at the dog-end of a long story about online advertising. The fact that this is an online ad site explains why it imagines itself significant enough to merit an encyclopedia article. This kind of business just doesn't belong. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a regional media source of note and seems worth of mention in those communities' wiki pages and it's also almost notable for innovation in the web journalism scene for citizen journalism efforts and advertising innovation. Certainly more notable than the dozens of run of the mill radio station's listed in Charleston at the very least. --JonaLeon (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Due to the extreme focus on local stories and topics, these sites provide a valuable service to their regions as the only citizen driven journalism websites. Paul B Reynolds (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with the other employees of The Digitel posting here, your contributions are welcome, but it is preferable to disclose your conflict of interest when dealing with a subject like this, as explained in WP:AVOIDCOI. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a business that it exists, with paid people to produce a local news website. It exists! Keep!! Geofftech (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merely existing is not sufficient. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live for Life (organization)[edit]

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

Non notable charity organisation, non-primary references provide only passing mentions, no in depth coverage, fails WP:ORG Jezhotwells (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No widespread coverage or attention. Wickedjacob (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12: copied or typed articles of the „Donaukurier“, online access is restricted to subscribers. We're working on a free availability of the articles. -- Emanuel Rodriguez (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These sources are just brief stories in local newspapers which are reprints of press releases from the organisation. I see no in-depth coverage of the organisation here, just announcements of local events. I also note that WP:NONPROFIT requires that "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale." This is not met, the organisation appears to be active in a small area of Bavaria, Eichstätt (district). Jezhotwells (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the addition of other sources, there is nothing indicating the subject's notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article appears to be self promotion WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NONPROFIT is not met by the references cited. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Having discounted arguments concerning geographical scope (WP:ITSLOCAL), it's unclear whether the article passes or fails WP:GNG. However, as most of the article's content satisfy WP:BLP, not deleting it seems to be the sensible decision. --Der yck C. 13:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan McGrath[edit]

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

No notability for this person outside a few local news sites, with nothing significant but local interest pieces LookAliveSunshine! (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His notability, if not particularly strong, is/was clearly national so far as Ireland is concerned, even if most (not all) of the sources are local. PWilkinson (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the AfD notice had been removed from the article, I reinstated it.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is some independent coverage but I don't think it's significant enough to warrant his own article. It's local, not particularly in depth, and the achievements are pretty run-of-the-mill (two non-notable award nominations and presidency of a barely notable organization from which notability is not inherited).--70.80.234.163 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A personal celebration, seemingly. Does not seem inclusion-worthy as either a politician or an activist. Carrite (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Insufficient claims to notability. Appears to be a tribute page for local activist. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems a local activist with no inherent notability. At the risk of a pun, WP:NOTINHERITED applies to this article. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ireland as a small country relies heavily on local news coverage due to their high emphasis on local communities. The activist was a former national figure with strong public interest in his presidency. It is not usual for people of the activist's age to get such media coverage - local or national, which is why this article should be retained.

Note: I moved the above "keep" comment to its proper place. He/she jumped the queue. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He should get a mention on National Youth Organisation (Ireland) along with a list of other past presidents, but does not meet general notability threshold for an article yet. Neutrality^talk 05:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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