< 14 July	16 July >

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

The result was delete. The article does have sources, though, as people have pointed out, these centre on the view of one person. The article is about a term, and the term was first used in 2009, and despite searches, is clear that it is hardly used as yet. WP:NOTNEO does not completely forbid articles on neologisms - however, they would need to be more widely used by more sources than this one. It is possible there may be an article on this term in a year or two, and I'm willing to userfy on request. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism 3.0[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Atheism 3.0

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

not notable -Abhishikt 00:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh.. I found out later that this is first nomination of this article -Abhishikt 00:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Moved article from WP:Articles for deletion/2nd to WP:Articles for deletion/Atheism 3.0 per convention. — Jess· Δ ♥ 00:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Refs are primarily from one author, who seems to have invented the neologism. The only other source we have is from the supposed leader of the movement rejecting the term. We've also already had some support for this on the talk page, per these concerns. Simply doesn't meet WP:N. — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article subject is notable. Furthermore, the statements in the article are verifiable as they are supported by reliable sources. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The term is single sourced. WP:NOTDICT - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the term is NOT notable enough to deserve its own article. -Abhishikt 05:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge to New Atheism per WP:NEOLOGISM. Not notable enough on its own; just one proponent. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'Merge' will be giving WP:UNDUE weight to this term. -Abhishikt 02:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep: has in depth coverage in multiple sources--passes WP:N – Lionel ^(talk) 06:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There simply isn't enough coverage of the topic in true secondary sources (as distinguished from mirror sources). The subject may perhaps achieve notability in the future, but for now it comes across as pushing a neologism. About the merge idea, New Atheism would really be the wrong target, because New Atheism is about a non-conciliatory form of atheism, very much unrelated to what 3.0 is about. However, it might be reasonable to have a one-sentence mention of 3.0 in Atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's enough discussion in reliable sources to merit a stub, at least: [1][2] Qrsdogg (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is a blog; I'm not sure the "guest voices" section of a blog, "On Faith", qualifies as a reliable source. As well, your second link is referenced again to Burke, the only person who seems to ever talk about it. I'm not convinced this establishes notability. — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A scholarly reference titled Church, State, and the Crisis in American Secularism, published by Indiana University Press, which discussed Atheism 3.0 in depth, was deleted by User:Mann jess. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not deleted, reverted after you added it. As I specified, this reference only quotes our other, existing ref, word for word. It adds absolutely nothing novel to the article; We already know what Burke said about his neologism, this doesn't provide anything new. Adding multiple refs that quote the same one paragraph without commentary isn't helpful. Also, please don't go around putting your comments in "big" tags. That isn't helpful either, and only serves to emphasize your posts over everyone else's for no other reason than your knowledge of html tags. — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jess's justification for the reversion was as follows:

Please don't start edit warring here too. This reference only quotes our other ref. Feel free to take it to the talk page.

You did not bring it to the article's talk page as requested, instead choosing to bring it directly here and accuse Jess without even mentioning his justification. Also, big fonts are not appropriate on AfD as they give undue weight, so please don't use them. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I posted the comment here is to allow users here to see the source plainly since many individuals would not bother to check the talk page. Removing a scholarly source relevant to the article was incorrect because it undermines the verifiabilty of the article, especially when the template on the article suggested the addition of more reliable sources. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:44, 22 July 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. Consensus here is that cleanup is the required action here, not deletion. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mandaluyong high school[edit]

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

There is a lot of evidence that the school exits, but I could not find any third party coverage. Besides that, the article looks like an advertisement and copyvio (although I can't find that too) and totally lacks references and sources. The article is fundamentally flawed, so it is better to start an article about the school from scratch. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the reasons why keep high schools are given in the essay WP:NHS. No article is "fundamentally flawed". The way forward is to add verification sources and cut it back to a stub. Google searches are of limited us for Filipino schools because of their poor Internet presence. To avoid systemic bias ample time should be given for local sources to be found. TerriersFan (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be bold and fix it... Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools aren't inherently notable merely because they teach teenagers or offer diplomas, despite TerriersFan's campaign to convince people otherwise, but this school has actually received a little attention in multiple English-language sources, and I think it unreasonable to assume that the Tagalog (other local language) sources would have done less. It appears to be a major school. As for the article's failings—WP:Deletion is not clean up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major high school. Prune the non essential content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:38, 18 July 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'm sorry Truebloodforever but the consensus is that she's not notable yet. Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Noonan[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of 67.246.30.214. The user does not believe that her accomplishments meet the notability requirements: her Big Brother appearance only reached fourth place, and her other activities are minor. I don't have an opinion on this. --Carnildo (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable for her medical/scientific activities; I can't judge her notability for having appeared on Big Brother, but it doesn't seem very impressive based on Google News. As a neuroscientist she gets a few hits at Google Scholar, not enough for notability. As the editor of a self-named pop-health website she is not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Respectable start to an academic career with GS cites of 76, 23, 17, 10, 1 but nowhere near enough for WP:Prof#C1. It looks as she has abandoned this career for the delights of celebrity culture. She will have to find her notability there. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
DO NOT DELETE. Many other wikipedia articles on Big Brother nonwinners exist and have not been deleted due to notability, including Monet Stunson, Howie Gordon, Holly King (actress), Janelle Pierzina. Chima Simone, Ragan Fox andSheila Kennedy. If this article is removed the others should be considered. Besides 66 day appearance on Big Brother the subject of this article also won two reality TV shows, Foursome and Baggage. Truebloodforever (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC) — Truebloodforever (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Thank you for nominating this on my behalf, Carnildo. The article is cleverly written because it makes it sound like she has done more than she actually has. Generally, the rule is that ONLY Big Brother/Survivor WINNERS get articles unless someone else in the season does something notable as well. She has guest starred on two low-rated cable shows since then, and has invented an herbal supplement that is not well known. You get a wiki article after you're famous, not TO get famous 67.246.30.214 (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I'm not sure how we would judge the realitytvworld.com reference in terms of a reliable secondary source, but I certainly can't find any other secondary sources that address this person in detail. Most of the references in the article are to primary sources of one type or another. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete independent sources are lacking. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:32, 22 July 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. Specifically noting that recreation/undeletion is merited as soon as some sourcing emerges Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Kamlaben Rajobhai Patel Gujarati Samaj Homoeopathic Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Indore[edit]

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

Non-notable homeopathic "hospital" bobrayner (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

completing nomination from March(!!) - Nabla (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of third-party news coverage. Hmm, let's see I guess if a you cite a doctor as a source, then you're good! Not. If the article would be kept, it would have to be shortened as the current name is an eyesore and mouthful to read. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - degree-awarding medical colleges are notable and this one is accredited. Needs a lot of work; expanding sourcing etc but that is the way to g not deletion. We need to avoid systemic bias and ample time needs to be given. TerriersFan (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources and fails some impotant guidelines of WP:ORG. Sehmeet singh (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The best thing to do with this would be to merge it to the article on its parent university, but Devi Ahilya Bai University is a redlink. It probably is notable—very few accredited university-based schools like this aren't notable, although AltMed programs are more likely than others to fail notability—but I can't find any evidence of notability, so I think we're going to have to delete it, with no prejudice against its re-creation if someone finds independent sources at a later date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We normally do givew separate articles or the medical school of a university. As for the university, we should write an article on it also. DGG ( talk ) 13:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG; I can't find any evidence of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:30, 22 July 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. In the absence of further comments, not worth a second relisting DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neumann International[edit]

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

No indications that this company meets relevant criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Yet another human resource consulting and executive search firm advertising on Wikipedia. Referenced to directories and internal sites. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 2 notable facts about Neumann International: 1. It is the oldest and largest Austrian Executive Search firm (since 1971). 2. Neumann's CEO Serge Lamielle is Vice-Chairman of the Global Board and Chairman of the European Council of the AESC. Conrad.pramboeck (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the "oldest and largest" it should have received some significant coverage in independent press. If any can be found, that would really help. The association of the company's CEO with the company's representative industry group might be a fact to note in the article if it is allowed to stand, but hardly noteworthy in and of itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 09:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added another source which reports the company as the pioneer in the Eastern Bloc. Tomsterwik (talk) 07:41, 14 July 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, v/r - T P 22:54, 15 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance Certificate Tracking[edit]

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

Not-specifically-notable highly specific type of business-record management. Somewhere between thinly veiled spam for one company that provides this type of service and a long-term WP:NOTDIR magnet for lots of them. DMacks (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ordinarily, I'd prefer to have a business topic discussed in a general article rather than face the inevitable barrage of spammers touting their individual products. But this is a "solution" in search of a problem; most businesses that need to keep track of insurance policies use abstruse technologies like "folders" and "filing cabinets". The basic idea behind this essayish and how-to-ish article is that the effort of scanning them all in to put into a computer data base is somehow better because it's electric. At any rate, the only Scholar hit this finds is a patent; the only Books hits are something from Books LLC and something called The Black Book of Outsourcing; more proof, if any is needed, that outsourcing is the Devil's work. I would expect to find a lot more if this were a truly notable product category. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 8 July 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, v/r - T P 22:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insurance certificate tracking as a business certainly exists. See [3] and [4] for examples. But what I don't see is significant coverage about this activity that would give rise to an article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:59, 18 July 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 Planking (fad). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Owling (Game)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for games that were made up a few weeks ago Singularity42 (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. No indication of notability; nothing resembling a reliable source. Edward321 (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to planking. A variation. A RS or two, but nothing to make it standalone. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to planking. Tewner (talk) 08:07, 22 July 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! 06:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DKM Forum[edit]

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

Merge with Brunstad Christian Church. The entity does not appear to be notable in its own right. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so merge it. Why are we at AfD? StarM 00:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I am actually not proposing merging, but deletion. A mention in Brunstad Christian Church may be warranted, but it shouldn't be merged with that article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that in order to preserve history, etc. if the content will be mentioned a merge may be needed. Not 100% sure. Will let someone else weight in on that. StarM 17:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete note notable as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:27, 22 July 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. Just noting that being quoted doesn't make you notable Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Hanselman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Software developer of questionable notability. Current sources include a deadlink, a NYTimes article, and an article in ZDNet. This might sound all well and good, but the NYTimes article is about his traveling woes and the technology he uses to avoid travelling, but it's not about his work or achievements. The ZDNet article is more about upgrades to Microsoft Visual Studio. Although it quotes Hanselman, the article is not about him. The article does not appear to have sufficient notability as a BLP. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comment below suggests that Scott is of questionable notability, but that is not true at all. He is possibly the most quoted expert on Microsoft technologies and tools in the world. He does work for Microsoft, but was hired there because of his broadly recognised expertise. Among his other accomplishments are the most quoted set of interview questions for software developers writing programs with Microsoft technology. He also created the online banking technology that is (quietly) used by more banks in the United States than any other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeFrancisGA (talk • contribs) 01:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of the article (on July1) said he had retrieved an article on June 14 (about tech gurus cooking or something) which is now a deadlink. An article does not have to be online to support notability, it just has to have appeared at some time. If someone saved a copy of the article offline, or could access it in a library, he could provide some information here about the depth of coverage. The deadlink was a press release about a free downloadable cookbook with recipes by many people who work for Microsoft. The press release can be seen here from Reuters. It in no way contributes to notability by Wikipedia standards. As it stands, we have some quotes from Hanselman which the nominator says are not really coverage of him, as well as what I consider to be one instance of significant coverage in the NY Times. The AFD nominator is incorrect in asserting that coverage in the NY Times of his health, his family, and his travel habits in the NY Times is not evidence of notability, which he seems to feel must be coverage of his "work or achievements." WP:BIO does not limit notability to someone's "work or achievements." Wikipedia lists "noted" people, not just meritorious and praiseworthy people who have accomplished great things. I agree that the NY Times article's coverage of his travel habits would be an odd basis for a bio without him being notable for something else, but it helps establish notability. If some of the many articles which quote him as a tech guru say things like "he is prominent" or "the noted tech guru" that would help to establish notability as well. Determining that will require plowing through some of them. Note: The result of the last AFD was "Delete." The article was in fact deleted, then a new slightly different article was created. Edison (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I do not feel the NYTimes piece really makes a good case for keeping the article at all, because other than mentioning his job title and the fact that he travels, it doesn't support anything else in the article. The details about his traveling is not especially relevant to the article, nor do I think it is especially encyclopaedic. The fact that it's NYTimes is all well and good, but it just doesn't support information that would make a suitable article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keepWe can agree to disagree. Notability just means "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded," and the NY Times devoted paper and ink to recording what they thought was interesting or unusual about him. The NY Times material is specifically about him, and not just quoting him about some computer program, like most of the hits. There is also a tech article which [5] calls him a "creme-de-la-creme developer," a "Microsoft Regional Director" and a "Microsoft Most Valuable Professional," and says that he also is "chief architect" with Corillian Corp. His blogs have been widely cited by other techblogs and publications,such as CNET, helping to substantiate that he is well known and well regarded within his field. His own blogging does not contribute to notability, but provides personal information for expansion and improvement of the article:[6]. A stronger Keep argument would require more secondary coverage of the individual. Edison (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my mind, the subject does not at all meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. He is mentioned in the NY Times article, but only as an example of someone who works from home. This sort of mention is very common and the article is not about Hanselman at all and therefore he, himself, has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" as required by WP:BIO. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See WP:SIGCOV. An article does not have to be exclusively or principally about someone. He receives several sentences of coverage specifically about him. The dismissal that such coverage is "common" just means that a number of people get significant coverage. So what? Edison (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: The coverage needs to be non-trivial if it is to be considered significant. A mere quote, or use of the person as an example of an issue (like working from home) if hardly significant coverage. I can find examples in news articles about specific pensioners who will be impacted by government budget cuts, or specific families impacted by a certain social development or policy. That doesn't make these people notable by way of significant coverage. After reading WP:SIGCOV, I still believe that this particular individual falls short of the notability requirements. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. The NY Times article uses Hanselman as an example to illustrate their article. As such I don't see that article supporting notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scott Hanselman is notable. He is a source for many articles currently. The references show notability. for example .NET_Reflector see the second reference. Softdevusa (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited from other articles on Wikipedia. Hanselman may have made a quote on another Wikipedia page, but that doesn't provide evidence supporting notability for the biography of a living person. The second reference you mentioned, as stated above, does not provide content about Hanselman that is encyclopaedic. It states his job and some info on his family, says he travels a lot, and uses certain kinds of technology while traveling. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs multiple real sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:27, 22 July 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. Rlendog (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JM Reyes[edit]

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

Non-notable minor actor. No significant coverage in any reliable sources. The only source cited in the article has just one passing mention of him. Nothing I can find indicates that he has ever had more than minor roles. (It is perhaps worth mentioning that the majority of entries in his IMDb page are for TV series in which J.M. Reyes does not appear in the cast list, but other people surnamed Reyes were involved in some way. A good indication of how reliable a source IMDb is.) The majority of Google search hits for "J M Reyes" are for other people of that name, and those which do seem to be him are dominated by Wikipedia, IMDb, Facebook, Twitter, etc. (PROD was removed without explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find evidence of notability either. Disclaimer though: I rarely watch TV.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:51, 21 July 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. Issues regarding content disputes should be settled on talk pages, not here. Thanks --Neutrality^talk 19:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states[edit]

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

Problematic list that has been subject to various disputes. The list admits that it is controversial. It is mainly composed of (duplicates) the Member states of the United Nations with some extra territories added, such as Northern Cyprus. The criteria for deciding the extra territories is dubious as it is not based on any official list, but on personal interpretation of complex laws and definitions - which is against WP:OR. Wikipedians should not be arguing/debating/deciding what constitutes a country or a sovereign state - we should be reporting what reliable sources have determined. Suggest that useful sourced material relating to the UN list should be merged to Member states of the United Nations, and this title redirected to Lists of countries and territories. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Of obvious interest to our readers to have a list of states. The criteria is problematic, yes, but it is being revised as we speak. Nightw 20:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is proposing merger and redirection, not deletion. All the rest seems a matter of ordinary editing and dispute resolution too. Warden (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep One of the most rediculous noms I've seen in a long while. When you have a content dispute go to the talk page, if you want to merge a page (or move it) go to the talk page. You do not nom for deletion, this is an extreme proposal for a core and highly visible page that is heavily edited by commited users. Outback the koala (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking at the talkpage, I also do not beleive this nom was made in good faith and violates WP:POINT and is in reaction to a discussion there where the nominator was on the losing end of a discussion regarding the direction of the page and redirects to it. Outback the koala (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Agree with Outback's assessment of reason for nomination. --Taivo (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep AGF assuming the nominator is attempting to solve a content dispute with a deletion-request and did not realize that was out of policy. L.tak (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep If the US or any other country dropped out of the UN, this nominator would no longer consider it to be "sovereign." Likewise, a new nation does not need to join the UN to gain sovereignty. References such as the CIA databok on the nations of the world and other references can be used as references to establish whether any borderline countries are sovereign, such as "breakaway rebel-held territories" of existing countries. Likewise, some UN members have not been sovereign, but have been fictional sovereign states, fully controlled by some superpower. Edison (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: I snow-closed this, with the wording "The result was keep, under WP:SNOW. No sense dragging this out, and editors are coming a bit close to using this AfD as a platform to insult the nominator; I want to head that off." The nominator has asked me on my talk page to reverse my close, so of course I have done so.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —S Marshall T/C 08:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I deplore the use of this page to make borderline attacks on the nominator, but I also think this nomination is severely mistaken and fails WP:BEFORE. List of sovereign states is a plausible search term and should at absolute minimum be a redirect of some kind. I can't imagine how it could be thought wise to turn it into a redlink. WP:ATD applies.—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The arguement of "Problematic list that has been subject to various disputes" isn't a valid one for deletion. If it was, say goodbye to George W. Bush, Microsoft, Osama Bin Laden, <insert your sports team here>, etc. Lugnuts (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that my nomination could have been better worded. To hopefully make it clearer - I am not nominating this list for deletion because it is subject to various disputes, but because I see it as a WP:CONTENTFORK of Member states of the United Nations and along with the duplication of the UN list it contains contentious WP:OR. My intention in remarking upon the disputes was to highlight that editors are arguing over how criteria should be interpreted, and that the disputes are indicative of the original research nature of the list.

My proposal is that the content is deleted as not belonging on Wikipedia as it is a list that does not exist beyond Wikipedia; and, it is giving the appearance that such a list is authoritative, when it is editorial conjecture. However, there may be material on the valid UN list which may be worth keeping. And the title itself is a valid search term which could be pointed at Lists of countries and territories. It is not the title itself that I see as the issue, but the contentious original research of the contents. This may be a case where I see myself what I mean, but I'm not communicating it clearly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very significant difference between a list of sovereign states and a list of UN member states. UN member states are not necessarily sovereign (e.g. Belarus and Ukraine, 1945-91) and sovereign states are not necessarily part of the UN (e.g. Vatican City). This is not a content fork except inasmuch as every entry listed at lists of countries is a content fork of Member states of the United Nations. I also note that the recent disputes have primarily focussed not on what belongs on the list, but on how the list should be organised. Pfainuk talk 10:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the nominator: Are you proposing outright deletion of the page or redirecting it to something else? You stated in your nomination that the page should be redirected. Given the incoming links, this would be a requirement. But this means that your proposal is not a deletion request, so it doesn't belong here. Nightw 10:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is the sort of topic that you would be surprised not to find in an encyclopædia. As such, I think it should be kept. Could it be improved? Of course - we aren't finished yet. But let's not demolish the house while it's still being built. Pfainuk talk 10:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A list like this is bound to cause disagreements about which borderline cases should be listed, and in what way, but this is not a reason to delete it. The nominator's claim that it is a content fork of Member states of the United Nations makes little sense to me, as the article was clearly not started as a content fork, and actually seems to predate the article that it is claimed to be a fork of (though it's hard to be sure with such old articles - the incomplete edit histories and cut-and-paste moves of the early days make tracing article histories very difficult). While the two articles obviously have a great deal of overlap, they are different things, and are both worth having. (Disclaimer: although the surviving edit history starts with my edit of 12 November 2001, I did not create this article: it already existed on 27 February 2001, which was before my time. Incidentally, this means that the article was at least 10 years, 4 months and 18 days old at the time of nomination, which is probably an AfD record.) --Zundark (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Subject very clearly is not a content fork of anything. Subject being contentious is never grounds for deletion. Editors engaging in original research instead of citing sources is a prblem of those editors, not an inherent flaw of the article. Edward321 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 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. Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devplayer[edit]

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

Self-promotional article on a non-notable piece of software; no independent coverage in sources, no signs of notability. Created by obviously self-promotional single-purpose account (Meetthedev (talk · contribs)). Earlier PROD was removed by article creator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding non-trivial coverage in any reliable 3rd party sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources found - DeVerm (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search results included only places to download the application and forums discussions. There appear to be no reviews or sources covering this software in-depth. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:28, 22 July 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 - non-admin closure: nomination withdrawn. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 20:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Roman Scandal (film)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Title and text do not fit. Article is about an actress. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. Obviously an article in progress by an inexperienced editor, who is using an existing article he/she worked on as a template. Tagging it twice for deletion within fifteen minutes of its creation, while the creator was still working, and has quite plainly not finished, is not constructive editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hullaballoo - DeVerm (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep, speedy close as per Hullaballoo (...woo-hoo!) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:18, 15 July 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. The two Albert Martins seem to be notable, and have articles, but there is no evidence that this particular firm is associated with them or their family, especially since their firm seems to have a different name. Thus there is no evidence that this firm is notable, even accounting for the content that was removed. Rlendog (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Engineering[edit]

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

The article was deprodded by the article creator after adding information about a family which appears to be affiliated with the organization. While the family may be notable (and in fact one member already has an article), it does not appear that there are any reliable sources available through google and bing searches to establish the notability of the company, hence we are at AfD. This organizations appears to fail WP:ORG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 2 July 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) 01:10, 8 July 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, Protonk (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't normally relist a discussion a second time (and I forget if we've instituted some iron rule about that sort of thing) but I would prefer at least one other editor's comment on the subject before closing an AfD like this. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not agree with the deleting in the article done by the nominator. This family runs this firm and the buildings designed are notable ones... doesn't that make the designer notable? Do they play an influential role in Southern California architecture? A source should have been requested instead of just deleting that information. I agree that this article is not much at all though. I guess this AfD is not popular because of the editing done by the nominator. DeVerm (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence of notability, as defined in WP:ORG. This guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" and my search doesn't return anything that could be considered "significant". The article has been significantly culled and its difficult to determine from the article, as it stands, why it should be included in the encyclopedia. That the article is a stub doesn't, of course, make the subject non-notable, but it does make it hard to research notability when the article makes no mention of the company's achievements, structure or history. To have any chance of surviving the debate, the article would have to very quickly be enhanced with information supported by the reliable, independent secondary sources. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG – like Wikipeterproject I can't find any sign of notability. Notability is not inherited, and a firm being run by members of a family that also has notable members does not confer notability on that firm. No sign that this firm was involved with the work by Albert C. Martin, Sr. and Jr.; their firm is now called AC Martin Partners. There are many firms called "Martin Engineering" (e.g., in the US, [7], [8], [9]), and none appear notable. --Lambiam 22:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore contents The article was culled so that almost nothing is left. But that culling was done by the nominator for this AfD. The culled text is/was the only thing that could save the article for deletion. I find it highly inappropriate to first delete 90% of an article's content and then nominate it for deletion... hence the Keep. --DeVerm (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - The content DeVerm is referring to is the same content discussed by Lambiam about Albert C. Martin, Jr. There is no evidence that I was able to turn up that connected that to this firm. For those that would like to review the material in question it is available at this diff [10]. As Lambiam noted, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so that having a family member who is notable does not confer notability on the firm - particularly when it is not clear that family member is even affiliated with the firm in question as there were no reliable sources provided to state such.ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not pointing at family members for notability. I am pointing at the theater, plaza's and even LA city hall that have been designed by them. All that info was removed by you prior to this AfD. You should have done the AfD without first rendering the article useless. I might well have voted delete then. --DeVerm (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
These buildings were all designed by Albert C. Martin & Associates, the firm now called AC Martin Partners. There is no indication of any kind that the firm Martin Engineering was involved. The only connection is that the latter firm is owned by relatives of the architects that founded the other firm. In my opinion the "culling" was entirely appropriate: the information that was removed was totally irrelevant and in fact misleading, unduly suggesting an involvement of Martin Engineering with these notable architects and the notable buildings they designed. --Lambiam 13:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails pretty much every criteria. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:49, 22 July 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Sin[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, and the GNG; no relevant, nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits despite the scattered laundry lists of porn performers. No reliable sourcing says that the porn performer and the very minor wrestler are the same person; the porn performer is described as 5'7", green eyes, brunette, while the wrestler is described as 5'10", brown eyes, black hair. In any event, the combined coverage for however many performers use this almost-generic name is insufficient to meet the GNG or any relevant SNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Nom is the last editor doing significant work in PR0N, as such his views can be accepted without need for debate. Dekkappai (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of consequence found on AVN or Xbiz. Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO or GNG. I strenuously object to rewarding Nom with freedom from debate however.Horrorshowj (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to lack independent coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:17, 22 July 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.

Dennis coelho[edit]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troll (2012 film)[edit]

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

the website itself says that this is in preproduction and announcements will be made later. this might not happen at all. PTJoshua (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. It may be worthy of a paragraph on the original movie article though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OH MY GOD!!! Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Films in pre-production are not appropriate for WP. Seeing as how the only reference in here is IMDB, I'm not sure this should be merged, either. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:35, 22 July 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! 06:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Backup Multithreading[edit]

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

Lacks WP:NOTABILITY. A piece of free software that has been downloaded fewer than 800 times, the main source on it is its own documentation. While the actual software title is simply "backup", making it ineffective to simply Google, searching for the article title or for the software author's name with "backup" finds no cites that would confer notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This is not just a free software piece; it is part of the VB.NET education, much like Hello world program - DeVerm (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Code Project has over 33,000 articles; if something's mere presence as part of their education program confers notability, we're in for a slew of articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but I did not state that being listed by the Code Project article is my reason, did I? You are now trying to say that this article is just like every article on the Code Project which is not the case; this article is about a VB.NET program that was made as a spin-off from a Code Project article --DeVerm (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

If you want to save this article, make an actual case to keep it. It is part of "the VB.NET education"? Which VB.NET education? So far, we have it as a rarely-downloaded piece of software on one website. Do you have some sources conveying notability? You compare it to "Hello world", but for that I can have gnews bring up hundreds of hits for the Hello World program. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to make a case for saving this article; I only have to show that this AfD should be closed as a Keep because the reasoning in your AfD is flawed. I do understand how that happened because the article isn't GAN material... but an article that needs improvement is not an article that must be deleted. Renaming this article might well attract some new editors to work on it. I propose "Backup (VB.NET multithreading explained)" because it is about both the backup utility and multithreaded programming. Just like that Hello World is about both that program and the programming language in which it is implemented... explaining the syntax of the PL --DeVerm (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

So your proposal is that we we make this article about two topics so that we can shoehorn in a topic with notability problems? That does not seem to fit in with Wikipedia structure. And no, the Hello world program article you linked to is not both about the program and explaining the syntax of any programming language. The article says that Hello World programs are used to explain the syntax, but the article itself does not explain the syntax of program languages. And the Hello world program does not have the notability problems that appear to be at play here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of the Hello World article is not correct IMO. I read this:

Using this simple program as a basis, computer science principles or elements of a specific programming language can be explained to novice programmers. Experienced programmers learning new languages can also gain a lot of information about a given language's syntax and structure from a hello world program.

This is the opposite of what you claim it is --DeVerm (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

??? I say "The article says that Hello World programs are used to explain the syntax", you show the article saying just that, and use that to claim that it's the opposite of what I say it is? --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out since I'm being told I disrupt Wikipedia by FuFu and we can't have that. --DeVerm (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I find your point about the number of downloads quite irrelavent in that the article is a classic example of multithreading coding in VB.NET using Object Oriented Programming. If your focus is emperical then consider the article has been viewed nearly 81,000 times. It teaches "multithreading" in VB.NET. Just like "hello world" but more advanced teaching on multithreading and VB.NET. The article is the subject, the Backup program is the by-product. And like most good definitions the article and subject teaching separates itself from more classic examples by the fact that it is demonstratable with a useful program called "Backup". This is absolutely essential when defining and teaching a concept like multithreading, OOP and VB.NET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howartthou (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is a lack of clarity about what the subject of the Wikipedia article is supposed to be.

If the subject is multithread coding, then the article both needs to be retitled to reflect that, and much of the content will have to change, although the Code Project article might be used as a reference
If the subject is the Code Project article, then the Wikipedia entry should be renamed Multithreading Backup Utility (the name of the article) and be substantially rewritten (its introduction says its about a piece of software, and it uses an infobox appropriate for a piece of software rather than for a piece of prose. More vitally, we will need to establish its notability by citing significant third-party sources discussing the article, or noting its influence. The mere claim that the article has been read more than 80,000 times is not sufficient; if that's what it took, we'd end up with entries about every article in the New York Times.
If the subject is the software itself, then will need to establish its notability by citing significant third-party sources discussing the software.

I appreciate that you think the Code Project article is good and useful; that does not, however, bring it to the level of notability required of a Wikipedia article. (To quote WP:BK, "Notability" as used herein is not a reflection of a book's merit.)

--Nat Gertler (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. --Carnildo (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about "the New Your Times" is a bit harsh. You should consider this is a specialised subject and that relatively speaking there are not that many VB.NET students or professionals in the world. I agree the entry could be renamed Multithreading Backup Utility and the introduction/empahisis revised. But your point about "Notability" also seems harsh, again you must consider the audience for this subject matter is limited and while the article may provide a useful example and definition I get the impression that unless something is popular it just ain't good enough for wiki. Can't say I agree with your poiny around popularity a.k.a. "Notability". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howartthou (talk • contribs) 23:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the WP:NOTABILITY guideline, then I think that this particular deletion discussion is not the best place to raise it; it's one of the key guidelines in the English language Wikipedia, and your concerns about it should probably be raised at some more central location. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence it passes WP:GNG. User:DeVerm is known for making WP:POINT-violating votes, and is again going it here. He should probably be banned from wasting administrator's time, but in the mean time, he should just be ignored. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh, that is nice of you; what happened to WP:AGF? Also, pls enlighten us all and show where my editing and/or WP involvement was ever brought to any board. My slate is clean my friend and it's you who should study WP:POINT again and stop your unwarranted personal attack. --DeVerm (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

For what it is worth regarding notibility, if you read the "forum" comments at the end of the article (at the Code Project web site), it should be evident that my work has been used as a published source to create similar backup software and is also likely to have been used as a template for authoring new threading software using OOD techniques in the article. Unfortunately those "students" of my work are not likely to have published a reference to my work. It should be obvious however that the article itself is a learning aide and that the Code Project is actually referencing my work, which I published from my laptop to the code project web site. The code project in this context is the publisher..--Howartthou (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All, I have just "moved" the article to Multithreading Backup Utility and changed the emphasis and also added some "notability" for your feedback.--Howartthou (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should apolgise for "moving" the entry, I did not read the deletion notice properly until just now. Hope this link helps: Multithreading Backup Utility Howartthou (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)--Howartthou (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howartthou, thank you for revealing your conflict of interest in regard to this topic. The external links you have added are primarily forum postings, a form of self-published source that do not indicate significant notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oy Vey, since when did "conflict of interest" as a term become wikipedia specific?? And where is the notability of this new wikipedia specific term called "conflict of interest"? I am sure wikipedia is full of terms and definitions ("conflict of interest" being a perfect example of wikipedia itself inventing terms without notability. The article now meets wiki requirements better than many existing terms in wiki I am sure...I suspect you are being hypocritical. --Howartthou (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other articles which you feel may be in violation of policies and guidelines, I recommend that you raise those issues on the talk pages of those articles. If you wish to make vague accusations against me, I suggest that you use my talk page; you will find a link to it at the end of this message. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i have yet to understand your discrimation against forums as a notable reference?? I also do not understand how a forum posting is "self published". I did not publish these references, other people and experts did that, I don't even know them. Please clarify, I read the wiki defnition and still don't see how the references are "self published". By the way, I did not intend to make accusations against you, and if I did it is by want of a better choice of words. Everything I have said here I believe relevant to the definition in question. I don't think I need to be redirected to other areas of wiki. I am responding here to this article, as per its purpose, I remain unconvinced regarding your notability point and do not wish to digress from the purpose of this "right of reply" to your proposal to delete his entry. I believe I have revised the article in accordance with your concerns and wiki requirements. --Howartthou (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discrimination against forums as a source of reference is not mine; it is listed specifically in WP:SPS: "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources" (emphasis added). Basically, anyone can post any fool thing on a forum; with little or no gatekeeping going on, it doesn't suggest that what is said is either accurate or of import. To use one example, one of the links you added was to this entry on a Deep Dictionary forum, where a junior member named "eneas" pasted a copy of the article, and it received no responses. Is "eneas" some expert? Some bot? You? Add in the facts that no claim is made there about the article - its usefulness, its importance, or anything but its source - and that the forum entry has gotten zero responses, and that it's on a site where no one has posted anything in the past eight months, and where the purposes of the forum is obscured (they tell you to read the FAQ, and the FAQ is blank) and I'm at a loss to see how that could be by any definition indicate notability. -Nat Gertler (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Nat, that (Deep Dictionary) wasn't the best reference I agree, in fact it is probably the worst, but it does not mean it has not been viewed numerous times, nor does it mean that it wasn't used to find the original article. I agree that particlar reference is quite weak on appearances. But definately not "self published", and certainly nothing to do with me. Regardless, I have done all I can to respond to your concerns, I don't think there is much more I can do, and not much more I can add to what I have already said. --Howartthou (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources to establish notability and what is present in the article fails to meet what would be considered reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG / WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:48, 22 July 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umenosuke Izumi[edit]

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

Article is about an actor lacking coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. It appears that he has played some monsters in a few Japanese monster movies. The Japanese wikipedia article lacks sources but lists a couple of more acting credits. Searching for the name in Japanese didn't turn up anything that appeared to be a reliable source. Whpq (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one liner. ~~none of his films~~ name doesn't show up on IMDb on the credits of the films cited. Funny thing the article shows a link to this discussion as a redlink even though it's here. Glitch? –BuickCenturyDriver 14:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The appearance of the redlink is an artifact of page caching on the server. See WP:PURGE. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's fixed. –BuickCentury Driver 15:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Unsourced BLP with no means of verifying notability. --DAJF (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:22, 22 July 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! 06:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B'Robby[edit]

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

article fails to establish notability - the article fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP and WP:RS - all references in the article are from unreliable sources. Amsaim (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, refs do not establish notability. Hairhorn (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After careful review, article QUALIFIES to stay on wikipedia for the following reasons. 1. It meets the Verifiability WP:RELIABLE, 2. it meets all criteria for Notability Please see and compare to article WP:NRVE, WP:GNG, WP:BLP and WP:RS. Finally all references in this articles are from RELIABLE SOURCES, please refer to WP:SOURCES and WP:NEWSBLOG as clearly indicated in the article. Please see article's Reference List! B'Robby

In your own opinion, what establishes Notability if I may ask because the refs clearly establishes the subject's notability. If you still challenge this, research the refs, kindly discuss and suggest instead of deleting. Please read WP:DONTBITE--Dawizard47 (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the notability guidelines, it's not a matter of my opinion. Hairhorn (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 'references' are mostly very brief promotions for a single - using what looks like the same wording in some cases. The subject "is currently working on his debut album". In other words, he may be up and coming but he doesn't look to me to have arrived as of date. Appearing with someone who is allegedly notable (but DJ Buzzle - why do they pick these idiotic names? - isn't notable enough for an article here, it seems) doesn't cascade notability down. The so-called R&B / Hiphop scene is more promiscuous than the jazz world. Everyone appears on someone else's recording at some time. (And people who aren't in this scene appear in it when their work becomes sampled...) I wish the lad luck in his career, don't get me wrong. But he isn't up to scratch for an article here yet. Peridon (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist in question is notable in Nigeria. The associated artists, DJ Buzzle and Terry tha Rapman are well known musicians in Nigeria as well. The page has been edited to conform to all Wikipedia criteria and all forms of "promotions" have been deleted. Please also note that he is one of the few artists apart from Cobhams Asuquo with the ability to perform with a disability. --Dawizard47 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not much help adding references for 'Terry tha rapman' - this would be of use if we were discussing an article on him. We're not. Whatever notability he has is not relevant here. We need references for this subject that are not mere mentions or offers of downloading something. Coverage. This means an article somewhere reliable that is written independently and actually discusses B'Robby. As to disability, there are and have been other blind artists. 'Not many' does not necessarily equal notable. Notably there have been Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder, to name two. Neither of them would have merited an article in their early days. If this artiste is so notable in Nigeria, how about proving it? Even so, you must look at WP:BAND for the standards needed. That's the easy way. To show that someone who fails them really is notable can be done. But you've got a hack of a job on your hands to do it, and references like the current ones are not the way. Peridon (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, we have Category:Blind musicians with 182 pages...and that's just this one particular disability. Obviously that's nowhere near comprehensive. Frank | talk 00:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V.--Huh direction (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability; sources not reliable jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At least for now due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice to an article in the future when has developed a notable career but that hasn't happened yet.
Delete reliable sources are needed. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:39, 22 July 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. In a case like this policy requires the keep side to produce sources and not just assume they exist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SomersTotalKare[edit]

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

While this company may possibly be the continuation of a possibly notable business (Walter Somers Material Handling), it manifestly fails the General notability guidelines. As always, my best wishes to this enterprise, its owners, its managers and its employees. Shirt58 (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand your viewpoint but this is a business with a multi-million pound turnover and well over 10,000 items of installed equipment in the UK, most of which have a five-figure valuation. This business supplies major customers in the UK bus, coach, waste collection and haulage sectors and cater for the lifting needs of the UK MOD. As well as these blue-chip national accounts, STKare also caters for small independent garages from Inverness to Plymouth.--Kingswinford92 (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This business apparently makes small non-truck lifts and pallet jacks. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of media coverage. I didn't see anything pan out on both Google and Yahoo except for some YouTube videos. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that there is actually a lot of media coverage in industry magazines where the business is a prominent fixture most months. The comment above about pallet jacks; SomersTotalKare make lifts for buses, trucks, coaches and forklift vehicles as well as transmission jacks, axle stands and other ancillary items. The page is achieving around 250 visitors per month. I know to you guys that figure probably seems minimal but those are 250 people who are using the page as an important reference on the history and infrastructure of the company. This is a business that was previously the world-leader in the field but very little of the history of the firm is recorded online, or is so fragmented that it is impossible for someone to guage the full picture. This page has brought together all of those online elements as well the internal records of the business and it is my view that it providing a key service for those wishing to know more about a UK Market-Leader.--Kingswinford92 (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no signficant coverage about this company to establish notability. I appreciate that their may be offline sources available, but there are none referenced in the article, and quite frankly, the paucity of material I found in my owns searches don't even hint at meeting Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having a nice business and getting many passing mentions in trade magazines doesn't WP:GNG make. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:41, 22 July 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.~~ Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. This close was overturned at deletion review here. lifebaka++ 00:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Native American women[edit]

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

A recent afd indicated a similar kind of page to be categorized and then deleted.

The difference I see between this page and that page is that a Native American is a porous definition that involves ethnicity, while an African American has more to do if you look African or not. Another problem with List of African American women is that many ethnicities cross the US borders, and such an intersection of ethnicity and polity seems spurious.Curb Chain (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CLS tells us that we don't delete lists to give preference to categories. Warden (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you explain this afd then?Curb Chain (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR Wikipedia is not a list

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.[3] Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not:

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.

This needs to be deleted per this policy @-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 16:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see this as a particularly notable intersection, Native American Women Writers, Artists etc. would be fine but simply a list of Native women in general doesn't seem enough to justify a list. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Provided this list remains perhaps re-listing the article with this title "List of "Notable" Native American Women" or some similar title might be considered. I believe women should be spelled with a capital "W" not in lower case as in the title given. It is possible some might take offense at the lower case spelling. Supporting links within the Wiki to verify notability might be encouraged as well. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the purpose of categories. Such a list is unnecessary when they can be tagged into categories. This solves the problem of making a separate page where we have to verify the notability, when tagging pages into categories is more efficient because the page is already verified to be notable, so all is needed is category tagging.Curb Chain (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why exactly is this list being nominated for deletion for? The Wiki is not a list but it contains numerous lists [11] by necessity as navigational aids [12] for its users. This list being and example. Neither is this article a directory (WP:NOTDIRECTORY) Both categories and lists are available but they have very specific functionalists [13], the list being "user friendly" while the category is primarily a linking tool within and for the structure of the database. Relegating this list to categories will be sending it to the "basement", so to speak. Im going to quote from here [14]

"Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the complementary work of their colleagues to be deleted just because they overlap. Doing so may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system. Additionally, arguing that a Category or List is duplicative of the other in a deletion debate is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. Also, lists may be enhanced with features not available to categories, but building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list—deleting link lists wastes these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive. When deciding whether to create or avoid a list, the existence of a category on the same topic is irrelevant."

Source Wikipedia

The Wiki must include notable items (WP:note), in this situation people. This is the control that limits the amount of content contained within lists. Those that are not noteworthy should be removed from any list, including this one.

--User:Warrior777 (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We simply can not have a list for every category. Turning this list into a category does not put it into the basement because categories have their own pages. This is not necessary: by putting the categorytag on to the notable individual's page, it automatically registers that page on to the categorypage. This becomes a list itself all that is adequate.Curb Chain (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly good list, with notable being assumed, as always in such lists. No reason not to add it to the tile, of course. All that is necessary is that an item have a Wikipedia article or be very obviously qualified for one, and that the Native American status be clearly shown and referenced in the article. Ideally the reference for that should be copied over, but in most of the instances here for historical figures it is perfectly obvious. A list and a category serve complementary functions, for browsing and for suggestive articles on a topic A category can not give context; a list can. Lists that give no context at all should be improved, but this list doers give the context, for area of notability and usually date and tribe. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, every page on wikipedia is notable. Why should they have a list AND a category? A category is all that is needed. No, not even for historical figures is that perfectly obvious: consider people who are not familiar with american history. The date and tribe is trivial and unthematic.Curb Chain (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Maintaining both the list and the category involves double the work. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per NOTDIR, as a "List ... of loosely associated topics". No indication why the intersection of "native American" and "woman" is so interesting (i.e., notable) as to warrant a list. Sandstein 10:28, 23 July 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. No prejudice against creating the redirect suggested below, if anyone feels that would be worthwhile. Rlendog (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS 4[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Play Station 4

Articles for deletion/PS 4

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

As per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Nik thestoned 09:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to above, it's all unsourced speculation as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure speculation. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and has no references whatsoever Warburton1368 (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. There are actually several pieces out there from reliable sources, but their content is very poor as everyone is just speculating, and there hasn't been any announcement made. It is even too soon to incubate - frankie (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to Phantasy Star IV: The End of the Millennium as PS4 already does. It is too soon and even it this is kept a rename to something like Next Sony Console or something else like that should be used over PS 4 since no official name has been even close to being announced.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect per 76.66.188.209. Existing article fails WP:CRYSTAL. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete - Per everything stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skullbird11 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Warburton. --Veyneru (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow please.Naraht (talk) 21:44, 18 July 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. Various suggestions for improvement short of deletion have been made. Sandstein 10:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of museums in the United States[edit]

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

This is just a shell around ((ListOfMuseumsByUSStateTOC)), which is itself a navbox rather than a table of contents. There are two possible solutions here: deleting the article and converting the template into a proper navbox for transclusion on appropriate topics, or deleting the template and transmogrifying its current contents into a list article at this title. A somewhat nonstandard use of AfD, but as one or the other will require deletion we might as well have it here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not seeing any reason to delete. The title seems a sensible one which should remain a blue link. Warden (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. Would that you actually bothered to read an AfD before copying your boilerplate response to it. There is no doubt that we could have an article with that title, but the question is what form that should take. If I'd had more sense I'd have taken this to TfD instead and hopefully bypassed this nonsense. Anyone else care to read the presented options and give an opinion on how to move forward here? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to delete the template and add the links to the list. We have Category:Lists of museums in the United States, but the list can provide additional organization, by separating the by-state lists (or other geographical lists; I think there are a few that aren't statewide) from the by-type lists. And I don't see any point to slapping that rather bulky template on every list in lieu of merely a "see also" to this list and a category tag for the U.S. museum lists category. Someone with more time than I have right now should look at comparable lists of museums in other countries to see if there's a good example that would show this list's potential. postdlf (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR Wikipedia is not a list. @-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 16:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transmogrify into a list article looks like the better solution to me, I tend to agree with postdlf's reasoning above. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good discussions on talk page about why the Lists of Museums in the US were developed & formated the way they are currently, see here & here. Talk pages from other Lists of Museums refer to this talk page about formating, as seen here. This article also preserves a lot of copyrighted info about the development of such lists from before this article was broken out into separate state articles. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revert waay back to this edit in early 2008, before the clumsy template was added. This works well as a "list of lists" and while the template is handy in some circumstances this article is presented better without the template. Them From Space 09:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - I support this recommendation. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep looks good to me Stuartyeates (talk) 23:45, 22 July 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promet Steel JSC[edit]

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

Declined PROD: concern = Non notable subsidiary of a larger organisation. Sources provided are purely promotional. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs sources beyond companies' own website. The Interior (Talk) 21:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of media coverage. My Google and Yahoo search didn't find any notable mentions, the close mention that seemed notable was simply a BusinessWeek company address. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 17 July 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! 06:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Machi decolonization[edit]

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

Original research (one edit summary suggests it's a student essay), I can't find this discussed in the academic literature mentioned. Not sure what the numbers at the ends of sentences represent. Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret - it seems to be unsalvagable OR. We have an existing article Machi (shaman) which covers the topic generally, however this article looks like a college essay arguing an OR perspective on the effects of decolonisation. A nicely written essay, and the editor would make a good addition to the community. Still, rules is rules. Manning (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice essay, but agree with both Manning and the nominator that it is not suitable for inclusion as an ecyclopedia article. It represents original research and, based on my own brief investigation, the article cannot be salvaged by rewriting it using reliable secondary sources, because there don't appear to be any. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. original research Stuartyeates (talk) 23:36, 22 July 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-prub[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP, non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, zero mentions online outside of this article and its mirrors. Prod contested by IP sockpuppet. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Gurt Posh - I'm a bit puzzled as to why you didn't just leave it as a WP:PROD. The contesting of a prod (by anyone, IP or registered user) does not mean it automatically gets to go to AFD, it simply becomes something for the reviewing admin to consider before taking any action. I suspect most admins would agree this article is a speedy candidate. (I've voted now so I can't speedy it myself.) Manning (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Any contested PROD must be sent to AFD, and not simply have the PROD added back; see WP:CONTESTED. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as something made up in one day. Google returns 6 hits, two related to Wikipedia and 4 non-English. There is no such thing as "Neo-Prub." Hoax. Carrite (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NEO. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as complete horse-hockey. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 18 July 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ClassyMenace[edit]

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

A "House Music Producer, DJ, Remixer and Label Owner". Has released two singles and some remixes. No references in the article and unable to find any. Bgwhite (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without a major label affiliation or some "hits" to work with, this artist does not meet notability at this time. The Interior (Talk) 21:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 18 July 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! 06:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Moore (rapper)[edit]

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

A rapper. First album will be released in fall 2011. Has released only three singles. Believe this is a case of Too Soon. Bgwhite (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable at present. Manning (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage to establish ntoability; hasn't released an album yet. No prejudice to recreation in the future if he gets a notable career but at this point it isn't. -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Young Money Entertainment. The artist has released a few singles but he is not notable enough to have an article of his own. Just redirect him to the label is signed. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 01:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreation of article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil Twist. Editor also reverted the redirect on that article. noq (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think the previous commenters looked sufficiently into the sourcing issue, and/or are not as familiar with hip-hop--Moore probably actually meets the standards of the general notability guideline, or at the least he is close to doing so. First of all, Lil Twist is on a very "important" label, owned by the biggest star in hip-hop (whatever we might think about that it's just true). He guested on Lil Wayne's 2010 gold album I Am Not a Human Being and is slated to be on Wayne's forthcoming, and much hyped, Tha Carter IV. [15] [16] He is pals with Justin Bieber, and has unsurprisingly been getting press over a collaboration they are working on. [17] [18] [19] Beyonce likes his mohawk [20] (you made it dude!), and he is currently on a tour presented by BET's 106 & Park, which is significant in the hip-hop world. [21] All of this stuff is being covered by music news outlets. Perhaps most importantly, he was one of XXL Magazine's 2011 Freshman Class, which means he was profiled by that magazine (see here). XXL is one of, if not the, most influential hip-hop magazines, and their "Freshman Class" issue is much watched in the hip-hop world. Simply being featured in that issue arguably pushes one into notability, but when you combine that with the fact that he is signed to Lil Wayne's label, has recorded with Wayne, and is going to release a single with Justin Bieber, I think this guy passes the notability bar (I'd never heard of him before really, but this ain't my kinda hip-hop). This article would need to be rewritten (it's a promo now) and really it should probably be called Lil Twist, but obviously that's not a reason to delete. If prior commenters wander back here I'd ask them to reconsider their position, and it might also be worth relisting this given that some additional info has come in late in the discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm still on the deletion side. Being signed to a notable label does not establish notability. I think there will be an article about him in the future, but I don't agree that the coverage now is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though just to be clear my argument was not that being on the label established notability, rather that that detail is relevant to the overall evaluation of how notable he is. Without the XXL piece I would probably be a weak delete, but that is very much a big deal in hip-hop music circles. I just checked out of curiosity and of the 10 other "freshmen," nine of them have Wikipedia articles, including some who also do not have an album and probably have less press than this fellow. I'm not making an "OTHERSTUFF" argument here at all, just pointing out that a formal profile in XXL mag contributes significantly to one's notability in this particular genre. Again this is a point which likely would simply not be known by folks who are not fans of hip-hop. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The reason I pointed out the issue the label is that point 5 of WP:MUSICBIO would have him notable for putting out two releases under Young Money (which hasn't happened yet). -- Whpq (talk) 19:48, 22 July 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. This seems particularly appropriate given the expansion of the article with sources since it was nominated for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juncus effusus 'Spiralis'[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Juncus effusus 'Spiralis' (2nd nomination)

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

Contains no information not on parent page Juncus effusus - only a horticultural forma, not a separate taxa Michael Goodyear (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs to be expanded, but it is a very notable and widespread cultivar that has been classified previously as a form (which is a taxon) and a variety (also a taxon). Besides, notable horticultural cultivars are certainly worthy of having their own articles. Instead of putting effort into nominating for deletion, search through google scholar to expand the article. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable cultivar as can be seen from investigation of the "Find sources" links above. For example, it is covered in detail in this Missouri Botanical Garden article Unusually for a cultivar, it even has its own common name - "corkscrew rush". As Rkitko mentions above, it needs expansion, not deletion. Melburnian (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information in this article duplicates the material on Juncus effusus f. spiralis in the parent article, which makes this article pointless. There is no indication that the cultivar is notable enough to have its own article. Previous debate on WP:WikiProject Plants a few years ago suggested that most cultivars are not notable enough for an article, and most cultivars do not in fact have articles (see, for example List of Grevillea cultivars). The appropriate action is to expand Juncus effusus#Cultivation and recreate this article in the unlikely event that that section gets too big. -- 202.124.75.202 (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: recent changes to the article now suggest that this cultivar is notable. -- 202.124.73.168 (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've expanded the article and added references. Melburnian (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know little about botany and taxa-related notability, but this article now satisfies GNG. I was under the impression this is a non-notable cultivar, but it appears to be a notable one with enough information for a stand-alone article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note recent consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Revision_of_Project.27s_Scope_and_Goals that hybrids and cultivars should have articles if notable. As per Melburnian and others, this one is notable. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 02:29, 18 July 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drowning Fish[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band. This article has been here for three years with no improvements to indicate notability. The article was deleted once before. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability; and no indication that any of the [[WP:BAND] criteria are met. -- Whpq (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources are primary, and no evidence supporting WP:BAND per above. Article creator was surprisingly cool about having his page deleted in the first nomination. Too bad it didn't get any improvement since then. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm pretty sure that the first AFD is for a different band of the same name. -- Whpq (talk) 19:06, 22 July 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. There is no policy that playing for junior international sides confers notability Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Kobylanski[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he might fail the formal requirement of WP:NFOOTBALL which due to his age is a given. But in view of his age and record (playing in 2 national teams) and national media attention I think he is passing WP:GNG. More articles focusing on the lad will be around Agathoclea (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL, so the question rests on WP:BIO. Playing for national teams of two countries at very junior level, isn't actually that unusual these days. The club I follow has had two that I can think of in the last couple of years, both of whose WP articles were deleted pending their passing WP:ATHLETE, Semih Aydilek at AfD and Alpa Ozturk by prod, and at least three more who played for one nation at junior level and another at senior. This article contains no references to coverage in independent reliable sources. The 2½-year-old piece in Bild mentioned above by Agathoclea says the subject played for Poland U15, didn't make the Germany U15 39-boy group, but might in the future: I'd guess it wouldn't have been worth a mention had he not been the son of a very well known Poland international footballer. I've had a quick look for "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", but can't find anything above routine sports journalism. Hence delete, and recreate when and if he does something worthy of note. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. He has not played in a fully pro league, so the fact that he fails WP:NSPORT is not in dispute. All coverage of him so far has been trivial meaning he also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Andrzej Kobylański, since there are reliable sources covering this player, and the article as it exists now would not be overly long for a "personal" section within a notable athlete's article. Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 22 July 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 both. Rlendog (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ranko Pesic[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it fails the criteria stated above. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - both players fail WP:GNG, and neither has played in a fully pro league or for the Montenegrin national team meaning both fail WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per GiantSnowman. Tooga - BØRK! 12:42, 20 July 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. according to the clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Siemon Allen[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD. Fails WP:ARTIST. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable South African artist [22], [23], there's a possibility to compile a decent article about him. Allen is perhaps not as famous as Rembrandt, however, he meets our notability guidelines and the information contributes to our comprehensive coverage of African visual arts. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable enough in their home country. Manning (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most of the coverage in Google News is behind pay walls, but it is quite evident that his work has been part of multiple exhibitions that have attracted critical review; and include reviews that contain critical commentary specifically about Allen's pieces. For example this. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please make a good faith effort to follow WP:BEFORE, like looking for sources, before nominating an article, especially a BLP. Artists who have been the subject of independent reviews and whose work has been displayed in several exhibitions certainly fulfills WP:ARTIST criteria. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks good to me. Better footnoting and more wikilinks needed. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:37, 22 July 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. according to the consensus and the references DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sverre Malling[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD. Article fails WP:ARTIST. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What attempts did you make to find sources for the article and what did you find? There appear to be several items of significant coverage from a Google News search.--Michig (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:ARTIST is actually rather stringent and a strict application of the guidelines makes notability hard to achieve for a visual artist. I think, however, that there are enough sources to establish that this individual is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". There are multiple articles in Norwegian-language publications specifically about Malling and his work and, on balance, I think these help him just "fall over the line" of notability. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fulfills WP:ARTIST criteria #4:

The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Sources about his solo exhibition can be found here:

Review of Solo Exhibition at Gallery Haaken, Oslo
Gallery Haaken's own info on the solo exhibition
Solo exhibition of his art at Lillehammer Art Museum (in Norwegian)
Solo Exhbition at the Kunstnerforbundet (Artist's Association) in 2010, translated to English

His work is also been represented at group exhibitions:

Also, I implore the nominator in the future to read and make good faith attempts to find sources as per WP:BEFORE. If you are unsuccessful in doing so on another AfD, say so in your nomination. Don't just cite a WP page. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks good to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:38, 22 July 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 consensus below is overwhelming that this is a highly notable topic with sustained international coverage and international consequences with lasting import. No BLP issues that cannot be addressed by normal editing and discussion have been identified. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article current violates WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. Until such time as these particular items are addressed, this article should be relocated to a user space or the incubator. Avanu (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Reminder - Although this is under an 'Article for Deletion' template, the options offered in the rationale include Userfication and Incubation, not just a straight Delete. -- Avanu (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep (Provisional) Maybe delete the article if the New York State's Attorney's office deletes the case, in a manner of speaking -- you people delete too many things, it is well known. 4.254.80.111 (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The size of this article gives undue weight to it as compared to other sexual assault case filed this year as it looks unlikely to proceed to trial it should be merged to Dominique Strauss-Kahn where it should be covered in no more that two or three paragraphs. On the matter of WP:BLP it is a club being used by both sides to keep out information that they don't like. Mtking (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think WP:NOTNEWS is applicable. WP:BLP is certainly a problem, but the subject is clearly far too significant to simply delete the article. We just have to do as well as we can to balance the BLP concerns. Does anyone really expect a different result than the very recent other AFD? Dingo1729 (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Effects of the event went beyond DSK's personal life and reputation - it led to the selection of a new IMF director and to a shakeup in the impending French presidential election. It's also more than likely that this will be discussed and analyzed for some time, and in journals and books rather than the daily media, but even without speculating on this, it passes WP:EVENT (and is not NEWS) because of these national and international effects. BLP issues can be dealt with through normal editing rather than deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Roscelese. Key facts of the case and subsequent events have historical significance and could not be incorporated into his bio without undue weight. It's worth adding that among the NPOV issues was explaining the "economic impact" the arrest had, which came from extremely good RSs, but they were summarily deleted and replaced with pointless IMF election trivia, along with a "perp walk" image.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Maintaining NPOV has been a nightmare and it will only get worse as the case proceeds if it goes to trial. I do wish users who vote "keep" would contribute to the article from time to time, if only to see what it's like. Currently the article serves no purpose other than to note the latest twists in the case that support or one other of the parties. Plainly, as Avanu says, the article repeatedly violates WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. Another editor in the Talk has commented that an article like this shouldn't be allowed so long as BLP guidance for ongoing legal process remain so slack and I do agree. FightingMac (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This case seems much the same as Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange or Lewinsky scandal. The nomination fails to indicate the way in which this article necessarily violates WP:BLP or WP:NOTNEWS - see WP:VAGUEWAVE. The proposal to move the article into user space would not be deletion and is contrary to our editing policy which expects us to work on articles in main space. Warden (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you quote also says "This principle is not as broadly endorsed for biographies of living persons. While such articles are also allowed and expected to be imperfect, any contentious unsubstantiated or patently biased information in such articles should be removed until verified or rewritten in a neutral manner."

Hence, the exception here. The expectation is that editors can edit without getting into edit wars over BLP material. If this isn't possible, then trim the article to a length that is factual and incontrovertible and move the editing over into the incubator (which is a part of the editing process, like it or not) or into a userspace, until such time as it can stand as a article without having to continually edit war over it. -- Avanu (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's incontrovertible that the New York Post claimed that maid was a prostitute, and was sued for libel as a result. It's also incontrovertible this side-lawsuit, was reported by the Associated Press [24], and so carried over by many newspapers. (The Post also declared they stand by their allegations after being sued.) It's also incontrovertible that one editor edit warred to remove part of that information. [25] So, what's the course of action to take here? Delete the whole article? Butcher it, so it's incomprehensible? FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Wikipedia is not a news outlet. There is no timeline for us to include all the details that you might consider relevant. As long as the article is accurate, it could simply be 1 sentence and be fine. Naming someone as a prostitute sounds like both a BLP concern and a WP:REDFLAG ("Exceptional claims require high-quality sources"). The emotionally-laden word "butcher" as you say, is merely evidence of an emotional attachment to this article, and should not sway editors in deciding what content is worth including. My goal in the AfD is that either the kids stop arguing over the toy, or we take the toy in the other room, and people learn to act accordingly. -- Avanu (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfortunately this is a highly notable event, particularly with all the twists and turns. Wikipedia does have articles on current events, which will inevitably be unstable as the event unfolds. When matters are resolved in real life and all the dust has settled, the content could possibly be condensed and merged into the main BLP, but that is unlikely to be for a while. Mathsci (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, plainly when the process is settled (either through the charges being dropped or as a result of a trial coming to completion) the events will deserve a separate article. What it doesn't need is an article describing the ongoing process. In fact if you look at the viewing figures you can see that the article isn't viewed very much, possibly only by the half dozen or so actively contributing and their mums. But there have been times when the POV bias has been severe and at least one outrageous libel which was allowed to survive for a week or more. In my view Wikipedia just has to get better at policing this kind of article (and in general to get a lot lot better at combating polite POV advocacy) before allowing them loose. FightingMac (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not about editor conduct or about settling content disputes, but on whether such a current affairs article should exist at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is partly about both those things because these articles attracts editors whose conduct is dubious and they get away with it because there aren't presently effective timely content resolution mechanisms in place for realtime BLP events. An unscrupulous editor can keep a content dispute rolling on for days, even weeks, which is just not satifactory for articles like these. FightingMac (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these comments about editors relevant? Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because regardless of intent, news based articles nearly always end up with editors POV pushing one way or another. John lilburne (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough like this article, the French article was locked from editing for a week at about the same time because of problems with edit warring. [26] But again editor misconduct cannot be used as grounds for deletion. Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Single event in life of notable person - made large only because it has been a slow news period <g>. WP is not a newspaper, nor is WP a soap opera. Right now this article is a BLP disaster in the making. Let's merge it, and make it the reasonable single paragraph it merits at best. (It has less than 1/20 the news value of Lewinsky, which had major political repercussions, and I am unsure that Lewinsky merits a major article) Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is an astonishingly US-centric view. For all that was written about the Lewinsky affair, it was ultimately trivial with no serious consequences. The DSK affair is more important. It has already had major effects on the upcoming French elections. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or move to user space. Currently this is a news event which gets pulled each which way from Monday to Sunday according to the prevailing OP ED's. At some point we'll know whether there is a case, and if so whether he is guilty or not. Until then bin it. John lilburne (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; if it goes fully to trial and if there is subsequent fall out from that it may be notable. This started as a content fork, and we've worked very hard to keep it focused and BLP policy compliant. In the last week or so a determined effort to slander the housekeeper has begun - not by the regular editors but by new SPA's. The content they inserted is now being discussed and I am concerned we are facing BLP problems sneaking in during the normal editing process. This should never have been split, and several editors would not have had to waste so much time keeping an eye on things had it not. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We recently had another similar case HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan where we had a developing artice while the trial was takin place, a few concerns were raised, but we managed it without serious problems. Even if charges are dropped soon this is still a notable controversy. PatGallacher (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if it is really true that Wikipedia cannot have an article on this topic because of BLP issues (I'm not sure about that, but just assume that this is the case), then it seems to me that rather than putting this article on AFD, the BLP policy should be rewritten or even put on MFD. Count Iblis (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most notable political/prosecutorial scandals in recent times, it prompted significant political fallout and commentary in high quality media outlets of multiple countries. Notable as an extreme media circus/trial by media if nothing else. I trust that we can work out a version that deals with the BLP issues, though it obviously won't be easy. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that merging this article with the larger DSK article would add undue weight to that section. There is much more involved in the case that simply his personal involvement (aka the ramifications.) Is it possible to semi-protect the page? That could help the stability problems Cshaase (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with my rationale unchanged from the previous AFD. BLP issues should be dealt with through editing, and are not cause for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two AfDs within such a short period of time are inherently abusive. There should be ample time between nominations, more than a few months, let alone a couple weeks. In addition I must reject this attempt to use AfD process to whitewash BLP concerns. Let me reiterate once again and as strongly as possible no honest reading of WP:BLP could possibly be construed in any way to prevent us from having a well-sourced and neutral article, even if the information contained in those sources is not terribly flattering. BLP most emphatically does not say we cannot have negative information. Sources here are overwhelming, importance is being talked about in multiple countries in several contexts (what this says about the US justice system, what this says about French culture that a vast majority of people think he should be returned to power, what it says about his supporters that some attacked his accuser for coming forward). HominidMachinae (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose in the AfD was not to abuse the process, as you can tell, I have not previously participated in the article, but to encourage the editors to work cooperatively or move the article to a place where contentious debates will not affect the Mainspace. -- Avanu (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing about BLP that says we can't have a well-sourced neutral article, but we're not doing too well at that so far.Kevin (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's right HM. But the fact is that the article from the very beginning has had serious issues with POV advocacy. Right now it's under full protection because of edit warring trying to include the recent New York Post allegations about the housekeeper. So the issue I suggest must be whether Wikipedia presently has adequate resources (and guidelines to operate under) to police articles like these. I suggest it hasn't ( the current full protection status is proof of the pudding) and so long as it doesn't then we shouldn't be having articles like these. FightingMac (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the article has problems, but we don't remove articles just because they're fought over. Otherwise we'd have articles on every nation on earth with the exception of Israel. This needs serious work and a lot of consensus discussion, but deletion is not a way to solve content issues in my opinion. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you get down to it the I/P articles have problems mostly related to the piling on of reportage of newsy events. That method of article construction is inherently biased. It is the same here in the instance DSK bad, pile on critical and salacious articles about him and drag his family into it. Now it is housekeeper bad, drag salacious articles about her in to balance it up. Crap process, crap result! John lilburne (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. Replace the current article with a stub and have interested collaborators work together on a draft in another namespace. We'll need an article about it, but there's nothing that says we need a comprehensive article about it instantly, and I believe trying to comprehensively cover the case in near real-time has done more harm than good. The draft could be moved in to replace the stub once it has attained some stability. Kevin (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable. No reason for merging or deletion. Also a new AfD after such a short period is abusive to me.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not in question, please provide a rationale in keeping with AfD rationale. Also, if you are implying bad faith, please provide evidence. My rationale for the nomination is given in further detail above. -- Avanu (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable. No reason for merging or deletion.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not in question, please provide a rationale in keeping with AfD rationale. -- Avanu (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BabbaQ. This is a joke right? -c c 08:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor has few edits, and started on Wikipedia on 3 July 2010. Collect (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you care why? --c c 14:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, whoever closes this may well care, indeed. New users popping up at AfD discussions who have little editing background, and who show sudden familiarity with AfD processes, may often be discounted as to value ot !votes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop acting as if it is in any way difficult to find out how Wikipedia process works. New users are not illiterates. -c c 16:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke !vote? -- Avanu (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote is no joke. I was calling your nomination a joke. -c c 09:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Qrsdogg. So soon at AfD again? Did they give him back his job at IMF making this affair of no long term consequence? FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least Merge. I would like to point out that among the quazillion editors in favour of keeping the article, only Wikiwatcher1 is actively involved in editing the page. The few merge or delete nominations come from people who are actively involved in the tp discussions and editing, as John points out somewhere above, initially the POV was "ooh the dirty rich Jew" and now it's "ooh the lying, Black, married to a drug-dealer maid". So, difficult to maintain correctly as people just drop by and go "well it was published in an RS so we must publish it". As noted here, there and everywhere Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece to amplify every bit of information that finds its way onto the Internet (even if in RSs). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Of all the statements you just made, the only one that is correct is the spelling of my user name, the others, ie. recent editors are wrong. If you need support for that fact, simply pick one you made and put it on the article talk page. Why you'd post a reasonable talk page topic and now turn it upside down is beyond me. BTW, for other editors here, 95% of any so-called "edit warring" related to this article has been isolated to the the Talk page. Only a few, relatively minor issues, were ever warred about on the article itself during the last few months, the most recent being about a lawsuit by the DSK accuser. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being a poor article is most assuredly not a criterion for deletion. Deletion is for articles that have literally no hope, and cannot possibly exist without failing core policies. HominidMachinae (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming what you say is true (but it isn't), that's an argument for blocking a bunch of editors, not deleting the article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize the censors have such wiki political clout, so I change my vote to... FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia cannot have decent article on this with all the wikicensor wannabes running loose, apparently with the direct support of the wiki Supreme Court, the ArbCom. It's hopeless that this article will ever be anything more than Soviet-propaganda-censored version of what's in the New York Times [27]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The head of the IMF had to step down from his post because of these accusations. This case may have stopped him from becoming the President of France, and thus may have had major implications on French politics and history. This case also brought to attention issues with the American "perp walk". There seems to be no question that it's historically notable enough to merit it's own article and should remain. As to the BLP debate, it seems that it has already been resolved in mediation. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The political impact this case has had is readily apparent, DSK resigned from the IMF, and did not run for the French presidency. The way the media covered the case is another aspect which is being discussed. The media coverage is not mere reporting, but consists of massive political analysis and critique, and is thus far beyond anything which WP:NOTNEWS is supposed to prevent. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for being highly notable. The article will settle down once the case ends.Red Hurley (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not in question, please provide a rationale in keeping with AfD rationale. Shouldn't have to continually repeat this. -- Avanu (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a significant event influencing the recovery from the debt crisis in Europe, the election of the next French president, plus some issues related to racial, gender and social relations in France and United States. Hektor (talk) 09:33, 20 July 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) 00:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom Song Inc (Raymond Terrace Buddhist Centre)[edit]

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

Article previously speedy deleted. This version has been prodded with that prod removed by article creator. Only secondary reference is still on talk page, and goes to a local news article that barely mentions organization. Google search returns no secondary mentions. | Uncle Milty | talk | 03:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability has not been established. Claims of being the "first" Dharma centre seems contentious, seeing that the article is apparently about a group that meets at a local YMCA, not an actual centre. I think its unlikely that no other group of Buddhists has ever existed in that city. - SudoGhost ™ 07:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been established. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:46, 22 July 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 Zidichov (Hasidic dynasty). We have to conclude this eventually, and I think the best compromise is to merge, per Yoninah, whom I ask to do the necessary. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshaya Labin[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 18:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With all respect for the rabbi, but it seems from this article that he is not a noteworthy person. Debresser (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given "He heads the Zidichover yeshiva", can we apply WP:PROF? Joe407 (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that is enough to meet PROF or any other notability guideline, but is there a reliable source independent of the subject to show that it is accurate? J04n(talk page) 14:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable, but online sources in English or Hebrew aren't so available. If the sources I added aren't enough, we could merge both Yeshaya Labin and his father, Naftali Tzvi Labin of Ziditshov (who is also unreferenced) back to Zidichov (Hasidic dynasty), which is also sorely lacking in sources. Yoninah (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Delete. I'm agreeing with Roscelese's comments on this one. The references being added to both this and the Naftali Tzvi Labin of Ziditshov pages are from Geni.com, which anyone can update, and Yiddishtech.com, which I can't seem to open but which I'm sure is more of the same user-updated material. Without books or articles, there is nothing to build these 2 pages on, and therefore their notability is not verified. Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge per Yoninah. Chesdovi (talk) 16:54, 4 July 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) 00:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Naftali Tzvi Labin of Ziditshov is no longer unreferenced. -- -- -- 22:27, 11 July 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources attest only existence, they don't even pretend to attest notability. Fails WP:PROF as a) the Zidichover yeshiva is not a "major academic institution" and b) he inherited the position from his father, rather than being "elected" or "appointed." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into father, Naftali Tzvi Labin of Ziditshov.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a waste of effort as the father doesn't seem to be notable either Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both Yeshaya Labin and his father, Naftali Tzvi Labin of Ziditshov into Zidichov (Hasidic dynasty) per Yoninah and Chesdovi. -- -- -- 20:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Probably the best solution, though Zidichov (Hasidic dynasty) isn't referenced either. Yoninah (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one. OTOH, I think Zidichov (Hasidic dynasty) could be referenced: [28]. --Chonak (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I added some more references to Zidichov (Hasidic dynasty). -- -- -- 23:00, 19 July 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. Courcelles 00:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Dattatreya Akhara[edit]

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

Not notable Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 16:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not proved. No cite source, could not find any significant coverage. » nafSadh did say 17:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 29 June 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, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found two references in Google Books, and there is a very strong presumption that reliable sources exist in other languages. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Searching regular Google for the exact phrase "Dattatreya Akhara" returned only 450 or so hits and the Hindi "दत्तात्रेय अखाड़ा" barely over 200. I was throughly unimpressed with the English material pulling up; while the existence of this Hindu monastery is confirmed, that's pretty much about it. My own sentiment is to have an extremely low bar for monasteries much like we have a low bar for religious training institutions. I can absolutely appreciate the contrary view that there are few if any substantial sources out there about the monastery itself, at least in English. Still, in my opinion this should be accorded the same sort of treatment which we accord religious seminaries in the West — which is to say, a low notability bar as a school. Carrite (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Cullen and Carrite above. Enough information to establish notability, however, article needs to be properly referenced. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:11, 10 July 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:51, 15 July 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. No consensus to delete, although many agree that editorial improvement such as merging or renaming is appropriate. Sandstein 10:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle chic[edit]

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

Almost nonsensical. The article lacks any real direction, deriving a large amount of body text from a very partial history of cycling, which has nothing to do with the lead text. None of the sources have anything to do with what the article is about. If all the unusable stuff were to be stripped out, we'd have a colloqualism, better fit for Urban Dictionary than for Wikipedia. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one. I agree the current article is incoherent, and that 'cycle chic' is a term that doesn't seem to warrant a separate encyclopedia entry (though it might be worth a section in a broader one). But the 'History' section includes useful sourced content that perhaps could form part of an article on cycle clothing (note that h2g2 has an article on this topic), so I'm reluctant to simply delete the article and lose this content. Qwfp (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or Merge into List of chics~~ I've now changed into renaming to Bicycle fashion and allowing the article to change to a more wider topic as per below. I stumbled upon this article a while ago, where it was miserable to say the least and added ((fact)). Later I've tried to find reliable sources and expand it a bit, to be honest it has been very tricky and I must admit I have somewhat given up on the article. The article seems to be revolving to much around copenhagencyclechic.com and it's author (Mikael Colville-Andersen who most likely equals User:Coolville), which I admittedly is a regular reader of, but doesn't provide enough with for it to carry an article on its own. It may be merged into List of chics, but I think that that article is borderline ((Cleanup-laundry)). --Heb (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is almost nonsensical as the claim that the sources have nothing to do with this topic seems absurdly counterfactual. For example, the Guardian article is clearly about the topic of "cycling in fashionable everyday clothes". This topic is clearly notable and, while the article is far from perfect, it is our clear policy to persevere. Note also that the matter has been discussed previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle chic. And as for chic and List of chics, those articles seem quite poor, being far too concerned with word usage than the underlying topic of fashion.
- I note in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle chic, that it was nominated with "Contested prod. No references. Seems to be a protologism" and that there seemed to be a majority towards deletion of the Bicycle chic article, though you went "bold and spared us further effort by merging in the content from the article under consideration here". I wasn't aware of this AfD, but in retrospect I actually like User:Rividian's suggestion of renaming to Bicycle fashion, as it is quite hard to find sources regarding the term cycle chic, that are not a part of the idealistic purpose of bicycle advocacy (which is quite obvious since the term is trademarked by a bicycle advocacy organisation). --Heb (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--I'm agnostic between cycle chic and bicycle fashion, but the content should definitely be kept. Meelar (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Cycle chic−What does fashion have to do with transforming biking from a recreational pastime to a way of life, Cycle chic is wearing normal clothes, often with a fun twist, instead of sport cycling apparel and Cycle chic is also all about your bike being harmonious with your apparell! —Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bicycle#Social and historical aspects. "Cycle chic" is not an established neologism, and there's not enough coverage of bicycle fashion for an entire article. —SW— ^confess 17:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep altho leaning towards renaming it Bicycle fashion, as a compromise that would take the longer view. We could surely use a bicycle fashion article - according to the The Berg Companion to Fashion, "Since the introduction of the bicycle to the general public, bicycle clothing has influenced everyday fashion." [29] There's already some ref'd fashion history in it. As it is, it's too long to be merged into the bicycle article and there are definitely many more bicycle fashion sources out there. Much more to be said in detail about bicycle fashion and rational dress, including Bloomers [30]. Then there's bicycle messenger fashion trends, which don't usually use the word chic. That said, I think the current cycle chic trend could be expanded enough to stand on its own, as you can see it now references dedicated NYTimes and The Australian pieces along with other ref'd mainstream media mentions. A Google search for '"cycle chic" fashion show' alone yields 67 pages [31] (I have a feeling it would yield a lot more in other languages). But it could wait till that aspect is expanded and it's time for a bicycle fashion article. Novickas (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cycle Chick for other reasons, Cycle Chick alone yields about about 1,650,000 Google results, that's over a million and a half hits. Cycle Chick is not about bicycle fashion but about transforming a largely recreational pastime to an integral part of our transportation system, aka; commuting with flair in these more bicycle-enlightened times—Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree there is enough coverage in reliable sources of the Cycle chic movement on its own to justify a stand-alone article. Just that I'd be sad to not have a bicycle fashion article. But that could be hashed out later at the talk page. Novickas (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification from Novickas: Do you think of "bicycle messenger fashion trends" as a sort of cycle chic thing? If I understand the subject correctly they are in fact two very different styles of bicycle clothing trends? --Heb (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My take (which is WP:OR at this point) is that they are quite different. A Guardian article entitled 'Cycling is officially chic' says '...bike-style bloggers...share a belief that the stereotype of an aggressive cyclist in Spandex shorts and wraparound shades does a great deal to harm the concept of cycling...' And a YES! Magazine article entitled 'Cycle Chic Around the Globe' opens with 'Forget the Spandex'. [32]. Where bike messengers definitely wear/wore Spandex. But a casual search didn't turn up anything directly comparing the two styles. More OR is that the messenger bags are still in style. Novickas (talk) 13:34, 15 July 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:49, 15 July 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. No argument for deletion advanced, SK 1 Courcelles 00:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Senthilkumar[edit]

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

-Subash Chandran ⁰⁰⁷ ׀ sign! 03:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep No reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 15:33, 16 July 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.

Withdrawn Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purefoods-Swift rivalry[edit]

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

say what? what is this? sounds like some hoax ... food? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The rivalry really exists in the Philippine Basketball Association. Although the article lacks sources, this basketball rivalry happened during the early 1990s in the PBA. Purefoods is currently named B-Meg Llamados and Swift is named as the Pop Cola Panthers before its disbandment in 2002. The title just sounds like a hoax, since all of the teams in the PBA are named after corporations. -WayKurat (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Alright — withdrawn. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:40, 15 July 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 based upon the rough consensus below, and the policies and guidelines referenced. The points regarding the "in universe" coverage and the applicability of those guidelines do have merit, but have failed to reach any definitive conclusion and were not supported by later editor's contributions. This argument was overridden by the lack of significant coverage to meet the general notability guidelines. Delete. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buran Origin of Death[edit]

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

It is cited story - maybe interesting, maybe important for Buran people but it is not article, it is summarized story. Bulwersator (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google Books finds no mention of the words "Buran" or "Burun" in the source cited in the article.[33] Phil Bridger (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be OCR failure Bulwersator (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - name of lizard was found Bulwersator (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was a good idea to search for the name of the lizard. A Google Scholar search leads to this document written by Roger Blench that shows that this is part of the culture of the speakers of the Bura-Pabir language. This might still be rescuable, but I don't have the time at the moment to look into it further. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book found and linked to is Introduction to mythology: contemporary approaches to classical and world myths, written by Eva M. Thury, Margaret Klopfle Devinney, and published by Oxford University Press. A notable university published it, so I assume the information is not in doubt. This important part of a culture's belief system is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Dream Focus< rewtspan> 03:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is (probably) notable. But now it is not article - it is ~~(probably copyvio)~~ summary of story Bulwersator (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any reason to think that this is a copyright violation, as the snippet that you linked above is not worded similarly to our article, and an encyclopedia should contain a summary of the story - how else could it be informative? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, it is completely rewritten. But this article should be about story, not story summary Bulwersator (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reference named in the article (Introduction to Mythology) takes the story from Albert D. Helser (1930). African Stories. Fleming H. Revell. ASIN B00085TXLO. The foreword by Franz Boas calls this book a "collection of Bura Tales". The story itself is given the title "The beginning of Death"; it starts on p. 192. The term "Bura" also seems to appear in Introduction to Mythology on p. 88. (Unfortunately, Google books gives us only snippet views for either book.) --Lambiam 23:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unless information on the topic can be found beyond simply that WP:ITEXISTS and a plot summary, per WP:NOTPLOT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unless information on the topic can be found beyond simply that WP:ITEXISTS and a plot summary, per WP:NOTPLOT, per Hrafn. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Plot was for fictional books. It does not cover any religion. It is encyclopedia to list the beliefs of different groups. Dream Focus 23:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between 'fictional' and 'mythical' doesn't really affect my point, or the fact that such material is WP:NOT encyclopaedic. It is encyclopedic to discuss "the beliefs of different groups" -- it is not encyclopedic to simply "list" them -- wikipedia is no more a database of legends than it is a database of song lyrics. Substantive WP:SECONDARY analysis and commentary is required. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources do not require analysis; they just have to be "one step removed" from the original. The sources provided are secondary or even tertiary. Warden (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with DF on that - however, that said, an article that relies too much on the primary source is likely going to fail WP:V and WP:N and could be deleted. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 11 July 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. We don't even know what "people" we are talking about. The Bura culture of Burkina Faso (cited in Phil Bridger's above comment) was discovered in 1975, but African Stories by Albert D. Helser (cited above by Lambiam) was published in 1930. The town of Buran is in Somalia, and is not considered a distinct ethnicity. The story may be interesting, but despite the alleged rescue effort we have nothing but a recapping of the tale, and it now appears unlikely that we fill find much else. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The people are documented in detail in Tribal Studies in Northern Nigeria. Warden (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source that I linked above clearly establishes that this is about the existing culture of the speakers of the Bura-Pabir language, not about the unrelated prehistoric Bura culture discovered in 1975, or about any Somalian town. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is also documented in the Encyclopedia of world mythology and so is obviously encyclopaedic. The article just needs work per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not much of a mythological story but there are some worthy references. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the arguments behind the 'keep' !votes have done nothing more than establish WP:ITEXISTS for the legend and the language group from which it apparently arose. This does not come even close to demonstrating that any (let alone "significant") WP:SECONDARY coverage exists discussing this legend, as opposed to the mere recounting of it (which is WP:PRIMARY coverage). This means that notability has not come even close to being established. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Others disagree with you, as often happens, about the notability of an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy. Dream Focus 10:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And denialism doesn't change the factual nature of my statement. Lacking facts to back up their assertion, their 'disagreement' amounts to nothing more than a bald WP:ITSNOTABLE. Wikipedia is also WP:NOTDEMOCRACY -- so it really doesn't matter how many disagree with me, if they cannot come up with a substantive factually-based argument.
Where's the secondary coverage? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a plain fact that sources such as the OUP's Introduction to mythology: contemporary approaches to classical and world myths are secondary. Primary sources in this case would be the verbatim myths, as told in the native language, or the field notes of the anthropologists who recorded them. Warden (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a plain fact that" a simple recounting of a narrative is a WP:PRIMARY source. Such a direct recounting is neither "at least one step removed from an event" nor "making analytic or evaluative claims about" the primary narrative. Functionally, they are primary, so claiming that they are secondary is simply WP:WIKILAWYERING. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's primary, secondary, or whatever is not what matters here. What's important is that, by simply providing a synopsis of the subject and no deeper coverage, the source is certainly not acceptable a "reliable independent source that provides significant coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source, by definition, is the starting point - the original material of a topic. In this case, the Introduction to mythology gives its source. This is not the original but an entire book — The Origin of Death: Studies in African Mythology. So, the primary source is the original mythology. The Origin of Death: Studies in African Mythology is a secondary source and the Introduction to mythology is a tertiary source, being a pedagogical introduction to the entire field. Now the complaint is that we just have a narrative here. But that is not a reason to delete as we can do more than this. The Origin of Death is a book of 178 pages and so contains plenty of material which we can summarise. This will be done by ordinary editing, not by deletion. Warden (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mere reproduction (or aggregation) of primary-source content does not make a dependent work secondary on a topic (if it did, a 'Collected Works' collection could be considered to be secondary -- which is clearly nonsensical). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an account of the book The Origin of Death in Two Themes on the Origin of Death in West Africa. This confirms that we are just scratching the surface currently and there is much more ordinary editing to be done with the topic. Warden (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blunt rebuttal: the cited source explicitly states that The Origin of Death "did not analyse the tales themselves" (only their geographical distribution). As such, it provides no secondary coverage relevant to this topic. I would therefore request that Colonel Warden refrain from misinforming this AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and detailing the geographical distribution of such myths is secondary analysis. If that source did not perform textual analysis, this is irrelevant. The topic has clearly received scholarly notice and it is up those scholars how they choose to frame and report the matter. Warden (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Useful for an article of Death legends in West Africa perhaps, but not for an article on a single legend. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As we cast our net wider, we find more sources such as The origin of life and death: African creation myths and Myths of the creation of man and the origin of death in Africa. This seems to be a well-studied field which merits good coverage on Wikipedia. In fleshing out this topic, our editing policy is to build constructively upon the first drafts rather than to delete them. Deletion in such cases is disruptive because it discourages editors and destroys the work-in-progress. Warden (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complete and utter nonsense: using the 'search' facility available at the cited Google Books links to those two works suggests that they offer no specific information on this particular legend. Instead of his reflexive and boilerplate citation of WP:IMPERFECT (which contrary to his repeated pipings is NOT the sum of our "editing policy") I would suggest he read WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability instead -- they are far more relevant to the matter at hand. As to WP:DISRUPTION, I would suggest that it is (i) utterly irrelevant (as it explicitly applies to edits, not a WP:CONSENSUS) & (ii) ludicrously WP:POT, coming from an editor as notoriously disruptive as the Colonel. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:No original research is not relevant because this is not an original topic. We know this because there are several respectable sources which discuss and detail the topic. WP:Verifiability is therefore satisfied as we will be able to cite these sources, as needed. In determining how to proceed, the applicable policy is editing policy which states, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. ... At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.". There is much work to be done here but deletion is neither helpful nor necessary in this. Warden (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Perfection is not required". I suggested deletion because "it is not article", not because "it is not FA article" Bulwersator (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lack of coverage beyond the primary source. By the looks of it, the only source found for this is a book which includes the plot of the subject. Religious death myths are certainly by no means inherently notable, and arguing that a book containing the plot counts as significant coverage is quite frankly deceitful. If the only coverage of a novel was a plot synopsis in another work, we absolutely would not find it notable; the exact same logic should apply here. Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shades of the plot synopsis of the Iliupersis (for which we have an article) ... Jandalhandler (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. Yes, it looks like our article on the Iliupersis is largely synopsis, but unlike this subject, a quick google search confirmed that there are ample sources that delve into a deep analysis of it. Apples and oranges.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe I am missing sth but it is hard to violate wp:PLOT when "Only ten lines of the original text of the Iliou persis survive." and entire content section is from secondary sources Bulwersator (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would suggest that before editors include sources either (i) in their arguments here, or (ii) in the article itself, they are in a position to substantiate that the source in question discusses this specific legend, per WP:Notability and WP:Synthesis. Such care seems to have been lacking to date. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The numerous substantial sources which have been found in the course of discussion indicate that we should expand the scope of the topic to cover the many myths of this kind. We might develop the article to resemble flood myth, for example. Such work would be performed by ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense: the topic of this AfD is Buran Origin of Death, not 'every conceivable related topic' -- particularly where there would be little or no overlap in material. Yes, an article on Death legends in West Africa could probably be written -- no, it would most probably not contain the recap of a single, non-notable legend, that is the sole content of the current article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources treat this particular myth alongside other myths which are similar in content and/or geography and so it would be sensible for us to build towards this structure. Our editing policy is to develop constructively rather than to delete. Warden (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And? I can link multiple things, but still it is not an article Bulwersator (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Colonel "editing policy"^{no -- that's actually just WP:IMPERFECT} "our editing policy"^{no -- that's actually just WP:PRESERVE} Warden fails to acknowledge is that our FULL editing policy at WP:CANTFIX explicitly calls for the removal of "material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia", which explicitly includes "Summary-only description of works". Further, he has not explained how the current article, which as I have explained above, contains only a recap of a single, non-notable, legend, would provide a basis for an expanded topic. I would therefore suggest that CW's arguments are getting quite blatantly tenuous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not material which is fundamentally inappropriate. We have large numbers of articles of this kind on Wikipedia - see list of creation myths, list of world folk-epics, Lists of stories, &c. for numerous examples. As scholars have written books and papers about this and related myths, there is much scope for expansion and improvement and so deletion would be disruptive. Warden (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically CW is right: this material is not inappropriate for an encyclopedia article ont he subject. What he continually fails to understand, however, is that the material being appropriate for a potential article absolutely does not make it mandatory for the article to exist unless it can be first proven to be notable. And that requires sources that say more than "here is what happens in this story." Jeez, by his logic, Wikipedia would have any entries on every old wive's tale and urban legend; I'm finding plenty of collections of those that tell the story but provide no deeper analysis.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of this particular myth has been demonstrated by the citing of several reliable sources which include it. Warden (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have "large numbers of articles" in wikipedia on stories for which published discussion, explanation and analysis exists. That is NOT "this kind" of article -- which is a mere capitulation of the story. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those articles are better and so provide a good target for us to aim at. For example, see Enûma Eliš - a Babylonian creation myth. That article is well-developed and so naturally includes a substantial recap including a lengthy quote. This demonstrates that such material is expected in an article about the topic. Achieving such a level of quality is not achieved by deletion. This is the explicit point of our editing policy - that we are tolerant of faltering starts and weak stubs because they may be expanded and improved by further work over time. Deletion would therefore be contrary to policy. Warden (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is mere WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT (including boilerplate tendentious piping) of the point I made at 10:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC). Unless secondary material can be found to discuss, explain or analyse this story, its mere recapitulation is neither notable for a stand-alone article, nor noteworthy for a wider topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"We have large numbers of articles of this kind" (therefore it is notable), "we have large number of BLP" (therefore I am notable) (cofused? See Proof by contradiction) Bulwersator (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulwersator seems confused. Notability is established by the provision of reliable and independent sources and this has been done. The suitability of the content for Wikipedia is established by showing that we have lots of similar content of this kind elsewhere and this has been done too. There is therefore no policy-based reason to delete on either ground. Warden (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "lots of similar content of this kind" I just demonstrated that it is untrue. "lots of similar content of this quality" is more likely to be correct Bulwersator (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "this has been done" Is it joke? Source that needed comment "Source makes no mention of the Buran myth, and this specific myth is a very imperfect match to the general form described " Bulwersator (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are no coherent, policy-based arguments for deletion. The argument that an article about a mythological subject is governed by the standards for commercial fiction is ridiculous. It is perfectly fair, logical, and sensible to believe that encyclopedia users looking up such a subject will often be interested primarily in the "in-universe" content of the myth (to use the inappropriate label in lieu of a better one). Whether such articles must include commentary, comparisons, analysis, etc, or whether such material is better incorporated into broader subject editors is a routine editing decision, analogous to the divisions between Britannica's Micropaedia and Macropaedia, not bearing on deletion. The "primary source" argument is particularly flimsy; the primary sources here would be the mythological texts themselves, whether written or simply transcribed from oral-traditional accounts, not scholarly accounts of those text. The parallel would be court transcripts as juxtaposed with news reports of the trial. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:IINFO section on "Summary-only description of works" DOES NOT apply only to "commercial fiction" -- it explicitly applies to "works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like". Your attempt to negate arguments that arebased upon this relevant policy is therefore unavailing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That section lacks consensus. It has always lacked consensus, having been sneaked onto the page originally and just defended by edit-warring. The attempt to extend it to non-fictional works lacks consensus even more, being under discussion there now. In any case, policy is not imposed as diktat by whichever fanatics manage to control that policy page. Per WP:NOTLAW, "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. ". It is clearly our accepted practise to have articles about myths, legends and folk-tales, as listed above. Warden (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which, given that NOTPLOT was cited rather than IINFO, is hardly a refutation, but bringing in a new argument. And it's completely and obviously wrong here, because this isn't an article about a nonfiction work or a particular "religious text." Instead, what's at issue here is the summarization of the relevant content from a reliable source which discusses the article subject. That's called a "reference", and the last time I looked, consensus was that references are good. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really attempting to impeach my argument on the basis of what shortcut I used, when the text linked to is the same? ROFLMAO! In any case all narratives have a plot, be they "commercial fiction" or legend -- so it is not clear that even the shortcut was inaapropriate. Now if you're quite finished nit-picking, we can let the AfD proceed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was pointing out that the substantive discussion was framed in terms of plot summaries, which applies only to fictional works, and that pointer is intended to refer to the text which deals with plot summaries and cites the MOS. Until your comment, no one had suggested summaries of content from reliable nonfiction sources were inappropriate, and I expect it will be a long time before anyone else makes that extraordinarily silly argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that My Family and Other Animals lacks a plot? How extraordinary! (I certainly seem to remember there being one when I read it.) And whilst summarising sources is the bread and butter of Wikipedia, a summary (be it a plot summary, précis or synopsis) of a work that is the topic of an article is clearly insufficient for even a stub of an encyclopaedic article on the topic. Whether a topic is fictional, or not, and commercial or not, does not affect that point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, plain as day, I'm saying (not merely suggesting) that the text which reads "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary. For more information regarding plot summaries, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries" refers only to fiction, which I would think is self-evident. I'm also saying that a myth, not anchored in a single, particular text, is not a "work", as used in the relevant policy/guideline, which I also think would be self-evident to any reasonable editor. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTPLOT or WP:PLOT all link to the same thing. Also the NOTPLOT thing has been changed since this AFD started, I asking questions on the talk page [34], and people disagreeing whether it applied to anything other than fiction. Some editing back and forth on whether to add the new section that says otherwise. Only a handful of people are involved in the discussion, so it can go either way, that added or removed according to whoever randomly shows up to comment. Dream Focus 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is question: is it possible to create article containing only author of story and plot. Bulwersator (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this isn't about an author or the plot of a book. This is about part of a belief system. The encyclopedia isn't complete without providing information about the notable aspects of every religion on the planet. Dream Focus 09:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it still only story and author of story Bulwersator (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yaksar (talk · contribs) and because I'm not seeing any significant coverage in secondary sources as is required by our ~~editing policy~~ notability policy. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 11:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. As Yaksar (talk · contribs) says, by simply providing a synopsis of the subject and no deeper coverage, the source is certainly not acceptable as a "reliable independent source that provides significant coverage". It could be merged into an article on African mythology, as verification of facts would be the only requirement there. But it lacks the significant coverage in independent sources required to assert notability. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for any other established mythology. the article provides the necessary information, and has a source for it. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:GNG, which all articles must meet no matter what their subject is. It is not clear from the article that the myth is the subject of substantial coverage that goes beyond merely reproducing the myth. Only one discussion of the myth, by Harold Scheub, is cited, but it is not clear that this single instance of coverage is extensive enough to support a neutral and verifiable article. It is also not clear that the second reference, a work by Arthur Cotterell, contains more information than what is reproduced in the article. Could be merged to an appropriate article about the tribe or its culture. Sandstein 10:35, 23 July 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. As an Timorese international he clearly meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elijeu De Jesus Belo Soares[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league or for his country's national team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Several sources indicate that he played for East Timor in 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup qualification. [35] [36] [37] [38] The match reports on the official website don't include the line-ups though which is really annoying. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSPORTS. this line-up shows he started (and was subbed) against Cambodia, this shows he played 90 mins against Laos. All other evidence seems to confirm he played 2 internationals in Tiger Cup qualifying which are FIFA A-international level matches, so contrary to nom statement, he has played for his country. --ClubOranje^T 10:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international player, passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ClubOranje's sources. matt91486 (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Since it's been shown that this player has competed at the international level, he meets WP:NSPORTS. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:09, 15 July 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 without prejudice. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sic Sic[edit]

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

This article has been around since March 2008 but has no other sources except for the group's web page. I searched Google for "Sic Sic" Bowling Green and did not find significant coverage in reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 01:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 16:35, 18 July 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. Courcelles 00:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Ryze[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Claims of working with Jermaine Dupri, etc. are unverified. Google search for "Yung Ryze" ryzin results in precisely one page. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are found by a name search. ... discospinster _talk 00:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 18 July 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. Courcelles 00:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Dr Basheer Ahmed Umrani[edit]

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

Unreferenced... BLP? Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which mention this chief, otherwise he'd seem arguably notable. Note that this is clearly distinct from Sardar Fateh Muhammad Umrani, and I'm assuming distinct from Sardar Aziz Umrani (who was killed last year.) Additional sources welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. I have not found any sources, either. Edward321 (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He might be notable as a chief. However, the fundamental policy of verifiability is not fulfilled. I cannot find any sources to substantiate this person as the chief; nor confirm any of the information in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia verification policy does not allow this article to be included, there is very little primary and independent source on internet with no significant achievements by the person, however it can be merged to main article Umrani . Sehmeet singh (talk) 08:16, 20 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Bradshaw (golfer)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ATH#Golf and does not otherwise appear to meet WP:GNG. RonSigPi (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 2 July 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) 00:56, 8 July 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) 00:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. The tournament that Bradshaw has won seems to be at a state level (not the national PGA) and he also does not appear to have been on any professional tour, despite the claim that he is professional, so I don't believe he passes WP:NSPORTS. In addition, having searched through the google news archives, I can't find any significant coverage to show that he passes the WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is a professional as this [39] states it. However, he is not on the PGA Tour. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 18 July 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! 06:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cale Mills[edit]

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

Unremarkable musician in a band that plays for somebody else's solo career. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 13:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are putting personal prejudice into this, but I will explain why exactly Cale Mills is significant and remarkable. Firstly, I will point out that 90% of the sources for this article were removed by someone who has a history of altering pages to make them less reliable. Official band pages and videos were removed. Secondly, Cale Mills is recognized already on multiple Wikipedia pages, but did not have his own page until recent. He has been interviewed by multiple Arkansas news media outlets, MTV, and Cosmopolitan magazine. He has written multiple songs for a major label artist and plays in said artist's band as a backup vocalist, guitarist, and pianist. He has toured across the country and abroad as a headlining band and as opening act for several major label, Grammy winning artists such as Maroon 5 and Keith Urban. Since music venues seem to be a popular bit of notoriety among backup musician pages, he has played Madison Square Garden and Red Butte Gardens among other venues. He has appeared on multiple network cable television programs including Regis & Kelly, David Letterman, So You Think You Can Dance, The Tonight Show, American Idol, and PBS's National Memorial Day Concert. Cosmopolitan named him the 2009 Arkansas Bachelor of the year and he not only appeared in the magazine and on the website, he modeled for both. He has also modeled for multiple designers and his likeness has appeared in several print media and websites for said designers. So, when you say Cale Mills is unremarkable, I question your reliability as both an editor and your ability to read an article in its entirety before making a judgement since all of this is included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.245.50 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me - and others who may be weighing in on this discussion - to the exact clause of NMUSIC that Mills meets? The modeling may make him notable (I don't feel that it does, but I'll leave that up to the community to decide). His appearances on "multiple network cable television programs" were as a part of the band supporting Kris Allen's appearances, not Cale Mills' own appearances, so they would not establish the notability of Mills himself and thus should not be considered in this debate. On a separate note, it's not a great idea to question the ability of other editors in a debate, because it is not only something that could be construed as a violation of CIVIL, but it also makes you appear combative, rather than supportive of an effort to establish consensus. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 08:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:45, 1 July 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) 00:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I want to know is how Tommy Joe Ratliff meets this criteria, but Mills does not. Ratliff has even less notability. Unless kissing a guy on national television gets you a I'M NOTABLE pass these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.228.122 (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, Other stuff exists is not a valid argument at AfD. But, in this instance, thank you for pointing out this specific article. I have nominated it for deletion under the same grounds as I nominated Cale Mills. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 00:05, 9 July 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) 00:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Man! I hate to do this to a fellow musician, but he does not meet any of the criteria specified in NMUSIC. @-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 16:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect He may not meet the NMUSIC criteria, but within the context of Kris Allen and Allen's music he does have notability. I intend to create a section on Allen's page for the Kris Allen Band since Mills and the other backing band members are known more known as a band than individuals. - Gracefulally (talk) 18:29, 16 July 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. mentions don't require merging, just add a line and the consensus is this doesn't merit a standalone article Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of the Green Polo[edit]

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

Unreferenced non-notable governing body of open source project. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Dmol (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 July 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, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as mention on the company's page. The article doesn't meet guidelines for articles, and my Google and Yahoo search only found the OpenMS website. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 17 July 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shael Riley[edit]

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

no real notability shown for this bio. says he is best known for a single remix on one website OverClocked ReMix. nothing satisfying wp:music. none of the sources provided are independent and reliable,lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. album not on important label. prod removed, "potential for expansion using outside sources, new album incoming". WP:CRYSTAL duffbeerforme (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 July 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, Courcelles 05:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - sources indicating music. hmm i give the article a chance to be expanded and sourced better.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 10 July 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, 15 July 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. Notabiltiy is not inherited, and no evidence of notability has been provided for this competition. Courcelles 00:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Italy Oktagon 2008[edit]

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

nothing in gnews [40]. all google shows is non third party sources. nothing third party and indepth. this is simply a results listing with no indication of wider notability. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:03, 8 July 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) 00:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Features many notable kickboxers and is one of many K-1 Grand Prixs held worldwide. -- WölffReik (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2011

other K-1 grand prix articles have been deleted. You need third party sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability (just sports reporting) and no sources. The only source given is actually for a different event. Astudent0 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott West (musician)[edit]

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

The article talk page and the article originator's user page gives a detailed reason as to why this person is notable, but I can't verify any of it with SIGNIFICANT coverage in INDEPENDENT RELIABLE SOURCES. Plenty of press releases, youtube hits, myspace pages etc, but I can't find anything independent or reliable. The-Pope (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found a couple hits on google related to the song "California Christmas", but I am not sure the subject himself is notable, or for that matter the song is either. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:44, 10 July 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) 00:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the nominator, I could not find any independent confirmation of anything in the article. His arrangement of Auld Land Syne is often played in America as a song of remembrance on September 11 - say what??? --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability and the assertion about Auld Lang Syne are unsubstatiated by any sources that I could find. - Whpq (talk) 16:59, 18 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sampling variogram[edit]

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

A non-self-contained article that requires multiple accesses to external pages to understand. Edit tags in place for several years without improvement. Melcombe (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This is the same topic as variogram but that article is poor too. See this primer for a better explanation of the topic. Warden (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a POV fork of variogram, written by User:JanWMerks in 2006 as part of a crusade against geostatistics. I tried to mark the page with a POV marker, but it was removed (improperly, I believe) —hike395 (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that searching for "sampling variogram" in Google yields either geostatscam.com (Dr. Merks personal website), wikipedia mirrors, or coincidental overlap of the two words. —hike395 (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JW Merks seems to be an expert, having published papers such as Sampling in Mineral Processing. The word variogram is a neologism, not appearing in the OED, and so the usage sampling variogram seems a reasonable way of clarifying what is meant. Debating the technical details of this is a matter for article talk pages, not AFD. Warden (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does non-appearance in OED mean it's a neologism when it's been in standard use in its field for a half-century or more? Maybe OED doesn't necessarily try to get into the technical terminology of every field, when it's quite obscure from the POV of people outside the field. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise isn't the issue here, POV is. If you look at geostatscam.com, you'll see the POV that geostatistics caused the Bre-X scandal. The same POV is being pushed at Sampling variogram, but not at Variogram. —hike395 (talk) 04:28, 12 July 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) 00:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incoherent and intrinsically non-neutral article due the FRINGE aspect. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:22, 17 July 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. Courcelles 00:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carmona, Goa[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have been subject to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, only to a lot of directory listings of churches etc. and as the birthplace of a couple of D-list people. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 11:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I will remove the peacock wording, but it is a legitimate location and is suitable as a geo stub. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:06, 10 July 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) 00:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Real geographical location, I'm going to assume that some offline sources in India would verify it notability-wise. The Interior (Talk) 21:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable inhabited village (if it was only a beach that might have been different).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:52, 21 July 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.

Bianca Pisciola[edit]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maru Guerrero[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP of a Mexican voice acrtress. J04n(talk page) 21:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As for notability I think she meets WP:NACTOR criterion #1 (and she even has a bit of a following of anime fans because of her work on Saint Seiya), but I could only find one bio to verify part of her work [41]. The website is independent, but it states that the information was provided by Guerrero herself. I suppose that she is credited on the released products, but I don't have access to any of them - frankie (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At least one of those entries is false. She did not play Lt. Dish in the 1970 MASH movie. I guess that is what happens when you have an article with no sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 14 July 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) 00:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent reliable sources about her. I found a La Jornada story here, but that is minor coverage of someone with the same name (I can't confirm that it is her) - But earlier today, at 13 hours, at number 48, calle Santa Veracruz, behind the Alameda Central, Maru Guerrero, creator of Pan Mi General, will open a store with all kinds of products to support peaceful civil resistance the "legitimate government" of Andrés Manuel López Obrador - the other hits I can find do not appear to be reliable in nature - although Anime News Network does have her filmography (see here), but even if that meets the reliability criteria, it is not the 'significant coverage' required by the notability guidelines, and it is not the multiple sourcing required. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one from La Jornada is not her - frankie (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - from the above search links and the above discussion, there seems to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, so this biography doesn't appear to comply with the Notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 16:25, 20 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irshad Alaser Jaferi[edit]

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

WP:N, WP:V: Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this author. However, the lack of translation of the name leaves me wondering if there are non-English sources I lack access to, so, as always, additional sources welcome. joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 9 July 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) 00:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no reliable independent sources about this writer. It could be that a translation of his name might yield results, but without this, I am not finding any suitable sources PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:17, 19 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Yu (technologist)[edit]

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

After an online check, I am not convinced this man is notable and worth an article. The article is almost a copy from here.Night of the Big Wind (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 July 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) 00:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete created by a 2 edit account. Blatant WP:AUTOBIO LibStar (talk) 08:54, 18 July 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.