< 17 July	19 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Kytides[edit]

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

No evidence this player meets either WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 23:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 23:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per WP:V. I can't find any evidence that this person even existed other than WP mirrors. Pburka (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is asserted, but cannot be verified. 0 hits in Google News.--EdwardZhao (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty cut and dry Djohns21 (talk) 23:36, 25 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 per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Nolan[edit]

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

Page has been unreferenced since its creation in June 2008. Subject fails WP:BIO due to a lack of secondary coverage; all I can find are videos of him on You Tube explaining why Southwestern College is best. Article is also a long-standing orphan, as Nolan is only linked to the Southwestern College (Santa Fe, New Mexico) page. Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any mention in Google News, Books, or Scholar, other than contact information for Southwestern College. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About half the article was advertizing for the college, which I removed. What's left is about the subject. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only possibility for notability is WP:Prof#C6 but I don't think that the College is major enough for that. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I agree with the comment above regarding WP:Prof#C6. I am OK with redirects in cases like these, but it's probably not even necessary. Location (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we would do well to keep to the convention that presidents of colleges are notable. It's a very simple rule. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the policy has been modified to apply to major institutions. I'm not sure how major this one is. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I concur - although I see that it is accredited, the college does not seem major to me. I had quite a hard time finding reviews of the college on Google, for example. Not yet enough to make me change my vote. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A college with eight core faculty is not a major institution and does not pass WP:PROF#C6, and the article offers no other indication of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article subject does not pass notability.--EdwardZhao (talk) 18:51, 25 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 22:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kipling (VIVA)[edit]

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

These are all non-notable bus stops that fail WP:GNG. A large number of similar VIVA stations were deleted at this AfD. Slon02 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related VIVA stations for this reason:

Oh yes! Thank you for cleaning out the remainder. I have contributed to some of these articles, and they are only fancy bus stops. If you have never stood at one of these bus stops, do not try and preserve them. To the nominator - please make sure everything is gone, because I don't want to do this over and over again. Check the navbox. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the lists a few times and I think that I got all of them except for the terminals.--Slon02 (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see any reason that these bus stops would be notable, and I don't think there's anything worth merging that isn't expressed using File:Viva York Region route map.svg. If these get deleted, we should also do something about Template:VIVA Stations, as the resulting redlinks would encourage people to recreate the articles. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about Other Vivastations? Is that just a work around to avoid previously deleted articles or is it a valid article? I say delete it too. Get them all! Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable enough to me - it might be best to wait until this AfD is over and then PROD it if the consensus here is to delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Other Vivastations was originally meant to be a way to squeeze in articles about individual VIVAstations in a way that they wouldn't be deleted for notability concerns. I agree that, if the consensus in this AfD is to delete, that we should get rid of that article as well. --Slon02 (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - These aren't major transit terminals. They are bus stops. Literally just a bus stop with a bus shelter. Google Streetview has a good view of the Kipling stop. -- Whpq (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly non-notable.--EdwardZhao (talk) 18:53, 25 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 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Pilot Training[edit]

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

The article has no third party links beyond one flight school directory and two websites owned by the company. In addition the parent company's Wikipedia article was deleted through the AfD process several months ago due to a lack of third party links. Lastly the parent company has closed Atlanta Pilot Training and the company no longer exists. Andrew Kurish (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, fails WP:CORP. - Ahunt (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification has been made of this deletion discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —- Alexf^(talk) 18:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the nomination sums it up pretty well. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 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 speedy keep. The article was created through the Articles for Creation process and is indeed written in a neutral point of view. It also has a significant number of reliable third party sources, meeting WP:MUSIC criterion #1. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Griswold (singer)[edit]

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

Notability

Article does not meet notability guidelines and is likely an promotional "autobiography" of a non-notable individual. There is one main contributor to the article, who I believe is its subject and thus holds a conflict of interest. He is also the one who created the article in the first place. Really205 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC) — Really205 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you Tom. I was someone who made an edit just yesterday and I've further looked at the articles history and the person(s) who is the main contributor did make edits but, if you look a bit further, they were all minor edits being made as the article was pending approval. So your assumption may very well be wrong. There would have been no one else to make any edits or contributions until it was an actual article which was just a few days ago by the looks of it. There are more than enough credible sources and references throughout the article, and it would be rather disappointing if those newspapers, magazines and network TV and radio journalist were no longer considered credible. I feel that you shouldn't and can't just delete and article because of your personal opinions and/or assumptions which is what you are basing you nomination on. Look at the article and you will see that there are clear and reputable sources backing all information with in it. So if you could please further explain your use of "non-notable", because based on what you said I could send a list of hundreds of "non-notable" people that are in an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.222.244 (talk) 19:49, 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. Courcelles 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kidd Russell[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. 0 hits on Google News. Knowing other famous people does not give a person notability. News article referenced appears to be from a local newspaper. EdwardZhao (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No valid citations, it's definitely afoul of Wikipedia:SELFPROMOTE. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:30, 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 delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Hatcher[edit]

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

No indication of notability is given. PROD was removed by the creator. I gave it a week, and no new edits, no new indication of notability. I'm using AFD instead of CSD - A7 just in case there is some evidence of notability out there. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - I made several searches, and found that she has a single song on a single station's radio rotation. She has a common name, so one must husk the chaff from the wheat online. She's up and coming, but she hasn't made it yet. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDY, WP:NOTE, and WP:MUSICBIO. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:39, 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 speedily deleted by Peridon.—S Marshall T/C 20:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Osborne Wood Products, Inc.[edit]

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

Debated whether to nominate for Speedy Deletion. Reads like an advertisement. Nothing really noteworthy here. LAA Fan 19:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Article meets both A7 and G11 criteria for deletion. I will mark it as such. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 19:13, 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 redirect to San Jose Unified School District. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Muir Middle School (San Jose, California)[edit]

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

Middle school (non-secondary school) lacking in reliable sources to establish notability. See also Common outcomes/consensus on schools; generally a Blue Ribbon school can pass the test, while a generic primary school will not, even if it happens to be named after someone famous. tedder (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Jose Unified School District where the school is covered. This is usual practice with US nn elementary/middle schools and creates a useful redirect. It also inhibits article recreation. TerriersFan (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TerriersFan, who said it all. I like John Muir, but no to this article. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TerriersFan - as was already done with half dozen other John Muir Middle Schools. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the school district. Unlike TerriersFan, I don't like John Muir, and never have. May they all be redirected or vanquished to the corn field. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I tried redirecting or cornfielding, I created AFDs after the redirects were removed and a talk page message was left for me. tedder (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard procedure for non notable schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 25 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITM Group[edit]

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

no indication of notability in article Night of the Big Wind (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:BEFORE. Did you do due diligence before the nomination, and check for references. or just look at the article? Edison (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You warned me already for getting flak, nice that you give it yourself. In my opinion an article must show notability, not external sources. It is up to the original author to give evidence of notability, not for newpage-patrollers to check if an article is maybe notable. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The flack I alluded on your talk page is likely to be from other editors, and more harsh than a simple request to follow the guidelines on WP:AFD. If you toss an article to AFD, with no sign you did a search for references, the the other editors are left with the chore of searching for refs, which was the job of the nominator. Edison (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Appears to be an umbrella organization of private colleges college in India, with several campuses. Colleges which are accredited to award degrees by the responsible accrediting organization within their own country are generally kept in AFD discussions. I am not able to determine that accrediting status in India for this organization, but I note that they have institutional affiliations with well-regarded colleges in other countries such as Georgia State University and Ohio State University in the US, and University of Reading in the UK, which makes it unlikely this is an unaccredited diploma mill. A listing of the top business schools in India by Careerlauncher puts ITM in Cluster 6, a ways down from the top, out of 8 clusters of the "better and more known B-schools." The listing is for "Institute of Technology & Management (ITM), Navi Mumbai." MBAuniverse lists it as number 51 overall, as "Institute for Technology & Management, Mumbai" in India, (if that is the same as "ITM) for its MBA program, and number 34 for its student placement success. On the other hand, I did not see it in the list of 50 top India business schools published by the Economic Times of India. The key thing seems to be whether it is accredited to issue and does issue college degrees, so far as Wikipedia notability is concerned. Edison (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Edison above makes some good points and came to the best conclusion by assuming good faith with the information available, but India is notorious for having what could be called "unaccredited accredition institutes" and the extent to which they advertise with arbitrary ranking systems is far beyond the Western standard. This school may or may not be accredited, but I also looked to see who reviewed them and I can find nothing. I live in America and checked for the link to Georgia State and Ohio State because they advertised that prominently. Knowing Indian culture... this could just be the case that someone at their school had a transient partnership with someone at one of those places. I have no faith in their having submitted to third-party ranking and no sources exist of this ranking. I have no idea what is going on here, but the Wikipedia article gives no indication of notability, nor does the group's website, nor does a Google search. Whatever this place is, it is not a school whose integrity is verifiable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:58, 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) 00:00, 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, causa sui (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently an accredited institution, the All India Council for Technical Education is a recognized accrediting agency. Agreed that some Indian colleges are of dubious status, and as , Edison found, there is third party evidence that this is not a top-rated university; but Blue Raspberry is wrong when he says the accreditation status of this one is unclear. If anything, it is his strictures against it that seem to have no evidence--and indeed he admits to be going entirely by guesses. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not just one business school but a group of accredited business schools that award degrees. As such it's clearly notable. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:07, 26 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. Irrespective of the reliability of the source proffered, one source is not multiple which is the test that i have to clsoe this duscussion against. The delete votres are therefore the policy based arguments Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kosherat[edit]

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

no independent notability shown for this album. no charting or awards. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related pages on relases by the same band with the same notability issues:~~

Unbundling based on below comment. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:34, 5 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} 19:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But nominate individually. Most of these albums are released on major labels and have multiple reviews online. For example, this shows quite a few third party sources, plus reviews. I'm almost going for a speedy keep on this. The Undead Never Die (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But not coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a link to sputnikmusic which calls the album Kosherat "fantastic". They review some of their other albums as well. [1] Dream Focus 14:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sputnikmusic link is not a reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. See below. Dream Focus 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unfortunately the Sputnik review wasn't written by one of their professional reviewers, perhaps a separate page 'Grand Belial's Key discography' would be a better option than individual pages? J04n(talk page) 18:07, 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, Sandstein 05:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Just this article, after debundling) Delete, unless I missed something this does not appear to satisfy the general notability guideline. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one review by a non-staff volunteer contributor for sputnikmusic is not enough to meet criteria of WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. Hekerui (talk) 16:34, 17 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, causa sui (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a fan-submitted review (even if staff-checked), on a website dedicated to such reviews, is not indicative of any particular notability. If this is (as Google News/Books seems to indicate) the best (and quite probably only) source that can be unearthed, then this topic has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Underlined a couple of phrases above to emphasise my point that "fans" (enthusiasts, call them what you will -- people who are writing for love not money) are not "independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I asked if the review was a reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#sputnikmusic. Not anyone can submit reviews, only certain skilled writers, and the paid staff must approve it. The quality level of the reviews is thus kept high. These approved contributors [2] who go through the same editing process paid reviewers do, aren't just people that submit a few reviews, but a rather large number of them, sometimes in the hundreds. Dream Focus 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums were made aware of this post. J04n(talk page) 18:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I saw J04n's post at WT:ALBUM and thought I'd toss in my two cents. It looks like this discussion is focusing too much on whether the Sputnik review is credible or not, which I feel is a little off topic. Whether or not it's reliable, it's still only a single review. Both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS are seeking "significant coverage" through sources, and one lonesome review just does not satisfy that criteria. Instead of debating the reliability of a contributor's review, editors interested in keeping the article should be digging up additional sources instead. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grand Belial's Key. —Andrew_stalk 21:57, 24 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 22:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call R&B[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Also including

Delete. Recreated over previous AFD (see link). Album and the other added this nom fail the notability requirements of WP:NALBUMS as they have received no coverage in independent reliable sources and should only need a mention on the discography page. Most Now albums released in the US will at least chart on Billboard or be reviewed by Allmusic. Neither of the albums nominated here, as exclusives to a single retailer, have even done that. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, (maybe G4 speedy delete?) The article continues to be at odds with the notability criteria at WP:NALBUMS, with no assertions the albums has charted or been reviewed. I'm not certain about this, but I think the article may speedily deleted per WP:G4 as a page recreated after a deletion discussion, as it was not created with the guidelines suggested by the closing admin: recreation as a redirect to some appropriate target. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:41, 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 22:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Renstrom[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Recreated after prod expired. Also previously deleted as A7. Hope that this deletion will stick. Salt the title? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:28, 18 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} 16:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage found to indicate that an encyclopedia article is appropriate.--Michig (talk) 16:49, 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 all. The keep !votes are basically WP:OTHERSTUFF or other arguments not related to the notability or suitability of these particular articles to the encyclopedia under our policies and guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Summer League[edit]

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

Sorry for the bundling, but these are all related articles by the same single-purpose account, SFLC Soccer Camps. None of these articles presents any sources indicating any kind of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - non-notable "competition" - seems to be an "umbrella" for lots of non-notable pre-season friendlies...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable. Giant Snowman 21:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a competition about a lot of matches which can be for every year, it needs to be expanded about its matches. There is a website about this competition "of a lot of matches" which includes various tournaments. It can be expanded packaging these matches into its tournaments such as Kärnten Soccer Cup which is also nominated for its deletion. Sorry for "my english" tot-futbol tot-futbol 00:57, 20 July 2011 (CEST)
Delete all - There is no evidence of notability for any of these, and I doubt there ever will be. – Pee Jay 12:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Non-notable. No evidence of notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. At least as notable as 2011 Copa del Sol, 2011 Asian Challenge Cup, 2010 Indonesia Premier League Pre-season Tournament, 2010 La Manga Cup among other organized friendlies that do not involve top-tier clubs. Vanadus (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - No evidence of significant coverage for any of the competitions, all fail to meet WP:GNG criteria. Deserter1 21:23, 24 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 more sourcing is required but there's enough at present for the article to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline, and that the article covers a more generic term as opposed to a specific product from a company, or at least that it could do so. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heat-shrinkable sleeve[edit]

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

Contested PROD of a product. Article creator (who seems to have a conflict of interest as a representative of the company who makes the product) put the following on my talk page:

Dear Sir,

You proposed to delete the page for heat-shrinkable sleeves. Please confirm why. The technology is in wide use for pipeline construction (corrosion protection) for the past 40 years. There are also many national and international standards that reference the technology and many multi-national oil and gas companies that have specifications that include the technology.

Thank you, Bob Buchanan Canusa-CPS

The author has since made good faith efforts to add in sources, but they include things like registration info of the product and articles that do not mention the subject.

The page appears to contain information that is indeed verifiable such as the manufacturer's webpage and articles describing the individual components (but not Heat-shrinkable sleeve), but there are no sources that provide evidence of notability. After a search, I was able to find this article describing the 45th anniversary of Canusa, the company creating the product. Although heat-shrink sleeves are mentioned several times, they are not discussed in-depth in the article. All in all, does not seem to comply with WP:GNG due to lack of third-party references and WP:PRODUCT as the company itself is not notable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are good sources, like here: [Metallurgy and Corrosion Control in Oil and Gas Production By Robert Heidersbach, Bob Heidersbach] --DeVerm (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Merge with heat-shrink tubing and make that article more generic. This topic is broader than just the one-company-centric topic related to pipelines. The concept is identical, the technology is common and in wide use. This is just another application. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds logical but if you read both articles it becomes clear that these technologies are so different from each other that merging them would kill both articles and it becomes a mess that no reader will understand. It's just too different to put together imho --DeVerm (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It may not be good idea to merge them with each other. The producing processes of heat shrink tubing and heat shrinkable sleeve are similar, but they have many difference in testing standards, applications and etc. Usually, heat shrink tubing is thin wall tubing and it focus on it's electrical properties; while, here, when people talking heat shrinkable sleeve, it is usually relate to its property related to anti-corrosion.There is no particular reference here, practically, most manufactuers of heat shrink products produce both of these products and divide them by above principle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heat Shrink China (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article creator has been blocked by Orangemike due to their promotional username and will not be participating using that username. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this appears to a suitable generic name for an important class of products, not the trade name of a single company, and I agree with DeVerm that there is sufficient difference from heat-shrink tubing, which is a connector not a coating, to justify the two articles. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant generic product. Needs sourcing but that is an editorial matter. I have removed promotional external links to the (supposed) creator's company. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:18, 26 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. Rlendog (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tres Ninos School Inc.[edit]

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

The article does not establish notability and I couldn't find independent sources that cover the subject matter. wctaiwan (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Secondary schools are automatically notable by default (See Wikipedia:Notability (high schools)). Regardless if only primary sources exist. The text of the article is short enough though, for the absence of a neutral third party source to not be a problem.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the essay WP:NHS describes why we keep high school articles. Filipino schools rarely have much of an Internet presence and Google news is pretty hopeless for finding sources. To avoid systemic bias we should await the finding of local sources. That way the page will develop over time. TerriersFan (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per essay WP:NHS and WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:20, 25 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. Rlendog (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. John De Britto Anglo-Indian High School[edit]

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

I cannot find independent sources that cover the subject matter, and the article does not seem to establish notability. wctaiwan (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have seen arguments in these types of AfDs that verifiable high schools are inherently notable, but I only see this essay as an argument why high schools are more likely to be notable compared to middle or primary schools, not that they are inherently notable. I found evidence that the high school exists, but I can't find anything representing coverage of the school. There are several telephone/directory listings, and this page that informs us that the school is a "leading school" in Kochi, but does not explain why. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Verifiable high schools (other than perhaps family schools or tiny private schools) have all been kept in recent years in AFDs, as is discussed in the essay WP:NHS. I see no compelling reason to change in this case. So far only marginal verification has been presented that this is a high school as generally understood: see [3] which quotes a teacher at the school in a passing reference, as well as the phonebook listing or Google map listing mentioned above. For a solid Keep, I would want sources with more information about the school, to make sure it is not the one teacher and two students meeting at the associated St. John de Britto church, or some other sub-threshold educational effort.Also Wikipedia is not a directory, and there should be sources available to say more in an article than "X is a high school in location Y." Edison (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought there was another essay talking about high school notability. Just couldn't find it. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The school is large enough to field teams in several sports, so it would appear to be a "proper" high school. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per well-established practice for secondary schools with a verifiable existence. Having a ready rule of thumb for schools allows us to move along to more important matters without wasting time parsing tens of thousands of articles for sources. Elementary schools — OUT. Secondary schools — IN. This is just a stub, much like we have stubs for villages and obscure professional athletes. Hopefully it will be improved over time. Carrite (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the essay WP:NHS describes why we keep high school articles. Indian schools traditionally have a sparce Internet presence and Google news is a poor tool for finding sources. To avoid systemic bias we should await the finding of local sources. That way the page will develop over time. TerriersFan (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing voting to keep per above arguments regarding notability of high schools. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NHS and WP:WPSCH/AG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 25 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 is fairly clear here. A merge discussion can continue elsewhere, but there's not any consensus to do that here, either. Courcelles 21:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Assistant Commissioner[edit]

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

No significant coverage provided and no evidence that I've managed to find (and I have looked!) to demonstrate that the role/rank has been discussed directly and in detail by any third-party sources ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 13:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or smerge to Deputy Chief Constable; no real reason to have seperate article for what is essentially the same thing under a slightly different name. Yunshui (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is evident that neither of the above editors have actually bothered to read the article. While a DAC wears the same rank insignia as a DCC it is a completely different rank with different responsibilities (it is the fourth highest rank in the Met, whereas a DCC is the second highest rank in a provincial police force). The article discusses the development of the rank, which is unique to the Metropolitan Police, and is part of a series of articles on British police ranks. The development of Met ranks is complex and I fail to see how deleting or merging this article would benefit Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is evident that neither of the above editors have actually bothered to read the article. WP:AGF would seem to apply here. While a DAC wears the same rank insignia as a DCC it is a completely different rank – please contradict me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I every suggested otherwise. I simply said that the rank DAC has not been discussed directly and in detail by multiple reliable sources. Unless you can provide any such sources then your comment is essentially a classic WP:ITSNOTABLE argument. ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are surely not suggesting that those sources (viewable here for those without other access) are "direct and detailed coverage" of the concept of a DAC? They're short, minor observations at best. ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 15:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you are surely not suggesting that WP:N is that proscriptive? What you basically appear to be saying is that useful, factual, accurate, sourced information should be removed from the encyclopaedia simply because nobody has in the past written a long article or book specifically about it. How sad that anyone should suggest that this should be the case. If you were suggesting a merge then it wouldn't be so bad (although I'm not sure what it would be merged to), but you actually seem to be suggesting deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you are surely not suggesting that WP:N is that proscriptive? I'm suggesting that, if the article doesn't meet the general notability guideline's minimum threshold, it should be deleted. Of course I am. What you basically appear to be saying is that useful, factual, accurate, sourced information should be removed from the encyclopaedia simply because nobody has in the past written a long article or book specifically about it. Our notability policy is based upon coverage, not upon usefulness or factuality or value. So in essence, yes, that's more or less what I'm saying. How sad that anyone should suggest that this should be the case. WT:NOTE is where you should propose any changes to our current policy. You actually seem to be suggesting deletion – indeed I am. ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 15:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your interpretation of the guidelines is unnecessarily rigid. You seem to be applying dogma in a way that can only damage Wikipedia. You seem to be treating the deletion of valid information as a good thing. Very, very odd. You are aware that WP:GNG is a guideline, right? Not a policy? That it is not in any way set in stone? In any case, is there really that much "direct and detailed coverage" of any police or military rank? Most of them are covered only peripherally in works on the organisations in which they exist. Maybe therefore you'd like every rank article deleted? Why single this one out? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be treating the deletion of valid information as a good thing. What qualifies it as 'valid'? Truth? Then I'll create an article about the time I cut my knee last week. It's interesting? Debateable in this case, but anyway irrelevant to notability. You are aware that WP:GNG is a guideline, right? Not a policy? Personally, I feel that this is a pretty ropey argument for keeping material which is in no way notable. Maybe therefore you'd like every rank article deleted? Maybe. But 'other shit exists' is also a fairly unimaginative argument. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 15:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. The rank is frequently referred to. There will have been endless documents and reports discussing Metropolitan Police structure, many of which will not be on-line but which will be publicly accessible. The objection is, I think, that they are not 'third-party' in that they have been produced as part of the process of government or within the police and police organisations themselves. But that is the way the public services function. Typically the press will do little more than recognise a change (the days when the Times acted as a paper of record in the old sense are gone and no other commercial publication has taken over that role) and there is often no commercial market for publications about these things because the information is readily available from public sources. If we say that everything produced within the public sector about the public sector does not count for notability, then we are creating an institutional bias within Wikipedia against coverage of the business of government. But when police ranks, or public bodies, or official apppointments or whatever else are referred to as they often are publicly, then it is the business of Wikipedia to provide a source of reference. --AJHingston (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what is all this "keep as notable" business about? Here at Wikipedia Towers, notability is defined as "a topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As you have said, there are no third-party reliable sources which discuss DACs directly and in detail. Unfortunate, perhaps. A result of rapid technological change, whatever. But it's nevertheless true and nevertheless problematic. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 15:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you define as "significant coverage"? WP:GNG states that it "is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." An article in an encyclopaedia and several articles in The Times seem to be significant enough to me. They may be on the short side, but they are not trivial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would define "significant coverage" the way that WP:GNG defines it when you aren't selectively quoting from it, Necrothesp. The part you accidentally (?) forgot to mention reads, "sources that address the subject directly in detail." ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 16:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't forget to mention it, accidentally or otherwise. The subject is addressed directly in all the sources I have mentioned and it is addressed in detail in at least two of them. The guideline specifies no minimum length for allowable sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you didn't mention it, instead choosing to quote only half of the relevant sentence. I wonder why you made that choice then. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 16:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot depends on what is meant by 'independent of the subject'. If independence means having no link at all - ie because the Metropolitan Police are publicly funded and answerable to government, then any source related to government or police does not count - of course you automatically rule out most sources which discuss the matter in detail. But I don't think the policy intended that. Most public bodies, for example, as organisations, will only be discussed in detail in official sources of one kind or another. The fact is that the holders of the post of DAC are referred to frequently in the media by virtue of their office. The reliable source on what that office actually consists of, the case for and against having it, etc is invariably from official sources (where do the press get any information?) --AJHingston (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention it because it clearly didn't need mentioning. Stop throwing snide accusations around. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems well-sourced to me. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources listed do you think qualify as significant coverage? ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 16:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per AJHingston and WP:IAR, WP:BURO, WP:UCS --DeVerm (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
So are we going to delete ever article on a police or military rank? Of course this article should not be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.178.138 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Other shit exists' is a really bad argument. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 17:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - simply see no apparent reason that would justify deletion or merging.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This rank needs explanation for readers of the likes of the Brian Paddick article and is regularly mentioned on British and London news. It is not immediately self-explanatory and does not have a direct equivalent in other forces as far as responsibilities are concerned.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability guidelines advise me to treat them with common sense. When I do this I find the topic of the article is clearly and definitely notable. The verifiability policy requires the information in the article to be verifiable and, because there were no references at the time of the AfD nomination, this aspect could have been properly raised: if no significant information was verifiable the article should be deleted. However, the references now provided show there should have been no such doubt. The references are entirely adequate and appropriate for the content of the article. Thincat (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - To the 2 main proponents in this discussion, I suggest step back and take a breath (as well as AGF in eachother). I find it highly suspect that a book such as this even only makes 1 mention of the rank. If a 'source' only makes a single mention of the rank, the it is NOT being discussed or described in any depth, which is required by WP:N. Doing a GSearch for ' "Deputy Assistant Commissioner" "Deputy Chief Constable" ' has the odd result of ONLY 114 hits, which tends to make me think both terms are used interchangeably (either correctly or incorrectly). Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely incorrectly, I'm afraid! Which surely proves the value of this article? And as we all surely know by now, Google searches are an incredibly poor way of proving notability. You are quoting a book written for people who want to join the police force; it is only natural that a rank seven above the joining rank, which only a minute fraction are ever likely to reach, is not described in any detail. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok then if your not happy with that book, why does a Independent Review of Remunerations and Conditions (dated Mar 2011) of each rank only have 4 minor mentions of this rank?? of them 4 mentions, nothing about the rank is described. (Please be careful, I know you are passionate but everyone has an article they have created called up at AFD, even me). Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh good grief. Now you're quoting a report on pay to justify why an article on a rank should be merged? Why on earth should it discuss a rank in detail? It says what a DAC is paid. What more do you expect it to say? Does it have detailed histories of every rank? No. Yes, a DAC wears the same rank insignia as a DCC. That doesn't mean he is a DCC. The role is completely different. The DCC is the deputy commander of his force; the DAC is not. The DAC's rank has an interesting history completely different from that of a DCC. I'm curious to know in what way you think a merger would benefit Wikipedia. If it's just for dogmatic reasons (GNG says...) then I would point you to DeVerm's comment above. Wikipedia is about what is useful to readers, not what is written in a handful of guidelines. And guidelines are not set in stone to be slavishly obeyed. Our main consideration should always be benefit to the encyclopaedia. Neither deletion of good information nor merger to a largely unrelated article provide any benefit whatsoever as far as I can see. Don't get me wrong, I believe in deletion of rubbish and articles on truly non-notable subjects, but I don't believe in deletion of information that could actually be useful to large numbers of readers. And yes, I did create this article. That does not, I assure you, mean I would be any less passionate about AfDs on similar articles (as my edit history will show). I do not believe in wanton deletion of any article if a case can be made for its utility. Attitudes such as TreasuryTag's above comment ("Our notability policy is based upon coverage, not upon usefulness or factuality or value") strike me as dogmatic, short-sighted and bizarre in the extreme, and also highly damaging to the project. They are also not in the spirit of what Wikipedia guidelines and policies actually say. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - And by the same token, how does any of what has been presented make this rank Independently Notable and discussed "in depth"? A merger of 2 ranks that wear the same insignia would make sense, as they are equals in the same hierarchy. A dogmatic view of WP:N does, you have to admit, keep the project on track. Just because something exists does not mean that it must have an article. Nothing presented so far as I have seen, has actually discussed in depth the interesting history of this rank or what they do, only mere mentions of its existence, where it lays in the rank structure and what it pays. nothing more. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 14:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        All I can say is that you're obviously reading a different article from the one I am and working on a different project with different aims from the one I am. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And certainly don't merge with Deputy Chief Constable - they're different. (The clue is in the name!) If there potentially isn't enough material for a separate article then merge with the other Met Chief Officer ranks. And I emphasise 'potential' because several people (presiding officer, Counsellor of State and Exit2DOS) all appear to be proposing deletion based on the current content. Also, has anyone counted the number of other articles that already link to this one? Finally, many people (presiding officer, District Collector, Counsellor of State, co-prince, quaestor, secretariat, constabulary and prorogation) are proposing deletion based on dogmatic adherence to guidelines - if this produces intuitively the wrong outcome then the probability is that those guidelines (and correct me if I'm wrong, but they are just guidelines) are flawed, as I believe is the case here. (This may also give rise to any apparent weaknesses in the arguments already proposed for keeping - those people are using common sense arguments which are being attacked by dogmatic reference to procedure.) Antrim Kate (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not endorse a Delete. Simply because WP:ITEXISTS does not mean it should have an Article. It can be just as well described WP:WITHIN another Article seeing as only Trivial mentions about the rank can be found at this time. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Accepted - my apologies - but I still say the place to merge it, if that's the outcome, would be with other Met ranks rather than with its equivalent in a provincial force. Antrim Kate (talk) 13:18, 25 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. –MuZemike 05:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game companies of Sweden[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Most entries are not notable and make up an indiscriminate list without specific inclusion criteria. The notable entries duplicate Category:Video game companies of Sweden. Apparently, a copy of [4]. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with any list of this kind, in which some members of an encyclopedic group are notable but not all (alumni of Foo University, people from Foo, companies that make Foo), the base inclusion standard is whether the member merits its own article, whether or not it has one at present. And that's as far as WP:NOTDIR goes in this context as well. So remove all the unlinked and redlinked entries that never should become articles based on notability standards. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP.
Regarding the existence of a category, see WP:CLN; the browsing systems are complementary. One function a list can provide is to identify missing article topics, which the redlinks in this list (or even some of the nonlinks) may be (I don't know yet; you probably don't either). Even if this list is trimmed down only to bluelink articles, it can surpass the category's mere alphabetic title sorting utility by providing annotations, such as date of establishment (or disestablishment), location of headquarters, notable games produced or notable people associated, etc. postdlf (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a WP:CFORK from the country-sortable List of video game developers. I know this is AfD and NOTCLEANUP. My concern is the usefulness of such a list after cleanup; or, if you prefer, notability of a cross-categorized list as a group per WP:LISTN. And OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, I don't think there is any other country-specific list [5]/Category:Video game companies by country. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, that's a different story. If it's truly redundant to List of video game developers, and there's not a good reason for a WP:SPLIT of that into separate lists, then redirect it there.
    But I wouldn't consider WP:LISTN at all relevant to that question, and note that it's not talking about lists of articles, but rather lists of sets of possibly non-notable members (such as TV episode lists). Regarding lists of articles (often called navigational lists or article indexes), if it is encyclopedic to categorize articles by a given fact or set of facts, then it's also encyclopedic to list them by the same facts, and it's purely a question of editing judgment as to whether it should be merged into a larger list or stand alone. You can view notability as being satisfied by the companies in the list each being notable, as well as by the organizing facts (the company's industry and home country) being notable.postdlf (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Although I withdraw this now, WP:LISTN is a part of WP:NOTABILITY and it not exempt from WP:GNG. The subject of the article has to be notable, in this case "Swedish game developers". Individual item notability is not required (WP:LSC). All this applies to indexes and outlines equally. Also "Sweden" and "game developer" being notable does not make the cross-section group notable, GNG does. Of course, the article can exist per WP:SPLIT. But it was still CFORK and did not merit splitting. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The notability guidelines for lists are incomplete at best. You'd do better to look at actual practice, both in terms of what lists exist without controversy and what lists pass AFD. Article indexes do not have to be notable as indexes, only encyclopedic, the same as categories (list inclusion stds.are even looser than categories in practice). And indexes (such as lists of people, companies, films, etc.) are limited to notable entries with few exceptions, because otherwise they'd be indiscriminate directories like phone books. postdlf (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no guideline or policy that says GNG is not applicable to lists, and list notability guideline has not yet been drafted. I am evaluating the article on its own merits, not on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If there is a long-standing difference in list notability that contradicts existing guidelines, then this has to be addressed in the guidelines first. But, again, I did not specify GNG as the nomination rationale because I do know that list notability criteria is unclear. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:19, 19 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) 20:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we keep this is should probably be moved to something like List of Swedish video game companies since the other title seems a little weird in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.188.209 (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. I actually found two reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the topic -- "Swedish game developers/-ment" -- that I did not think were there. [6] [7]. Although my argument wasn't GNG from the start; CFORK and NOTDIRECTORY is now moot if GNG is fully satisfied. Sorry I wasted time and didn't notice both of these before. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:32, 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. Rlendog (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin and Chris Weir[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable couple who happened to win the lottery. WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:SINGLEEVENT apply here. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a case of WP:BLP1E, I'm sure they would be thrilled to know they have an article here. Qrsdogg (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against a selective merge and redirect either. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. or Merge or Redirect to EuroMillions#Notable Wins. They aren't just any old lottery winners, it's the record win of the Euromillions draw. However, most of this article is just a recap of how this was reported in the news. The bit about the Sunday Times Rich List is interesting, but this isn't quite correct: according to the BBC News article, the lottery winner would have only gone to 430th place if all the money went to one individual - sharing it between two doesn't count.Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Single event. I highly doubt Colin and Chris will mentioned in the news, it's like creating an article for a cat that was lost and found....it was one event and that was that. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 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 keep. Courcelles 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Midhurst & Easebourne F.C.[edit]

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

Article recreated after deletion by prod and still no sources. Fails WP:FOOTY guideline of eligibility to play in the FA Cup and no reliable secondary sources have been found to establish notability. The club is not even in the top league for the county. Charles (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can only find passing mentions in local news sources through Google News. Only two passing mentions in Google Books. There's not enough here to satisfy the GNG, as far as I can see. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am now satisfied that the club passes WP:FOOTYN and that there are enough reliable sources to base an article on, as per discussion below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on further thought, this team plays at a notable level. Would still like to see the article improved though. Giant Snowman 14:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Club plays at Step 6 of the English football pyramid, which has also been used as a notability guideline in the past (see here and here). The club is eligible to compete in the FA Cup, but for some reason has not. Number 5 7 10:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely that this club has a good enough ground to be eligible for the FA Cup.--Charles (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct - they do not have floodlights. However, they are at a level eligible to participate and could enter the FA Cup if they switched their home games to another ground (like Durham City do). Number 57 12:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have also added a couple of references to the article. Number 57 10:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You've convinced me that they pass WP:FOOTY, so I am now satisfied with the club's notability. I think we need to be careful about sources though - looking at the sources you have added, I don't doubt that the information they contain is true, but I don't think that they would pass WP:RS. If there are no sources we can actually use, I don't think I can bring myself to change my !vote to "keep", on purely practical grounds. Maybe there are some primary sources we can use per the restrictions at WP:PRIMARY? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Football Club History Database has been deemed to be a RS at numerous past FLCs and FACs. And Nomad Online appears to be maintained by David Bauckham, who is a published (not self-published) author on the subject of football stadia, so that would seem to be a RS too...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. I think all my objections have been answered, so I'll change my !vote to keep. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable side in the grand scheme of things. Doesn't pass GNG as there is very little coverage. Delusion23 (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Number57's rationale. --Jimbo^[online] 11:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs improved with more sources but does pass WP:FOOTY Just. Warburton1368 (talk) 18:11, 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! 05:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Abdel Azeem[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF - seems to be a (no offence intended) bog-standard academic. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cameron. What is a "bog-standard" academic? Is this directed at Suez Canal University with its 21000 students or is it directed at Azeem. Can you give your reasons for considering either the university or Azeem as "bog standard"? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are getting confused about an british-english term - "bog-standard" does not mean "sub-standard", it means 'normal' or run of the mill. His work seems in keeping with what you'd expect from a post-doc but that's not enough for WP:PROF. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's the first Egyptian and African to get the EOL fellowship based on his achievement in documenting fungi in Egypt. G.S. Soliman (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then this needs to be noted and reliably sourced in the article! Nik thestoned 11:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The fellowship program only started in 2010, so winning it may not be that noteworthy yet. EOL has a WP article; maybe the fellowship program belongs there, with recipient info. --Chonak (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PROF jsfouche ☽☾Talk 11:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi .. I would like to know if possible. Why is it, that the link to Encyclopedia of Life is working as an external link in a notable article like "Fungi" [8] but keeps getting rejected and deleted in this article as a "self generated website"!!!G.S. Soliman (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, G. S. Soliman. How does the Encyclopedia of Life function? How does it compare to the editorial function here at Wikipedia. Can individuals make contributions? If so, Wikipedia, if I remember correctly, does not accept such sources as reliable. What is the nature of EOL? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am still getting acquainted with the accomplishments of Ahmed Abdel Azeem. His team have done significant studies and made positive recommendations for the improved public health of the citizens of Egypt. My goal at this point is to include in the Wikipedia article the documentation for his contribution to the welfare of his fellow Egyptians. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His team? according to his own bio - he's a post-doc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cameron, I don't understand how a post-doc functions. I do know that in two of the research reports I have read authored by Dr. Azeem, he lists others along with himself. To me, that's a team. I understand that the order of those in the list signifies prominence in the research (I could be wrong). In the study of the 70 children even a dentist seems to have been on the team. There is a study dating back to 2005 where Dr. Azeem describes a team consisting of an assitant lecturer and three fourth-year microbiology students. The report comes to the Internet through Operation Wallacea, another interesting facet to this man's academic relationships. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once you get your PhD, you do a post-doc, it's the bottom rung of an academic career - no shame in that I've done one myself but it's certainly not the stuff of WP:PROF. You seem to be taking a lot of completely run of the mill academic activity and using that as evidence (based on criteria that seems to only exist in your head) that he's special in some way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DonaldRichardSand, THE EOL does not function as Wikipedia and is not a accessible to edit by anyone ..here is how contributors to EOL are chosen " EOL Rubenstein Fellows are selected through an international competition administered by the Species Pages Group of the EOL, with additional support from an application review committee. More than 60 Fellows are expected to be awarded over the four years of the program, which began in 2010." .. i have posted the links again as external links although i think one of them needs to be used as reference but it keeps getting deleted by some editors so i hope it survives this time .G.S. Soliman (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:PROF. Furthermore, the article is being heavily edited by an editor with a COI that refuses to stop editing this and other articles even after agreeing to stop. OlYeller^Talktome 21:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but I stopped ! it was trimmed down to almost nothing but then another editor started retrieving reliable-sourced data G.S. Soliman (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't. You were editing just 2 hours ago. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only added a link and it kept getting deleted but now that someone else posted it right it is still there .. OK seems I'm here only to apologizeG.S. Soliman (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minimal impact on Google Scholar, too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note WP:PROF "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I suggest that Dr. Azeem's article should be considered an exception. His work, though focused on microbiota, has already made a significant contribution on the advancement of science in Egypt. In summary, consider Azeem's involvement in the Encyclopedia of Life, the International Water Technology Conference, Operation Wallacea, and the systematizing of fungi information for Egypt. The public health study of the 70 children in the St. Katherine's protectorate deserves special note. The information re: Dr. Azeem seems like it would be of interest to a significant number of the Wikipedia readership, IMO.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that the above editor has been given a special barnstar on his talkpage by Soliman for advocacy of this article. This appears to be canvassing. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

What is canvassing? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Xxanthippe. Perhaps you can explain how the Barnstar is canvassing. I have looked over the description and cannot find anything that fits. The Barnstar came long after I have been involved in the discussion. It is a simple thank you, I figure. I have not been convassed to take part. My involvement began when a random invitation was sent to me by the Wikipedia system. But, now that I am involved, I have met those interested in this article, either to save it or delete. I think this is the first time we have conversed. Welcome to the discussion. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that you are completely without fault in this matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hello

Would anybody consider this awards of him on contribution of community development by Suez Canal University[9]..thanks G.S. Soliman (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC) This research as well [10] G.S. Soliman (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jsfouche : see i'm not editing now .. just proposing links G.S. Soliman (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A junior researcher, only a postdoc, clearly fails WP:PROF. Academics at this career stage are almost never notable and this case is no exception. Only a few cites in GScholar, h-index in low single digits, no major awards and nothing else to demonstrate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More papers on Opwall[11] G.S. Soliman (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and Another link: APS Journals [12] and [www.asplantprotection.org/PDF/ANEPPN/NEPPNEL48En.pdf]

another link: On SpringLink [13] On mycorrhiza [14]

I just don't know if I can post them myself in the article? I respect the agreement.G.S. Soliman (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Egyptian British Biological Society [15]

G.S. Soliman (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G.S. Soliman, I suggest that you find journal templates and on a page like this put the journal of interest into standard format. This is a rather time consuming task, but a very important one. Once they are in standard format, anyone who recognizes their value can add them to the article where appropriate. You willingness to keep at arm's length from the actual editing of the article is noted and respected. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YEs DonaldRichardSands .. I stay away from actual editing ..the significance of this person is not only in his academics but in the proportion of contribution he presented to advance the science in his area of expertise in Egypt and therefore to the world's database of fungi. Thank you for your patience.G.S. Soliman (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I hope this works

Abdel Azeem, Ahmed M.; Ibrahim, Mohamed E.; Abdel Moneim, TS; Abo El-Soud, IH; Steffen, Kari; Blanchette, Robert A. (2009), A new strategy to conserve Acacia tortilis subsp. raddiana in South Sinai, Egypt., Ventaa, Helsinki: University of Helsinki

Abdel Azeem, Ahmed M. (2009), First Record of Oidiopsis taurica Causing Powdery Mildew of Capparis spinosa in Egypt, Ventaa, Helsinki: The American Phytopathological Society

Article Abdel Azeem, Ahmed M.; Ibrahim, TS; Hassan, ME; Saleh, MY (2007), Effects of long-term heavy metal contamination on diversity of terricolous fungi and nematodes in egypt - A case study. WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION, Egypt: University of Helsinki ((citation)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Abdel Azeem, Ahmed M.; Ibrahim, TS (2009), Operation Wallacea in Egypt, Diversity of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Different Elevation Wadis in Saint Katherine Protectorate, Egypt: Assiut University Journal of Botany

Abdel Azeem, Ahmed M.; Ibrahim, TS (2009), Operation Wallacea in Egypt, A Preliminary Study on Diversity of Fungi in the World Heritage Site of Saint Katherine, Egypt, Egypt: Assiut University Journal of Botany ((citation)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

and the award of Suez Canal University on his efforts in serving the community [16] based on his academic research as measured to the scarcity of knowledge, research and achievement in his field of expertise in Egypt. G.S. Soliman (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment without judging the notability, I think I must object to the wording of the nomination "a bog-standard X" is an insulting phrase,and should not be used of a living person. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is an unfortunate use of language. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that it was an unfortunate use of language, but I'm sure the nominator intended no insult. The phrase means "ordinary, with no special or unusual features," and I'm sure that's all that was intended. It's a common phrase in British English, though clearly it comes across as very negative outside the UK. -- 202.124.73.177 (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. The publications listed above are of high quality, no doubt, but are not more than is expected of an ordinary academic, and are not highly cited. There is no other evidence of notability, at least in English (although of course there may be such evidence in local Egyptian media). -- 202.124.72.14 (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also note that the creator of this article, User:Doveye71, appears to be Gihan Sami Soliman, who is a colleague of the subject. -- 202.124.72.14 (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Comment. I believe that the development of the article has moved beyond Soliman's creation. Ahmed Abdel Azeem has made some significant contributions to the scientific world of Egypt. His accomplishments seem like they would be of interest to our readership here at Wikipedia. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article and references demonstrate is an an expert--perhaps even the expert--in his special subject, and that meets WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say that? Azeem's own list of notable Egyptian mycologists ([17]) includes people like Prof. Moubasher at Assiut University and his team, who have many more (and more frequently cited) publications. -- 202.124.73.175 (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have learned of Azeem, I have also learned of the field of mycology and how many scientists specialize in mycology. I am impressed with Azeem's published work. His historical summary alone should win him recognition. Also, his work with other to assess the water in the St. Katherine's protectorate, where they studied the blood samples 70 youth with recommendations, is a praiseworthy public health study. As I have begun my study of mycologists, I have concluded that Azeem has just begun. He is not yet a major force among scientists who study mycology, but his work is significant and he is beginning to be recognized. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the subject has "just begun," that implies a lack of notability in the Wikipedia sense. Nor do his publications, excellent as they are, qualify for WP:PROF until they begin to be highly cited. -- 202.124.74.78 (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being an expert in a particular field of study is not sufficient to pass WP:PROF. Most academics holding a faculty appointment somewhere qualify as experts in something. WP:PROF requires evidence that the person "has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.". In fact, even being "the expert" on a particular topic is not sufficient. To quote from WP:PROF: "Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects." It is rather rare for an academic at the postdoc stage in their career to be considered notable under WP:PROF. I can't remember a case where a WP article about a postdoc survived an AfD. A postdoc may satisfy WP:PROF under some exceptional circumstances, such as winning a major award, or producing work that is extremely highly cited. These kinds of exceptional circumstances are not present here. Nsk92 (talk) 16:00, 25 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Shorish Kashmiri[edit]

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

~~notability not demonstrated~~ Withdrawn. Muhandes (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator could explain how the sources found by the searches automatically linked in the nomination do not demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I just realized I nominated the wrong article. Withdrawn. --Muhandes (talk) 21:13, 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 redirect to Causes of mental disorders. Consensus is that this fork is not needed and has copyright/OR problems. The redirect allows a later merging of selected content if these problems are addressed. Sandstein 05:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of major mental disorders[edit]

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

PROD tag removed without explanation by SPA. Article is an original essay Yunshui (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's creator does not appear familiar with Wikipeida's policy concerning original research (see comments on talkpage). The essay (or one very similar) was apparently published in the journal of Medical Hypothesis (2006) 67,395-4000 with the title "Considering the major mental disorders as clinical expressions of periodic pathological oscillations of the overall operating mode of brain function"; this could perhaps be used as a source for a new, WP-compliant, version of the article. Yunshui (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which means this isn't original research, doesn't it? If this material been published in Medical Hypothesis, then OR can't possibly apply, can it?
However, equally, it's a copyvio of the Journal of Medical Hypothesis article and needs to be blanked accordingly, unless and until Dr Pediaditakis is able to provide permission for us to use his text via the WP:OTRS system. This is because anyone could claim to be Dr Pediaditakis, or register an account in his name. We need to be sure that the real copyright owner really does give us permission to use this content.
Since this is independently-published research that appears in an ~~eminently~~ apparently reliable source, once permission has been received there is absolutely no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't host this content.—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Valid point. I hadn't seen the note about publication until after proposing AfD. The Journal of Medical Hypotheses may not meet WP:RS, though; according to this letter of concern from the National Library of Medicine it is not peer-reviewed and has a very minimal bar for inclusion. WP:NOTESSAY definitely prefers peer-reviewed journals. For that matter, even if copyvio is dodged by getting Dr Pediaditakis' permission (and that shouldn't be too hard; I'm fairly convinced he's on the level), this still falls foul of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and would need a major - near total - rewrite if kept. Yunshui (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valid response. Wikipedia does have an article on Medical Hypotheses that suggests it became peer reviewed in June 2010, after the material we're considering. On the other hand, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is not an argument for deletion. It's an argument for rewriting as an encyclopaedia article aimed at the uninformed but intelligent and curious lay person.
In any case, I think that Wikipedia ought to have an article on the causes or risk factors for psychological disorders, and indeed it does: causes of mental disorders. The text we're considering here appears to contain worthwhile additions to that topic and I'm quite sure that Dr Pediaditakis' knowledge will be helpful in drafting our treatment of the topic, if he retains his goodwill towards Wikipedia after this somewhat bureaucratic process. There's an impressive list of references to check, too. I think that if the copyright issue can be overcome, then the material itself is fixable, which means that per WP:ATD we shouldn't delete it.—S Marshall T/C 16:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to causes of mental disorders when and if the copyright issue can be solved by WP:OTRS permission per the discussion above.—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote to smerge per S Marshall; seems like a thoroughly sensible compromise. Yunshui (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails No Original Research, since the article states a conclusion at the end. The information contained therein has been selected to argue that conclusion, which means I suspect an inherent POV. I think smerge is the wrong way to go, since it may introduce bias to other articles. Roodog2k (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless the author can clearly define his sources (WP:RS) making the article verifiable (WP:VERIFY) through citation the article should be deleted. A great deal of the article surround temperament as the major cause of mental illness avoiding most other possible causes. (A clear clinical definition of temperament is not given.) At best the article title might be changed to reflect this emphasis. These issues combined lead me to believe it is original research (WP:NOR ) promoting a (WP:POV). It also appear to be a fork (WP:CFORK ) with causes of mental disorders. The article might be salvaged in part if merged with causes of mental disorders as a section should verifiable sources be provided.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't checked them all, but a random sampling of the sources quoted in the article do seem to meet WP:RS. They haven't been inlined properly, which is a pain, and obviously none of them directly support the conclusion, but with a bit of work the information therein could be useful in the Causes of mental disorders article. IMHO, anyway... Yunshui (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only one basic reason is given for mental illness, temperament. Reason, alone makes me believe there might be more then one. As a stand alone article if it remains it maybe a misrepresentation of the reason(s) for mental illness. This in turn, would make the article POV.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although article is not written according wikipedia style and it looks like essay and also seems to be a study material. Author should be encouraged to rewrite it in wikipedia style so that it is encyclopedic content. Sehmeet singh Talk 11:18, 25 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Injuring Yourself Whilst Making Music[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 07:04, 5 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) 00:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep as said before the band is big down under, no reason for deletion. Seasider91 (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient indepth sources to meet WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 16 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, causa sui (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears notable. Significant release by a band who later became major, covered in contemporary music (read: non-online) press. Orderinchaos 19:55, 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 no consensus. Courcelles 21:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scalectrix (Gyroscope EP)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 5 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) 00:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly merge the band Gyroscope is a big band in Australia, just because you haven't heard of them isn't a reason to nominate for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasider91 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Scalectrix was the band's first release on compact disc and resulted in their ability to significant promote themselves beyond Western Australia. Dan arndt (talk) 01:22, 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, causa sui (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant release by a band which later became major, covered in music press, and in particular per Dan Arndt's comment. Orderinchaos 19:55, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star Arcade multi player mobile gaming[edit]

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

I don't think this company is notable enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Of the sources available, only the one from www.mobile-ent.biz [18] makes an effort to pass as a review, while the others are just repeating the content from the company's press releases, slightly paraphrased if anything. This post [19] is the only thing I could find (other than more press releases), and the content is pretty much the same as the others - frankie (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The ArcticStartup reference looks to be an independent article, based on their editorial policy. But I'm not certain that it is enough to show that this article meets our notability requirements, so I'm only mentioning this as a general comment, not an argument to keep the article. -- Atama頭 08:42, 3 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) 23:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 3 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) 00:09, 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, causa sui (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG. LiteralKa (talk) 01:53, 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. Courcelles 21:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seah's spices[edit]

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

google turns mostly self referencing links St8fan (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable food brand. The article was created for advertising purpose. Keb25 (talk) 14:24, 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) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bata (tribe)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The article is unsourced and I was unable to find any reliable sources for it via Google, so it appears to fail WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references which indicate its notability and contrary to what some might think it is not the task of the others users to establish this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 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, causa sui (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Punjabi_people#Pakistani_Punjabis --DeVerm (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - a merge would require that there be a verifiable source. There just is nothing out there that I can find. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:50, 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 redirect to Silverchair_discography#Singles per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paint Pastel Princess[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 5 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) 00:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whilst produced by a notable band, insufficient evidence of sources to meet WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 16 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, causa sui (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charted in Triple J Hottest 100, 2000, a nationally significant annual radio poll (albeit almost at the bottom at No.96), so meets WP:MUSIC. Orderinchaos 19:52, 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. — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Findaway[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 5 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) 00:05, 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, causa sui (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of meeting WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 12:16, 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. Ironholds (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emotion Pictures[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 5 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) 00:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Silverchair discography, where it isn't currently mentioned.--Michig (talk) 10:04, 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, causa sui (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Silverchair discography. causa sui (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Disambiguate between The Best of Volume 1 (video), Wim Wenders (book) and Broken Record Prayers (song) but do not merge. Merging wholly unsourced material is a bad idea and I haven't found any reliable sources to support the content; I can only find YouTube, forums and the like. It is mentioned in The Best of Volume 1 which makes it a good enough target for one item in a new disambiguation page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable, independent sources that demonstrate that this meets the notability criteria. Intriguingly, there is a mention in a list of titles at Australia's Parliamentary debates (Hansard): House of Representatives, Volume 246, but as there is only a snippet view available, and neither "Emotion Pictures" nor "Silverchair" are mentioned anywhere else in that volume, it would appear that this would not be significant coverage. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much what has already been said, there is a lack of reliable sourcing to make this notable. Truthsort (talk) 23:50, 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 merge to Silverchair discography. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out Takes and Miss Takes[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 5 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) 00:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Silverchair discography, where it isn't currently mentioned.--Michig (talk) 10:04, 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, causa sui (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Michig. Orderinchaos 19:53, 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 redirect to Education in Puerto Rico. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El Porton School, Barranquitas[edit]

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

Can't speedy delete it so have taken it here, the school is not really notable enough in my opinion. Quiggers1P (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please advise why would elementary schools not be notable on their own right? I feel you objection should be explained in the light of the A7 school exception discussion. Schools are hubs of culture in local communities. Inherently notable to regional players. A mere conclusory opinion without foundation sounds insufficient.Stapler80 (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary schools, colleges and universities should not be deleted for reasons you have mentioned, but due to the sheer number of elementary schools around the world, I feel that they not notable enough due to the lack of people in the majority of the schools. Quiggers1P (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They generally fail WP:ORG due to a lack of significant coverage (other than routine "school is starting, new principal, fall festival, basketball victory" in the local paper) in reliable and independent sources. The typical article just mirrors the school's own website. They are local and ubiquitous, like the corner gas station, the neighborhood diner or the local McDonald's. We used to be more demanding of significant coverage for high schools as well, but the typical public or legitimate private high school gets some regional and statewide coverage. The high school gets the benefit of the doubt, because with effort someone can usually find stories about innovative educational programs, failures of educational programs, scandals, controversies, athletic championships, and notable alumni. Elementary schools usually get merged to an article about the school district, which represents a geographic area more comparable to that of a typical high school. Edison (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge due to failure to satisfy WP:ORG, to an article about the locality, Barranquitas, Puerto Rico, which presently says nothing about local educational opportunities. The stub just says it exists, and the stub is just a mirror of its own website. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists. Edison (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this "deletion" is the wrong tag for this discussion. Elementary School Markušica has a different tag for the same issue. The purpose of the article is to serve as repository for notable information about the school. The infobox template used allows for a wealth of useful information to be collected. About merging-- Is there a way to hyperlink to a subtitle inside a page? so that a link to the school in the page for the town would point to the school entry within the town's page?Stapler80 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For info, above editor is the article's creator -- Quiggers1P (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article creator's desire to create a "repository" is contrary to the principles and guidelines of Wikipedia. See WP:NOT. Edison (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification The use of the word "repository" was a newbie mistake. Author used it under its general definition that presupossed WP:ORG as a computer application is a "repository". Stapler80 (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Article Author[reply]
Delete - the consensus is that high schools are considered notable, for the reasons given in the essay WP:NHS, but, in general, elementary schools are not notable failing coverage that meets WP:ORG. This seems to me to be a good compromise. As Edison states we normally redirect elementary schools to the school district or, failing that, to the locality. The problem is that the locality has no education section and starting one with a single elementary school with no encyclopaedic material isn't a good idea. Reluctantly, therefore, I see alternative to deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per usual practice for elementary schools. It could be redirected to the locality, or maybe better to Education in Puerto Rico. --MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 17 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, causa sui (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - the school shows no signs of notability. A note in the article about the locality should suffice, though there shouldn't be any prejudice against recreation, should significant reliable source be found according to WP:GNG. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into the article for the locality; there is now a section for it, very sensibly started by User:Stapler80 (I was about to start one myself, but I found it was already done). When there's an obvious place to merge, but the item will be the first item in a new section, it's fine to just start the section, add the item,and try to add other examples also. The absence of a pre-existing section or article to merge into when a merge is desirable is no reason not to make one, whether it be a section or an entire new article. NOT BURO. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard procedure for non notable schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per well established practice. To the question above about why elementary schools are considered not notable unless extraordinary circumstances intervene, for me the reason is this — many people who write biographies will mention a high school, if known, and that link should show up blue not red. Nobody writing a biography will mention an elementary school by name. Others may have other interpretations of why this rule of thumb is like it is, but that works for me... Carrite (talk) 01:24, 26 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. Sandstein 05:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jiyul[edit]

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

Singer of limited notability outside the group Dal Shabet - no significant claims outside the group. Tried redirecting, but a COI editor constantly reverted, so going this route. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the exact same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 04:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 04:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~SNOW~~ Delete There are no sources in this article. After trying to verify some of her appearances, I was able to find this debut information of the group, but nothing about Jiyul specifically. I wasn't able to find sources verifying her appearances on the shows listed. Even if I did, this still doesn't do anything to separate her notability from the band. (I might also note that the page for the band, Dal Shabet is also completely unsourced.) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the merits of the nomination, I would like to note that "snow delete" does not mean "I really think this should be deleted"; it means "I think the discussion should be closed early because there is no way it will survive, based on the way the vote is going." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my SNOW deletion was based on a lack of success at finding anything likely to support notability, which was consistent with the nominator. But you are correct, it should have waited, and the discussion should be given the appropriate amount of time to run its course. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Dal Shabet. That article is unsourced but it appears the group might be sufficiently notable.--Michig (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the article Jiyul i have improved it and all the information I found was in fydalshabet.tumblr.com please look through the website and enter Jiyul's section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mushroom2508 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Tumblr is not a reliable source. Jiyul would have had to be covered by several reliable sources in order to be considered notable enough to warrant an article here. If you can find those sources, then the article can stay. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand! you're not dalshabet 's fan and you don't know any of their facts! if you search dalshabet profile then all of it will be same as the tumblr one! or you can just go on dalshabetlove.net and all the facts will still be the same! btw the i have change the living person why is there still the box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mushroom2508 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you click the links I posted, you can read about what kinds of sources are acceptable on Wikipedia. We can't use self-published material because it is neither neutral nor verifiable. We can only use secondary sources that have a reputation for editorial review. Thus, a magazine or newspaper article on the singer would qualify as a good reliable source, but the band's myspace or tumblr page would not. I know it seems like you should be able to add information that you know is true, but if everyone did that Wikipedia wouldn't be very useful, as everybody thinks different things are true. That's why we can only use reliable secondary sources. If you can't find any for Jiyul, then they might just not be notable enough yet to warrant having their own article. See WP:BAND for our policies on what makes an artist notable enough for an article. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why do the singer have to win or get nominate award like grammy or juno to have article? lots of other korean singer has article but they don't even have thoses award like grammy and stuff! If that one was skipped out then Dalshabet(jiyul is a member of that band) would pass like 8 or 7 of those criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.3.18.71 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 21 July 2011

Unfortunately, because Wikipedia content is entirely user-generated, and articles are in varying stages of development, a given subject's notability generally cannot be supported by existing content on Wikipedia. Also, singers don't have to win or get nominated for awards to be on Wikipedia, there are lots of other criteria that can be used instead. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not redirect Not notable. I looked for sources and couldn't find any. In doing so, however, I found another Jiyul, a buddhist nun and environmental protester who has gained significant coverage. Thus, Jiyul should probably be about her, instead. If the singer ever becomes notable enough for an article, it could be titled Jiyul (Singer). Throwaway85 (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND (notability criteria for musicians); WP:RS and WP:INDY (no independent reliable sources); WP:COI and/or WP:AUTOBIO (appears to have been largely edited by the subject or by someone closely connected to the subject). I can't support a redirect to Dal Shabet because that article evidently suffers from the same problems and probably ought to be deleted as well. I mean no disrespect to Jiyul or Dal★Shabet, and I wish them well in their careers, but there just doesn't seem to be the level of notability at this time that Wikipedia requires. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 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) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin de Luce[edit]

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

In some ways I want to say this is a hoax, but at the very best, he is not a notable businessperson. What makes this difficult is he goes by "Sean Lucey" early in his career and "Griffin de Luce" later on.
At age 24, one reference says he is a writer at MacWEEK. I can find nothing else that he was a writer there. At age 26, he is CEO of Gryphon Group. The reference is to a review on Cnet. However, the company is long gone and I found only two references to the company.
Fast forward. A reference given to him being the "biggest mac fanboy". Reference doesn't mention him and the video given doesn't mention him in the credits. Says he was CTO, president and founder for Strike.TV. There is an IMDB ref saying the same thing. But, if you goto the website, he isn't mentioned. Website hasn't been updated since 2008.
Fast forward. Now he is called Griffin de Luce. Here is his webpage. He is founder of MetaSamurai.com that also does appletoday.com. Nothing in searches on those sites except the from sites themselves. Also claims to be CTO of LexusHybridLiving.com (nothing found), Green.org (not a real website) and Solar.com (it is run by a different company than Luce's). Bgwhite (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this person. The sourcing in the article is somewhat problematic, and the claims for notability perhaps a little exaggerated. For example, the article claims he developed "the first secure web-based file storage operating system in 1996", but the sourcing provided shows that it really isn't an operating system, and doesn't even support the claim that he was first, or indeed that he developed it. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE FROM SUBMITTER: Please note: the entry has been updated with additional references which address the comments and questions of Whpq and Bgwhite.

Primary additions include an article from WebWEEK ^[1] which quotes Jerry Michalski ^[2] about the Acquire product. Mr. Michaelski (who served as managing editor of Release 1.0) notes that the product was new and novel in his opinion. The quote is from WebWeek 10-21-96.

A Strike.TV reference will be forthcoming, however if you direct your attention to the reference that is CURRENTLY listed VARIETY: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117988436?refCatId=1009 ) you will find de Luce listed among the other founders.

The assertion that the subject is not mentioned on AppleToday.com is incorrect. The main page of the site states: "Brought to you by Griffin de Luce, Founder & Publisher"

References to Green.org, Solar.com and LexusHybridLiving.com have been removed until references can be found.

At this time the article MORE THAN SATISFIES the requirement that "all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article." This article contains references to VARIETY, WebWEEK, MacWEEK, BoingBoing, AppleToday.com and CNET.

Finally, the article is NOT A HOAX as posited by bgwhite. Rather, Mr. de Luce changed his name when he sold TGG.COM to J Walter Thompson and moved West to work in Hollywood, CA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundogsakai (talk • contribs) 10:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I note that the claim for being "the first secure web-based file storage operating system in 1996" has been removed and replaced with a much weaker statement indicating it was one many http-based file storage products. There were many being created at the time and being first to market isn't a big deal from a notability standpoint. And in any case, the article is about the product and not about de Luce. -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noformation (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and no real proof of the extent of his claims.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JMS Old Al (talk • contribs)
CommentSundog, a single reference is required but not sufficient for an article about a person. WP:NOTABLE applies and this subject does not seem to meet notability guidelines. N^oformation ^Talk 21:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ReplyNoformation, upon which guideline do you determine that the individual falls outside the definition of notable? Regarding your comment about Acquire, could you please let us know which competing product you are referring to as preceding it? The editors of WebWEEK and CNET were not aware of a competing commercial product and felt that Mr. de Luce was notable enough and the product important enough to interview him. WP:NOTABLE 18 July 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundogsakai (talk • contribs) 23:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - The other products are irrelevant. The webweek article about Acquire, and not about De Luce. -- Whpq (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Well let's start with a quote from WP:NOTABLE: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Is this subject significantly covered? Here are my takes on the sources:

Webweek article is not about him, it's about a product and since webweek doesn't appear to exist anymore, I can't even ascertain its importance as a source (but again, since it's not about him it doesn't matter).
I don't know what this text document is but it's not an WP:RS and it doesn't talk about the subject anyway.
This reference is again, about the product, not the man. It mentions the Gryphon Group but it is not about the person in question and so it isn't an WP:RS for claims made about the subject
Source 4 isn't about the subject either
Appletoday is (i)not talking about the subject and (ii) a primary source and so would likely not count even if it did have an article about the subject
boingboing source also isn't about the subject
Last ref isn't about the subject (though it does mention him).

As such, there is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and hence it does not pass WP:NOTABLE. If you can find 3 or 4 articles about de Luce then that is a different story, but I can not seem to locate them myself. Being mentioned in passing doesn't count either, btw, de Luce should be the subject of the sources if he is to be the subject of an article here. Thanks. N^oformation ^Talk 02:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to JMS Old Al Your comment "no real proof of the extent of his claims" lowers the level of discussion by being overly general as well as subjective. If you insist upon adding your voice, please be specific about your own claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundogsakai (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point I believe JMS is trying to make is that we have no way of verifying if what you've written in the article is true because none of the sources you've provided back up the claims about de Luce. For instance, what source states that he is systems theorist? Which one says he lives near Lake Tahoe? Which one says he consulted for Time Warner? On WP, all facts need to be able to be verifiable, it literally points that out on every edit page. I've also noticed that you have a connection to the subject, which I pointed out on your talk page. Did you read the WP:COI information I left you? N^oformation ^Talk 02:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, here is my reasoning for thinking you have a conflict of interest: GHits for "Sundog Sakai" + "Griffin de Luce". I'm guessing you're his photographer or you help with internet presence or something? I don't know, but with this strong of a connection you really should tread carefully with the subject. N^oformation ^Talk 02:22, 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. Difficult close; should be Delete by weight of numbers but I am very aware of WP:CSB. Nevertheless, whilst it is true that 3VOOR12 is indeed a reliable source, all of the references to this band (and the other) are in the "local" section of the website that deals with Den Haag only; the equivalent, if you will, of a local newspaper. On that basis there seems to be little reason not to consider the Delete votes valid. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only Fate Remains[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Singularity42 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, if this article is deleted, then Template:Only Fate Remains should also be deleted. Singularity42 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:Trisomy (band):

the page covers the history of a band that goes by a new name, but until that time was one of the influences in the Dutch female fronted scene for over 14 years. As such, I believe it should be further updated and referenced, but not deleted!

in addition, the band conforms with WP:BAND: Has won or placed in a major music competition. This band was in the semi-finals of the Dutch National band contest as the only one in its genre, representing the entire genre for that year in the category Rock.

(http://www.groteprijsvan.nl/)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michielvv (talk • contribs) 19:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems relevant to the discussion here. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(directed to Michielvv, not Monty845) You founded the band. You're not exactly in a position to objectively say, wihtout sources, that the band "was one of the influences in the Dutch female fronted scene for over 14 years". Also, are these competitions "major music competitions"? Singularity42 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

regarding my objectivity; fair point. I cannot state this by myself without any sources. I will need some days, to add the resources.
regarding the "major music competitions". This is THE band contest of the Netherlands. There is nothing like it:http://www.groteprijsvan.nl/.
NB: does it help the current drummer played in Elfi-Jarz (signed by major label Virgin records), vocalist sang in 4Girlz (got a hit in the Netherlands with DingeDong, signed by major label CNR Music (Arcade Entertainment)) and ex-guitar player is the current guitar player of Stream of Passion (signed by major label Nuclear Blast)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michielvv (talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Did not win or place in a major contest, only made the semis and there was many semi finalists. Notability is not inherited from other bands. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone deleted the text (thanks). WP:BAND applies as: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.60.82 (talk) 13:16, 16 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, causa sui (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

looking at the new sources, still lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. none are both non trivial and reliable. !vote still stands. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

still lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. none are both non trivial and reliable - So you are saying that Dutch media is independent nor reliable? Do you have a independent and reliable resource for your statement?Michielvv (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I said, do not misrepresent what I wrote. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you find Dutch media such as VPRO reliable: what would you find to be a non trivial source? I may then understand what you mean?Michielvv (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BAND and no separate meeting of WP:GNG. Simply lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to achieve notability. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

with WP:GNG solved and aligned to WP:BAND, both are solved right?Michielvv (talk) 20:06, 26 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) 15:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Football TV Violence[edit]

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

I'm going to assume good faith here, and assume a disputed PROD (the last article was deleted after a PROD, and then the author re-created it). Original reasons: Wikipedia is not a forum, soapbox, or place for personal essays. Singularity42 (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for essays etc. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it isn't even really an "article" but just a point of view. Violates multiple counts of inclusion, as noted by the nominator.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments of Osborn and P. McDonald. Cbl62 (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue or Redirect I think this can be rescued. There has been discussion in reliable media sources about a high amount of concussions in American football, or perhaps this could redirect to Health issues in American football D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I considered whether to bold redirect (or delete under CSD A10) to the health issues article. However, while it discussed the head injuries, it didn't do so from the perspective of violence. —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect. Very POV observation which belongs on a message board, not here, and also pretty ranty (the pounds of protective equipment also keep it less violent that it could be without). Nate • (chatter) 04:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the place for one-sided essays. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original essay. Carrite (talk) 06:17, 25 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. Sandstein 05:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little Insects[edit]

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

I have reviewed Wikipedia:Notability (films) and have concluded this film doesn't meet notability requirements. Being made in 2000, this movie should have reliable sources other than comprehensive databases, but all I can find is IMDB and an occasional short plot summary at other places. No critics have commented, no reviews. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. It's a real film, but it does not full notability criteria required by WP:NFILMS. I was unable to find any sources discussing the film at all outside of plot summaries, and I imagine others will be equally unsuccessful at locating any sources that cover or review the film in detail, not to mention any awards. This one really doesn't stand a chance. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure the first vote is a little to soon to declare snowball. Don't forget the Jamaican Bobsled Team D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I have apparently misunderstood WP:SNOW. Thanks. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:49, 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 keep. Sandstein 05:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Mein Kampf[edit]

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

Obvious POV-pushing by an editor who only days ago had her topic ban on Arab-Israeli topics lifted - a topic ban that was imposed because of this user's history of disruption, POV-pushing, and anti-Arab racism. There is no indication that Arabic translations of Mein Kampf are a particularly notable topic - most of the cited sources contain only a couple of pages or less on the subject out of hundreds of pages (some only a sentence!), and most of the rest are conservative newspapers rather than scholarly books or journal articles. One of the scholarly sources even states that Mein Kampf did not figure prominently in Arabic-language Nazi propaganda. The lack of notability of this particular translation combined with the transparent attempt on the part of the creator to link Arabs and Nazis makes this a good candidate for deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, here we go again: first, as far as sources go a. I'm inclined to accept the two newspapers cited as Reliable Sources b. I think the article could probably be kept on the basis of the books by Herf, Gottreich/Schroeter, and Mallman/Cuppers/Smith. Those three books appears to be published by pretty reputable publishers, and discussion of the translation is (in my opinion, at least) non-trivial. Second, we could just clean up the POV and accuracy issues without deleting. If the POV problems are that bad, we could just stub the article and re-build rather than deleting it. I've rescued a few articles that way recently. Third, I think this needs a new title, maybe something a bit broader like Mein Kampf in the Arab World or something. Fourth, worst case scenario, a selective merge to Mein Kampf would probably be a better idea than outright deletion. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the POV problem here can be corrected through normal editing, since the POV problem is the existence of the article when we do not have articles on Mein Kampf in any other language or on its reception by any other ethnic group. (Lest you think this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, no, it's a WP:UNDUE argument.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think the fact that we have uneven coverage here is a good reason to start more articles, rather than delete this one. The history of the English and Russian translations of MK would probably be pretty interesting. In any case, Stefan Wild's work on the topic seem to be a pretty solid academic source, certainly more than just a page or two there. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Big fat yawn. Obvious POV push delete by Roscelese who barely can contain her anger or provide evidence why this should deleted. Anyways, notability of this topic is established by large number of reliable sources on it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I disagree with her reasons" =/= "She has not provided reasons." Indeed, I have provided several: an unfixable POV problem and a lack of notability in the sources that matter. But thanks for the personal attack and the tone argument, dude. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your crusade. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see solid references. Stating that the existence of this article by itself is POV while it is WP:V sounds contradictory. --DeVerm (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It looks like the nominator is here to delete me and not the article.

“

There is no indication that Arabic translations of Mein Kampf are a particularly notable topic

”

I've done search in Scholar with the search criteria:"Mein Kampf" and "Arabic"

Here's what I got. Of course not all of these are on the subject, but many are.

“

most of the rest are conservative newspapers rather than scholarly books or journal articles

”

Right now the article is using 10 sources, including:

So from 10 sources used 6 are scholarly books.

“

Obvious POV-pushing by an editor who only days ago had her topic ban on Arab-Israeli topics lifted - a topic ban that was imposed because of this user's history of disruption, POV-pushing, and anti-Arab racism

”

The editor, who is accused in anti-Arab racism wrote following articles just to name a few:

“

The lack of notability of this particular translation combined with the transparent attempt on the part of the creator to link Arabs and Nazis makes this a good candidate for deletion.

”

I did not link Arabs to Nazis, I only used reliable sources and let's see the names of the sources:

Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam.
Mein Kampf for sale, in Arabic.
Their Kampf Hitler’s book in Arab hands"
Nazi propaganda for the Arab world
National Socialism in the Arab near East between 1933 and 1939
Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine
A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic Jihad

and here are a few sources I have not yet used:

Should I go on?

The section of Arab who denounced the book is included in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No speedy keep criteria apply to this nomination. We've been through this before - your personal belief that your articles are good and that I am bad is not a speedy keep criterion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep if I ever saw one. The book is highly notable, any Arabic translations/editions, given the long history of postwar AI worries in the ME, are likewise more than notable enough for an article on en:WP. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no speedy keep criteria apply here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Mbz1 has proven that all reasons nominated in the deletion request are as far away from reality as possible. Broccolo (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no speedy keep criteria apply here. Your personal belief that Mbz is good, and that her own personal belief that I am bad must therefore be correct, is not a speedy keep criterion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and move to Mein Kampf in the Arab World or something similar. This would be a little more broader than the language itself. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no speedy keep criteria apply here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone care to actually address the issues in the nomination? I pointed out that many of these mentions were trivial and that most of the in-depth sources were not of the quality that we should be asking for in such an exhaustively written-about topic as Nazi history. I also pointed out that the existence of the article creates a NPOV problem through WP:UNDUE, in that we suggest that there is more to say about the Arabic translation than any other translation. None of the keep votes have addressed these comments, instead preferring to cite a policy that doesn't apply here and to complain about the chutzpah I'm showing in daring to nominate an article by Mbz1. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mein Kampf and Nazi relations with the Arab world. There's nothing notable about this particular translation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing notable about the prevalence of the key book of Nazi literature in the Arab-Muslim world, where anti-Semitism is endemic? Even Malcom Little had more intellectual honesty. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a stern hand to de-POV it and make it conform more rigorously to its scholarly sources such as Jewish Culture and Society in North Africa, A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic Jihad and section II of "National Socialism in the Arab Near East Between 1933 and 1939". It also should be renamed to something like Mein Kampf in the Arabic language.
The 1985 Stefan Wild source devotes a strong section to Arabic translations of Mein Kampf, providing the article with notability. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe this is the best route to go, most intelligent way to proceed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Mein Kampf in the Arabic language I don't agree that the newspapers article in The Daily Telegraph and The National Review are poor sources nor do I think they should be outright dismissed-- what kind of newspapers, for example, would be sufficient enough for the nominator? The newspaper articles are sufficiently independent of the subject matter, and they cover the book in-depth about its sales and its controversy. The translation is also discussed several times in this book, where I did a search highlighting appropriate usage of the terms. I agree that some sources are pretty lousy (such as this one or this one), because they do not provide sufficient coverage. But, using multiple sources to demonstrate notability through cumulative impact is legitimate. After reading through the sources provided by the here in the AfD as well as the current ones on the article, I don't believe the attempt to establish notability of the topic has been transparent. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 04:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it should be renamed to something with Mein Kampf as the first two words in the article title. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Per the overwhelming consensus to keep this article, as expressed above, because it meets GNG. One big TROUT to the nom -- poor nomination, as evidenced by its poor reception at this AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or evidence of the success of Yesha Council and Israel Sheli. -- SmashTheState (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It must be a Jewish cabal! Pathetic. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having an article devoted to the translated version of a book is bizarre. Having that said, as deletion discussions are polls, the article will be kept due to "no consensus", as there are plenty of socks of banned users, POV-pushers etc out there. My advice is to at least rename the article to "Mein Kampf (Arabic translation)" or something similar. That would be less embarrassing. --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The argument that specific translations of major shouldn't get articles seems weak. If there are enough sources there shouldn't be an issue. For example, we have articles on the Septuagint, King James Bible. Poking around, I'm a little surprised that we don't have articles on the various major translations of Euclid's Elements. If I wrote such articles would you support their deletion? note that the controversial nature of Mein Kampf cannot by itself be a reason to distinguish the two situations. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, King James Bible deserve its own article as that translation has its own name and is well-known. Point taken. In this case however, we're talkning about a translation that does not even have its own name. None of this matter however, as there are multiple "keep"-votes. The article will be kept regardless of whether it violates policy or not. --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, how does having an official name have anything to do with whether or not the article should be kept? What policy is relevant to that? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N. Again, this discussion is a waste of time, as the article will be kept anyway. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N says nothing about official names. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it does not explicitly forbid articles without commonly known names. But please see WP:BKD, which says that "It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles on books should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment".

My point with commenting on this AFD was to prevent serious editors from wasting their time, as the article will be kept no matter the quality of their arguments. A secondary point was to protest how inherently flawed Wikipedia deletion "discussions" are when the subject article is in the domain of the I-P topic field, and thus subject to all its glory of sock-puppetry, off-wiki-canvassing, tendentious editors etc. I believe my job here is done. --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It must be a Jewish cabal! Pathetic. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Notable. Also, somebody suggested to rename it to Mein Kampf in the Arabic language, which makes perfect sense, imho. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete/merge/move pov pushing here it could go on the mein kampf page. or at any rate the title is not Arabic Mein Kampf it should then be something like Mein Kampf (Arabic) which then needs disambiguations on both pages.Lihaas (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article should probably be renamed to something like "Arabic translations of Mein Kampf" but right now the argument for keeping seems to be pretty strong. There are clearly enough sources and no coherent policy objection has been made. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles on books should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not." --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is not about the book but rather about the history of the impact Arabic translation of Mein Kampf made in Arab world. This history is very notable. It is discussed by many scholar sources. That is why your quote is absolutely irrelevant in this situation. The name of the article was not good. I moved it now but there are no reasons to delete the article. If there is pov and I do not believe there is it should be dealt in the article and not in the deletion request. Broccolo (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article named "Mein Kampf in the Arabic language" is not about a book? Puzzling. --Frederico1234 (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a way to skirt the picking of nits like this, the title Mein Kampf in the Arab world might be more fitting. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would not change anything. The guideline above states that "articles on books should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment". The key is "ever more minutiae of detail treatment". If the title was changed the way you suggests the article would still be covering one detail regarding the book "Mein Kampf" (namely, its impact in the Arab world). Hence, the guideline would apply. This is not being nit-picking, this is sticking to the guideline. --Frederico1234 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno what the article author was thinking as such, but seeing how this article has been brought forth, this does also have something meaningful to do with article length, Wikipedia:Subarticle#Splitting_an_article. The Mein Kampf article is already nudging the size at which an article might be split and moreover, putting all this content into Mein Kampf might skew it into WP:UNDUE as to its background in the Arab world, by giving the latter more weight, from the outlook of readability, than is called for in the core topic of the book itself. Please keep in mind too, this whole topic area on AH already has scads of sub articles, given the thousands upon thousands of overleafing sources to be had. Meanwhile the cited guideline, Wikipedia:BKD#Derivative_articles (the bounds of which are not so tight as those of a policy), doesn't seem to have much sway here. This article isn't dealing with a "character or thing" or "minutiae of detail" about the book itself at all, but rather, another notable topic stirred up by the book's sundry and notable publications in Arabic. As an aside, any PoV in the text, as it may be at any given time. has nothing to do with the notability of the topic, unless the article was written as a WP:POVFORK meant to disruptively skirt content spats, which I don't see happening here. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BKD#Derivative_articles is more specific than Wikipedia:Subarticle#Splitting_an_article, as the latter concerns articles in general, while the former concerns articles on books and Mein Kampf is a book. What you're suggesting is effectively that the Wikipedia:BKD#Derivative_articles guideline should be ignored.

I agree that merging all this content into Mein Kampf would be highly inadvisable. --Frederico1234 (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the only way to carry this notable, sourced and verifiable content would be here, in its own article. By the way, it seems straightforward to me that Wikipedia:BKD#Derivative_articles, written to put a damper on the Chinese boxing of characters, places and events found in sprawling tales of fiction, has little to do with a non-fiction political book like MK. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, one could merge parts of it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then this merger is something that should be further discussed on the talk page of the article, not here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What about Mein Kampf in Afrikaans, English, French, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Spanish, Ukrainian, etc. Why are there not articles for those if there are for this? The answer: it's the same book in a translated language. The only reason this article exists is because of widespread xenophobia towards Arabs and Muslims since the 9-11 attacks and the War on Terror and it is connoting them with support of a genocidal ideology. This article is truly disgusting for Wikipedia to have and the entire article should be deleted immediately, if there is a real issue of sales of Mein Kampf in the Middle East it should be put in the Mein Kampf article itself.--R-41 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your oppose reason is invalid. There are no articles about Mein Kampf translation to other languages because there are no notable stories about such translations. This article cannot be added to the main article because of undue weight. The article has nothing to do with "xenophobia towards Arabs and Muslims".--Mbz1 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletionist spoil-funs have no shame at all. Reading about a bunch of Nazis squirming around trying to figure out how to make an Arab version of Mein Kampf appealing even though they think of Arabs as sub-humans ... this is priceless! It's worth keeping for humor value alone! And it's not something Wikipedia editors are making something up, but a valid topic from the published literature. But seriously - in general the ties of Nazis and anti-Semitic Arabs in the run-up to be Israeli conflict is an important piece of political background. It helps us understand the rancorous climate that preceded the more modern conflict. There are a lot of people believing fairy tales where one side of that conflict is made up of heroes and the other of villains, but if peace is ever to return to that part of the world, the public needs to understand the messier reality and the broader context. Especially I ask that the ad hominem arguments against the editor who started the article be ignored - I've been running into a glut of these arguments with santorum, Marcus Bachmann, even Bernard Lewinsky ... they are perverting the whole AfD process into a series of political trials, where articles are judged based on "whose side" they were created for and which side can get out the vote as needed. Wnt (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate a very interesting and thoughtful rational for your vote.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Largely agree with R-41's argument. Mbz argues that this article does not represent "xenophobia towards Arabs and Muslims", b/c other "(Language) Mein Kampf" articles would exist but for the fact that "there are no notable stories about ... translations" in other languages? Really? It's been translated into 11 languages. There are plenty of articles that note its translations in langauges other than Arabic (here are three on Hindi alone [20], [21], [22], here's one on japanese manga). We have here an editor, who's been topic-banned from Israel-Palestine articles and is obviously trying to return to his/her past time by painting all Arabs as irrational "jew-haters". I think this can be summed up with two words from R-41's comments. Truly disgusting. NickCT (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a reread of some of the arguments above I could also go for Malik's Merge to Mein Kampf and Nazi relations with the Arab world. NickCT (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your sources for India overlap each others (the first is using the third). The source for Japanese is a blog with an image. Yes, I said and I repeat there is no other notable history that includes at least half of dozen scholarly sources about translation of the book to any other language but Arabic. This history started almost at the same time as the book itself was first published in Germany. The impact of spreading this book, and other Nazi propaganda in British Mandate Palestine and other Arab countries resulted in Jewish pogroms, and in preventing European Jews fleeing from the Holocaust to be allowed to Palestine. Many thousands of peole, who could have been saved, died because of the impact of this book and other nazi propaganda created in this part of the world.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1, I think you're being drawn into an irrelevant argument. Maybe there are sources that discuss all those other translations of Mein Kampf, and if so, we should feel free to cover each and every one of them. Maybe in standalone articles, maybe in a marged article about various translations - people can decide it as they go along. The vast majority of the Wikipedia articles that should exist have still never been started. You shouldn't have to defend yourself that this was the easiest of several related articles to write - it's the one you decided to work on, and that should be enough. Wnt (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wnt. The Nazis had special interests in the Middle East, and they influenced an anti-British uprising in Iraq. Mein Kampf is still influential there, especially amongst antisemitics. Sometimes, it hurts to read or write about the truth because we don't want to believe material that we perceive as offensive to ourselves or other people. The article contains facts and sourced, verifiable claims. The article can also be useful to those researching Nazi scheming and manipulation. I also have to agree with Wnt's observations concerning the witch-hunting of authors of articles involving politics. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazis also had special interests in South Africa and South American countries like Argentina, and there were very strong pro-Nazi sentiments there, so why is the Middle East so exceptional? Mein Kampf and Nazism is popular in India, there have been restaurants named after Hitler there.[23]. Making an article for each language translation is ridiculous. Such information on the popularity of Mein Kampf amongst different areas should be put in the Mein Kampf article.--R-41 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are all kinds of ridiculous articles on Wikipedia, especially where video games and cartoon characters are concerned. "Ridiculous" is not a policy consideration. Some of us might think it's ridiculous we have to argue for the importance of such a historical event as this. The truth is, I think that if people started articles for some other translations of the book, they'd end up deciding to lump them together in a "Translations of Mein Kampf" article. But that's a problem for the future, to be settled by those people. We don't need somebody to time-travel back to the past and wipe out this article lest it create a minor merge debate sometime in the unforeseen future. Wnt (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Orrible topic but very intresting article.A ntv (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if other articles for other languages are needed, make them. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if some of the references are trivial, I do not agree with the nominator that all are; there appear to be several non-trivial sources. Nor do I agee with the comment above against splitting and splitting a book article - I think this validly addresses a specific topic related to a particular translation of the book, and thus is appropriate article subject separate from the Mein Kampf article. I do think a different name, such as Gwen Gale suggests, is in order. Rlendog (talk) 15:53, 25 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) 15:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew McLauchlin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable, WP:NPF, WP:Politician. Delete Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Has not held public office and no other notability is asserted. LaMenta3 (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN, has been listed in New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, should also be listed on New Democratic Party candidates, 2000 Canadian federal election. PK T(alk) 12:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - no claim to notability, political candidates are not generally notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalC (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was redirect. Rlendog (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Silberman[edit]

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

Does not appear subject is independently notable from The Antlers (band). Perhaps a redirect is in order? Sven Manguard Wha? 01:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. LaMenta3 (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band. Minimal content which is already covered in the band's article.--Michig (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 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 keep, and continue to expand. Rlendog (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WPA architecture[edit]

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

Fairly useless article as it stands -- "WPA architecture describes architecture of the WPA?" SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is useful for linking from many current and future U.S. National Register of Historic Places articles whose places are described by the National Register in its NRIS database as representing "WPA architecture" or "WPA Rustic architecture". It is akin to National Park Service rustic architecture. Tag the article as a stub, calling implicitly for expansion. --do ncr am 01:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I added a little to the article, including 2 references easily found. Nomination for deletion seems to have been inappropriate, IMHO. --do ncr am 02:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag as stub/needing expansion per Doncram. Topic is notable, and underdevelopment is not a reason for deletion. LaMenta3 (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is what happens when you create a very short article that doesn't have enough context at the start to identify it. How was SarekOfVulcan supposed to know that you were eventually going to expand this article, versus completely ignoring it and going on to the next stub? Also, if those two references were easily found, why didn't you put them into the article when you first created it? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) The article's topic is obviously notable and that was apparent enough before SarekOfVulcan's nomination for AFD. SarekOfVulcan has no need to know what i am personally am going to develop or not. The topic is valid whether or not i am the one to develop it further. SarekOfVulcan might consider my own track record before opening an AFD though. Consider a few dozen AFDs opened by Masonic-focused editors, which he is aware of, all closed Keep. To respond to your last question, i am developing Wikipedia at a reasonable pace, cannot do everything all at once. I hope the Wikipedia will be ready for you real soon now. --do ncr am 03:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LaMenta3, and because '"WPA rustic" -wikipedia' gets 6,230 Google hits. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy - The general topic of architecture created under the aegis of the WPA is undoubtedly notable, but the article in its current form is, at best, useless -- and indeed has significant potential to misinform users by giving incorrect and misleading information on the scope and context of the topic. Because it would be easier to create a new article than to convert this one to a useful form, deletion would be appropriate. The creator of this article is an experienced Wikipedia contributor who should be able to develop a better article than this, so it would be OK to put it in his article space until it's ready for publication. --Orlady (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article topic is notable and it is adequately supported already, thank you for acknowledging that. The topic does not belong to me; i contributed already by starting the article and developing it as far as it goes now. I don't want to "own" it further, thank you. So, neither deletion nor "userfying" is appropriate. --do ncr am 16:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted by Kanatipo, and as I've verified, a search of "WPA rustic" turns up multiple reliable sources discussing this style of architecture. This is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. Sure it can be improved. But the solution is not to delete it. Cbl62 (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Pubdog (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the way to deal with incomplete or inadequate articles on admittedly notable topics is to add to them, not remove them. If we started removing inadequate articles, we'd have pretty weird coverage--and pretty low usage. Just like 10 years ago. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 25 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 redirect to Adrian Lamo. Content may be merged elsewhere as seen fit. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inside-AOL.com[edit]

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

This article about an inactive website lacks notability Poyani (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to AOL#Controversies. This website was significant in its day and its content shouldn't be deleted. I think the merge is the best option, personally. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Adrian Lamo, the site's major maintainer (and original creator of this article in the first place). AOL is dead in the water but the content is still notable for its time period. Nate • (chatter) 04:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB. LiteralKa (talk) 01:45, 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. If evidence of notability emerges in the future, an article from those sources can be created from those sources at that time.Rlendog (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSKA Tralee[edit]

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

Too short article, doubtful notability, no sources. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being "too short" is not a valid reason to delete. No evidence of notability is. Giant Snowman 12:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Snowman has already stated, due to the changeable nature of Wikipedia, the content of an article does not have any bearing on whether or not it meets our inclusion criteria. That being said, there is no evidence that this article does. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. – Pee Jay 17:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced article, and we don't even have an article about the league this team is reported to play in. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps there is no evidence of notability now, but in a certain period of time there may well be. From my search of this club on the web, they seem to be a well-organised group of young men, without huge experience in the use of wikipedia, trying to publicise their team. Deleting this page will be further evidence of elitism creeping into the everyday life of Wikipedia.Smithy11 (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)smithy11 — Smithy11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not exist for people to use to promote their team (or anything else for that matter). And subjects need to be notable now to have an article, the possibility that they might theoretically become notable at some unspecified point in the future is not sufficient -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 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. Courcelles 21:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACSAC[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I have been unable to find any news articles on the conference, and have been unable to find any reliable sources. The only sources I could find were in lists of conferences or copies of press releases / calls for papers from the people heading up the conference. Therefore, I believe the article fails WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 19:54, 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. Courcelles 21:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Clauberg Opera[edit]

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

With two possible exceptions the band does not come close to wp:music. The exceptions are criteria 1: one independent review is given by a website that documents experimental music in Northern England. All the other references are self-referential Criteria 2: Only 1 album has been commercially released and it by a fairly marginal/obscure label Porturology (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage and no other indication of notability.--Michig (talk) 16:52, 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. Sandstein 05:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decocidio[edit]

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

This is not a significant establishment. Enthdegree (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that they are using this Wikipedia article as their homepage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enthdegree (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do you have proof of the use of this article as a 'homepage'. I can't find any internet domain that refers to this article. Also, I disagree with the remark on significance. I have the slight impression that the critique presented, is based rather upon ideology than content. One can hardly predict how this group of hactivist will develop and the information presented in the article is strictly based on documented facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.236.130.200 (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the article they included a link to a mirror of the page they uploaded to a website they hacked: Mirror Enthdegree (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment mirrors of websites hacked by hacking groups seem to me to be legitimately and essentially inclusable in articles about the hacking groups. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article isn't much more than a stub right now, the subject group does appear to be notable, on the basis of several independent reliable sources. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep This seems to be uncontroversially linked to from the European Climate Exchange article, which fact, along with multiple sources in many languages, seems to say it's notable. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:24, 26 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 00:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ni Bell[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. References are either not independent or do not mention him. Google searches do not reveal any significant coverage. Disputed prod noq (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 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) 00:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails GNG (or more specifically GNGACTOR), void coverage among the independent media. — Bill william compton^Talk 03:36, 24 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) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Act IV[edit]

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

Non-notable fan project, Google shows little substance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:13, 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. Courcelles 00:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 MMA ROMANEX[edit]

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

another non notable kickboxing events. nothing in gnews and google just reveals event listings and primary sources. being listed in sherdog.com is not sufficient alone to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 13:21, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with LibStar. The sporting event is not covered by independent sources and listing / primary sources are just not going to cut it. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough notable fighters were featured here to make this a notable event. -- WölffReik (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2011

that is not a criterion for notability. My local rugby team full of notable players played last weekend. Does not mean we create an article for the match. LibStar (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There were a lot of notable fighters, but that doesn't make the event notable. Article also lacks independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 17:51, 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 delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Whaites[edit]

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

Alright, there are many references on this page but only two of them refer to him and one of them is just some search engine. The other one isn't a direct reference to him and doesn't give that much info. Also, can you see where it says 'Author: Alan Whaites'? Hmmm... Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 14:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of this article and I would very much like it to be deleted. The author tag has been added by others and whenever I have looked at this page it has contained inaccuracies of fact. I don't mind fair comment on my work but I don't think that this article adds any value. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AW1976 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral. Nominator should note that subject has a respectable presence on Google Scholar which he seems to have missed. A marginal case. In such a situation it is acceptable to take the subject's views into account. Therefore delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:23, 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) 00:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. With one weak delete !vote, I might have been inclined to go ahead and punch this "delete" if the subject had made a deletion request through OTRS but User:AW1976 could be anybody. Add to that the nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet of an indefinitely blocked user. This one needs more input. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. Suspicious indeed. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Assuming AW1976 has nothing to do with the subject, I find there is plenty notability and I also found references on books.google --DeVerm (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment There has been reverts in this article done by nom before entering this AfD... but the reverts do not appear correct to me. If AW1976 is indeed the subject of the article, his wish to get it deleted might be caused by those reverts. If he isn't the subject of the article, he might even be yet another sock of nom. Could somebody more knowledgeable than me about dealing so much reverted material have a look at the article history? --DeVerm (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Machiavellian manoeuvrings are not unknown on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Hard for me to have any opinion about the reason this is at afd, the nom or machiavellian dealings. I looked on the web, I looked on google books and I looked on google scholar. There isnt anything of note on the web or google books, there are 115 notes on google scholar. I don't think its enough. Szzuk (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be specific. h index in GS is 9 in a not particularly well cited field. Respectable but not outstanding. I remain neutral. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. Regardless of who User:AW1976 is or is not, regardless of what that user wants, this page contains virtually nothing about the subject, focusing instead on the ideas contained in his writings. Since this page is about a living person, we have a pretty high threshold for sources, and none of these provided (or that I saw when looking) directly detail the subject. No profiles, no bios, no interviews. As a result, the page editors have been assembling this bio gleaning bits of information from arguably reliable secondary sources. This meets the definition of original research. BusterD (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a curious article that is more an analysis of the subject's views (and even more so before the recent excisions by AW1976) rather than a bio. Also, WP:BLP rightly insists on high sourcing standards for BLP articles. In this case the sources needed to meet WP:BIO are simply not there. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:57, 26 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) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Lobo[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources to evidence the notability or existence of this voice actress. Some Anime News Network encyc listings, but by precedent those aren't considered WP:RS. Nothing in news/reviews sections at NN, nothing I could find reliable via Gweb/Gnews/Gbooks. Sourcing difficulty increased by the signficantly larger amount of coverage on the physician and the Olympic sailor of the same name. Additional sources welcome, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG; I see no evidence in the article or via Google that Ana Lobo has received WP:SIGCOV. Without getting into guideline 1 of WP:NACTOR, I see no reason to believe guideline 2 or 3 holds in this case. Finally, the article itself appears to contain factual inaccuracies. Melissa Fahn voiced the character Gaz in Invader Zim, a fact which I confirmed at quick glance. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment StB: It may still be partially accurate, what I've noticed in listings like this, when I *can* track them down, is that they are often recounting the dubbing of something into another language. E.g., this might be the voice actor used for the Spanish dubbing of Invader Zim. That doesn't excuse that this is an unsourced BLP, nor does it excuse the resulting promotional bias that omission results in, but it may still be that the listing is partially accurate. Still, without reliable sources, how are we to know? --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ah, excellent point! I failed to consider that she could have done the character in another language. Going to stick with my vote to delete though, per my other reasons and those that you've pointed out. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed. Have a great week! --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Funny, I had just finished searching for a similar AfD when I came across this one. Here are some links that I could find about Ana Lobo, although I'm not sure if they could be used as reliable sources for verifiability [24] [25]. There is also this, [26], which is a very comprehensive website with information on voice actors for a large number of shows, but it is maintained by a single person. I can't put a link to the search results because freefind is blacklisted, but you can get them by searching for "Ana Lobo" on the left frame. Regarding notability, it is rare for voice actors in Mexico to receive any mainstream coverage, even for those actors that are fairly known by the general public, so my opinion is that in these cases it is best to go for WP:NACTOR #1. With Maru Guerrero I think that the roles she has played are important enough so to satisfy the criteria, but in this case I'm not familiar with the programs, so I can't say how significant the characters are - frankie (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 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) 00:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this had been the University of Lisbon professor, or the Andalusian yachtswoman, there'd be more coverage, but I'm not finding the significant coverage of this actress at independent reliable sources PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:22, 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) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Padulo[edit]

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

This person does not appear to meet our general notability guideline. Of the references in the article, one is to the "about him" page on his company's website; the others are all about his relatives. While he may have notable family members, that does not mean he is. A Google News search returns no results, and Google Scholar and Google Web do not give anything that I can see contributes to his notability. LadyofShalott 17:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the source may be sighted as "about him" it does not diminish Dr. Padulo's contributions to the HR field in founding the company. His background and work in both the profit and non-profit sectors merit this wikipedia page. While the field of HR may not receive as much coverage or attention as other industries, it is none the less essential, and given that dr. padulo is an infleuntial member of the field, the page should be allowed to exist as is. ---Thassonjee (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)thassonjee[reply]

Hmmm Can't find much about him that isn't a 'profile' or similar. 14 pages of ghits and nothing that looked like independent coverage. The company presents the same problem. I'm not sure, without some firm evidence, that "that dr. padulo is an infleuntial member" of the HR field. Cynical, yes, I am. Experienced in AfD, yes, too. If he is so influential, can we please have some proof of it from outside sources? I'm not asking for evidence of him being a "double-black-diamond snowboarder" (whatever that might be), but it could be the icing on the cake if the other claims are referenced as well as his family connections seem to be. As he's been such a busy lad, there must be more that I haven't found. Mustn't there? Peridon (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://view.fdu.edu/default.aspx?id=5401 - link shows him listed as a speaker at a Farliegh Dickinson University event, talking about a topic within HR. I am also looking for further evidence. If the sentences specifying his importance to the industry are removed, would the page be allowed to stay up? --Thassonjee (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, his notability needs to be shown, not claims thereof just removed. LadyofShalott 20:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw mentions of him as a speaker - but they weren't 'coverage'. Peridon (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about Padulo in independent reliable sources. The assertion that he is influential in HR is not substantiated by any sources. I see nothing in my search through Google Scholar, Book, News, or Web that supports him being influential. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 13 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) 00:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing new seems to have come up since my comment above. Peridon (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent sources needed to show notability. The handful of Gbooks hits appear to be false hits. The three Gnews hits are trivial mentions. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 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) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wellers Auctioneers[edit]

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

The reference provided with the article only mentions that something will be auctioned by the company--that's not surprising. I found no relevant hits on the interwebz that provide significant discussion of the company. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. A firm established in 1866 is probably more entitled to the benefit of a doubt than most. But I am unable to scare up anything that looks like significant coverage in reliable sources. An auction house does not become notable by auctioning newsworthy or interesting objects; it's what they're for. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 13 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) 00:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable auction house, no significant TV coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasider91 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 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) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by American artists which reached number-one on the UK Singles Chart[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This whole article seems to be something of a content fork to me: all of the information here is repeated at List of artists who reached number one on the UK Singles Chart, and it would be entirely possible simply to list in that article which artists were American. The article does not list any sources that justify why this is anything other than a non-notable intersection (in fact, it doesn't list any sources at all). I've checked Google News to see if I could find any refs that could establish the notability of this subject, but there doesn't seem to be any. It has been 3½ years since this article was lasted AfDed, and the consensus from that discussion was that it should be kept and cleaned up. However, since that time, it has barely been altered at all. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything special about an American reaching number one on the UK charts? If not, (and I don't think there is) then redirect to List of artists who reached number one on the UK Singles Chart. If so, then there needs to be reliable sources shown demonstrating what's special about this. Them From Space 02:39, 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) 00:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant content fork with no sources and a recentist bias.Warden (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable intersection of topics Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:18, 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 Withdrawn per addition. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Gault[edit]

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

Best charting single got to #78 on the singles charts. Granted, there won't be many online references to him, but I'm curious as to where we draw the line. WP:BAND says that an act may be notable if they've charted a single. However, the Joel Whitburn books are chock full of artists who only charted once in the lower 1/4 of the chart, never charted again and faded into the past. And about 99% of these artists who never made it past the #75 range are completely unheard of in the Googleverse. I would add in this case that he recorded for a very small indie label.

I can't find any BLP info besides a date of birth in the Whitburn country singles book, so I would think that if there's almost nothing besides Whitburn to verify that he even exists, then a #78 single over 30 years ago (on a chart that currently stops at #60, for the record) probably doesn't cut it since we know nothing else about him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 21:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Charted is charted. Once notable, always notable. And it is likely that more biographical information can be found on sources dated around the time the song charted that have not been digitized. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd argue to keep an article on the band Shurfire, who despite having a #47 hit are so obscure that Joel Whitburn can't even confirm any of the band members' names?! Get real. Did you ignore the "MAY" in the sentence I highlighted? Nowhere does it say that charted single = GUARANTEED notability, it only means "may" be notable. Not "will", "May". I just love how you think that policy's ironclad and guaranteed to make an article stay even if it's someone whose only hit got to #100. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 3 charted singles and some verifiable (albeit minimal) biographical info - what exactly is the problem here? Should we purge Wikipedia of all musicians who were slightly famous for a period of time which happens to predate the age of the internet? I think not. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources. Do you have any? Because I found only ONE, and it's trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only claim to notability here it seems is that he had the 78th most-played country song in a week once. If he'd had the 78th best-selling single (all genres) in a week (i.e. bordering on a genuine hit record) then that might be enough to say that he's notable but such a low placing on a specialist chart based on airplay is not enough on its own. There is apparently no significant coverage of Lenny Gault, with the sources available giving him the briefest of mentions. So by our notability guidelines he isn't notable. I'm in two minds though - he fails established notability criteria but is deleting this necessarily going to benefit the encyclopedia?--Michig (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Waffle much? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On occasions.--Michig (talk) 21:45, 16 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) 00:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no problem with a user fairly weighing the evidence in favor of and against deletion during an AfD discussion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added. I'm waiting for Endalecomplex to change their vote so I can withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Per nom's above comment (thanks, again, for taking a second look during an AfD at your own nonmination), and refs (that are now reflected in the article; though their existence, whether or not reflected in the article, would have been sufficient).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additional references. Sorry TPH, I didn't realize you were waiting for me. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 23:47, 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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Mary (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Apart from the primary meaing of Mary, mother of Jesus, there is really only one other genuine meaning, the cocktail. This can be dealt with by a hatnote. PatGallacher (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Dab pages are generally a good idea and this page has not bitten anyone once - I promise. And by the way, don't we all have better things to do (say content development) than these types of peripheral discussion that buy zero for the encyclopedia - see the talk page there. I just wish I did not have to deal with these never ending little discussions and could focus on better content... sigh... History2007 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and use hatnote. Dab pages are not "generally" a good idea; they are only "specifically" a good idea when ambiguity exists and cannot be addressed by simple hatnotes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Struck by JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then where will Mary Ever Virgin point to? Will be a mess. Pointing that to the mother of Jesus page will open another theological Pandora's box later and waste some more of my time explaining it. Long live Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It ought to point to Perpetual virginity of Mary, and should do so anyway regardless of this page. The logic of pointing it at this page escapes me. BTW, I have done a fair bit of content development in my time, as you can see from my edit history, but deleting unnecessary dab pages is a perfectly legitimate part of developing Wikipedia. PatGallacher (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In 6 months someone will (perhaps correctly) say that Mary Ever Virgin sometimes refers to the "person" while Perpetual virginity of Mary is a "doctrine", not a person and a person should not point to a doctrine, and we will discuss that again. But I will not bother now. History2007 (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it refers to the person, it should point to Virgin Mary. If it refers to the doctrine, it should point to Perpetual virginity of Mary. If there's ambiguity between the two and neither is primary, Mary ever virgin should be a dab page and point to both. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah! You said it: it needs to be a dab page for neither is primary. And it used to be a dab page. Pointing it to the mother of Jesus page will start another round of theological discussion as I said above. It used to be a dab page, and it points to a dab page now. I think it is best left that way. History2007 (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be a dab page, not point to a (different) dab page. My !vote here remains "Delete" -- whether or not "Mary ever virgin" has a primary topic doesn't change the "Virgin Mary" space. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, the world will not end either way. And none of this discussion will teach anything to a reader. History2007 (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move this dab to Mary ever virgin (and rework it so it disambiguates that title) and leave the article ambiguous with the title "Virgin Mary" to be disambiguated by a hatnote from Virgin Mary? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may work. But needs some type of message there to avoid the next suggestion in 6 months. History2007 (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this dab page is the only thing that actually points to "Mary ever virgin" this is not worth making a fuss about. PatGallacher (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems like an organization dispute, not a deletion discussion per se. DAB page looks fine to me to handle this subject.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:19, 13 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) 00:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The Virgin Mary (book), which I've just started, seems like a legitimate target for Virgin Mary (disambiguation). (Incidentally and nothing to do with this debate, I'm surprised we lack an article on the author Giovanni Miegge). Cheers, cab (call) 08:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. And Miegge needs a page, if you don't want to build it, I can do it. Just let me know. History2007 (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as expanded. --- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is becoming WP:Snow. History2007 (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the best solution. Please don't put a hatnote pointing to a cocktail on the top of the article on Jesus' mother. BigJim707 (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that issue aside, given that there are two items (one being the book, the other the drink) this issue is now by and large over and should be WP:SNOW-ed. History2007 (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is agreed that the book or even the author is notable then I withdraw the nomination. PatGallacher (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a book written about him], so I think he is notable, also as here. And a pretty unusual and noted Protestant Italian theologian (go figure), who is mentioned in many other books. History2007 (talk) 15:36, 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.