The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.   -- Lear's Fool 12:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOES Project[edit]

GOES Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Ephemeral project. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is an offsite project encouraging the creation of these meritless articles about EU academic projects. Most of them, like this one, are written in ponderously vague grant-application language, promising the moon while the only concrete proposals are to hold meetings or collect data, and as such deliberately uninformative and promotional. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced and poorly written without meeting WP:GNG. Beagel (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I didn't find any media coverage on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 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 delete. joe decker^{talk to me} 18:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tiemens[edit]

Mark Tiemens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced BLP since 2009. Can't seem to find any RS relating to him through Google, but some of the claims here seemed to prompt closer examination than a BLP prod. Dweller (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Same issue for me as for the nom. Google News archives only turn up articles about a football player, there's at least one brief reference to the song Tiemens wrote in an encyclopedic type book about music for films (it just verifies that the song was written), and otherwise I'm not coming up with anything. I think we can probably verify that he exists and that he wrote or co-wrote a song that was featured in a film, but I don't think we can verify much beyond that and there certainly is not significant coverage in reliable sources. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bigtimepeace.  -- Lear's Fool 12:11, 29 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.   -- Lear's Fool 12:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Abdul Rasheed Koya Thangal[edit]

Syed Abdul Rasheed Koya Thangal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

"great Islamic saint who lived in the Indian subcontinent". No sources in article, and can find no reliable ones. Christopher Connor (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reliable source found on google. Sehmeet singh (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing verifiability unless someone can at least find a reliable source. Then we could discuss notability, and whether there are sufficient reliable and independent sources to satisfies WP:BIO. The article does not even state when he lived, but claims that "He has thousands of devotees around Sri-Lanka and India." That being the case, there should be numerous sources available. Perhaps someone could search in likely non-English references for India. Nothing turns up for the name (as spelled) at Google Book search or Google scholar. Leaving out various of his names might generate spurious matches. Edison (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per lack of notable sources, none of which were found on Google and Yahoo except for social networking sites. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 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. (non-admin close) While some cleanup is in order, clearly no consensus to delete. BusterD (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Scotland[edit]

List of cultural icons of Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:IINFO no inclusion criteria, it seems to be mainly a list of Scottish stuff. Also of the references I checked about 20 in total not one of them supports the idea of the person/place or thing being an icon but rather simply excising and being scottish Gnevin (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The basis of the list seems self-evident and there are similar lists for lots of other countries. Warden (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment So WP:OR and WP:OTHER? Gnevin (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not surprising it is "Scottish stuff" since it relates to Scottish culture. Seems an obvious topic for a Wikipedia article. Periodic cleanup is an obvious requirement for such a list, to restrict it to things which have or which are notable enough to potentially have articles, and to remove vanispamcruftisements. The topic "Scottish cultural icons" is itself found in five results at Google Book Search, and "Scottish Icons" turns up additional relevant books such as [19] which lists "tartan, whiskey, smoked salmon, bagpipes and the Scottish landscape," as well as Harry Lauder, ancient castles, the kilt, bloody clan history, & Braveheart. [20] lists as "Scottish icons" Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Battle of Culloden. Google News archive hasmany articles discussing "Scottish icons." A candidate for membership on the list should have a reference stating that it qualifies, if not in those exact words. Not everything in Scotland is or was a "Scottish icon" but many such can be readily referenced. (I would keep "cultural" in the title to make it clear it is not about Greek Orthodox religious images). One book noted that they are the things depicted on postcards one sends home from Scotland. The list is appropriate and maintainable. Edison (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Inclusion criteria is fuzzy and sourcing is non-existent, but this is a worthy addition to Wikipedia-as-pop-culture-compendium. A decent mine of in-links. That's not a stellar AfD argument, but ultimately this piece improves Wikipedia and that should really be the bottom line in deletion decisions. Carrite (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some dubious entries, but is supposed to be a list of erm, Scottish stuff.-MacRusgail (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's supposed to be a list of culturally iconic Scottish stuff not simply Scottish stuff is the point I was try to make Gnevin (talk) 07:25, 28 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 18:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J.C. Piedrasanta[edit]

J.C. Piedrasanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prod notice removed without reason (along wiht BLP tags) by IP. Unreferenced BLP since 2009. Couldn't find anything on Google that wasn't Wikipedia mirror. Also, no article on spanish Wikipedia, which might have helped. Dweller (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no source available on google about the BLP and fails WP:BLP Sehmeet singh (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of notable sources, none of which were found on both a Google and Yahoo search. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lalla Latifa Hammou[edit]

Lalla Latifa Hammou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The wife of someone notable - unworthy of her own article - some contentious uncited also in the article - templated uncited since ten months - If someone can assert she really exists and was married to him then I support a deletion and then a protected redirect to stop this article being recreated, if not then delete and salt. I notice the detail about her is in Hassan II article but it is uncited there as far as I can see - anyway this person is not wiki notable and shouldn't have a BLP here. WP:NOTINHERITED - Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that she really exists and was married to Hassan II. [21] I agree with your suggestion of a protected redirect (to Hassan II). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:49, 7 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, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well she certainly exists since her son is the current king of Morocco. Article is worthy of existence in my opinion given that she is a member of the Royal house of Morocco and was "First lady of Morocco" for 39 years. Tachfin (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-->

---

The (possibly imprisoned?) mother of the current king whose brother attempted to kill King Hasan II is a non-notable...? ...and Iron Man's enemy "Whiplash" isn't? You guys are beyond laughable with all your little codes - it's breathtaking. "Wikipedia is Second Life for Corporations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.45.36 (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The immediate family of ruling monarchs are notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment A link to the policy, guideline, or essay you are citing would be helpful. Edison (talk) 20:05, 22 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, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete and redirect - Not sure I agree with DGG that " The immediate family of ruling monarchs are notable" some Kings have scores of children, do all the children warrant WP articles? of course not. I suggest that immed family members of national leaders are notable only if sources discuss the family member in a significant way (such as Albert, Prince Consort, Mary Todd Lincoln, etc). Lalla Latifa Hammou appears to have virtually no mention in Google Books. The best solution, in my opinion, is to include mention of her in the Hassan II of Morocco article, where she is already mentioned. --Noleander (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - I agree with Noleander's comments. Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTINHERITED: <<does not apply, to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability.">>. This is WP rule found here

As I said, she was first lady for 39yrs with the title "Mother of the princes" (King Hassan II only had one wife), and that constitutes enough notability in the royal case. If this gets deleted than all first ladies articles should be. With the exception of Hillary Clinton, i don't see any other first ladies worthy of any notability on their own. This is exactly why WP:NOTINHERITED has the exception cited above. Tachfin (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not accurate to say "With the exception of Hillary Clinton, i don't see any other first ladies worthy of any notability on their own." Each of the first ladies that have WP articles have hundreds of WP:Reliable sources that discuss them, often there are entire biographical books on them. The point here is that the subject of this article has virtually no mention anywhere in books or other key sources. No one is suggesting that she be eliminated from the encyclopedia, merely that she be described in a section in the King's article, and this article redirect to that. --Noleander (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect. Notability is not inherited. Some "royal families" where the rulers have multiple wives are so large that it is doubtful all members satisfy WP:BIO on the basis of multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, especially in small countries, and especially if they are somewhat closed societies. Being a family member of a ruler does not automatically make someone a public official. Not every family member of every ruler travels the world giving speeches and making appearances, or is in the press all the time for other reasons. One cannot automatically equate a wife of some king to a "First Lady" of the US or the spouse or heir of a British monarch as having "a public position that is notable in its own right." (Seems like there should have been some press coverage of Hassan marring "Lalla#1" and "Lalla#2," both in 1961. Was it sort of a double wedding?) Google news archive had only a handful of passing references to her, listing her as the mother of her offspring, not sufficient to support of WP:BIO. Where is coverage of her personally? Edison (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The subject seems to be more commonly known as just "Lalla Latifa", so these sources should be considered: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lalla Latifa did undertake public duties covered by the press,[22] and is covered on 5 separate pages of this book, with the coverage on pages 77 and 79 appearing (with my basic Spanish) to be substantial. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the wife of a head of state she is notable as per both DGG, and Noleander along with the coverage found by Phil Bridger. VERTott 08:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The notability guidelines don't say - all wives of heads of state are notable. I can't find any mention of such a clause in the notability guidelines? Would you please point me to where it is asserted, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hassan II per Noleander. I don't see any policy stating that such people are automatically notable, and also note that all of the couple's children have articles; I'd make a pretty good guess that most if not all of these are in a similar position. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• By that you mean that the article of an active head of state should be deleted too? Good guess indeed Tachfin (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously not, hence my use of the word "most". I will however strike the "all" to make it clearer. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (@Off2riorob and Black Kite) I moved the discussion on from the claim that such people are automatically notable. How do the sources that I linked not satisfy the general notability guideline? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at those. Even the newspaper article admitted that she is hardly ever seen in public, whilst I suspect (with my ropey translation skills) that the majority of the book mentions are in terms of her relationship to other people - mainly Hassan and her son. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Discussion has shifted, best to let it continue. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC) 08:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment It has been consistent practice that immediate family of heads of state and usually heads of government are notable. The attempt to change this consistent practice is inappropriate, for there is always both importance and interest. For an area where sourcing is difficult for us, the extent of sourcing needs to be relaxed, or we will never escape WP:Cultural bias. WP:V is of course necessary, and has been met. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• @Phil - the citations you have presented do not assert a requirement that this person warrants their own Wikipedia biography, so my moved to a position of redirect is unaltered - nothing is lost with a redirect - all the detail currently in the article is already in the husbands article - if someone reliably expands the detail there about this wife then a case can easily be made to recreatew a bio under her name - right now from presented evidence here they seem notable in the husbands bio only or a mention in a list. Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without coverage, nothing is notable, and I'm not seeing any coverage, certainly not to the level of WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The coverage highlighted by Phil Bridger is likely to get it over the line, in my view. When the "Hammou" is dropped from searches there is a fair bit out there, although admittedly not in a huge amount of depth/ Add to that a reasonable expectation of more coverage in the subject's native language (Arabic) and a separate article is warranted. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Fascinating, I added a few references to the article. Though she has less coverage than a normal spouse of a king might have, she has coverage for being so kept out of the public eye, which has not escaped frequent attention. There's nothing gained by deleting this article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - thanks for the improvements. The privacy content is not really about her, more about privacy in general. Anyways, if its kept, which is looking likely at least is sourcing is improved. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 1 August 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.   -- Lear's Fool 12:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre P. Smith[edit]

Alexandre P. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I find no matches in GNews or GBooks and the article fails to make a case against the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. It seems unlikely that reliable sources to demonstrate the impact required will be added in the near future. Though http://www.paisano-online.com appears in the page history (not in the version at the time of nomination), this is a student-run weekly newspaper circulated on campus, which would not address impact. PROD removed, along with all prior improvement tags, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No Sources. --Thompson.matthew (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notable media coverage, and I didn't get any hits on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 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 merge to Paul Simon. v/r - TP 20:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Chitty[edit]

Kathy Chitty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Was deleted in a previous AFD, but there was no quorum and closed by Cirt, so one user suggested it deserved another AFD. causa sui (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Paul Simon. WP:BLP1E. --causa sui (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  To amplify on this, I feel that very little content (if any) should actually be merged (per strong arguments below), so this !vote should be counted as in a coalition with delete !voters. causa sui (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The Paul Simon Songbook is also a good merge target. causa sui (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Do not merge or redirect, since there are BLP issues. (Maybe a tiny merge of a small portion would be OK.) Regarding the BLP issues: "Kathy was quite shy and wanted no part of the success and fame that awaited Simon" and "Kathy is a very private person; all attempts by the press to cajole information or her whereabouts out of Simon have failed" are the operative factors here. Assuming these are true statements, then Chitty would probably be horrified at the existence of this article and we should treat this situation as if she had contacted the Wikipedia or the Foundation and requested the removal of the article. This is not a request the we will always honor (if the person is truly very notable) but it something that we do consider. The very most that could be said is the she just sneaks in below the lowest threshold of notability (I'd say not even that), so we should consider the WP:BLP cost versus the very low encyclopedia value.

OK then. Putting aside for now the serious BLP concerns, and turning to the merits of the case. I think that we do, and should, include articles for person who are artistic "muses" -- persons who inspired the works of notable artists. However, we want to be reasonable about this (especially as most of these people are essentially private persons) and I think reasonable criteria for inclusion would be:

1. The artist is a very important A-list artist, and
2. The person was truly an important inspiration for major works or otherwise a significant factor in the artitst's life or output.

It's hard for songwriters to be truly A-list artists for this purpose because songs are so short that it's difficult to develop deep and fully realized characters in them -- the kind of character (such as we might find in a novel or long poem or screenplay or (for that matter) a portrait) where we can recognize a person and the influence of their personality on the character.

I think an exception could be made for Bob Dylan and Lennon/McCartney because they are so very popular, influential, and (according to many critics) of high artistic merit. Steven Foster, Irving Berlin, maybe a very few others. Does Simon make this select company, either through notability or artistic merit? Maybe. It's debatable.

OK then, moving on, what about Chitty's influence on Simon? Are you kidding? There isn't any, not compared to real muses like (let's say) Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe or Gala or Zelda Fitzgerald or people like that. If I may take the liberty of copying in my comment from the previous recent AfD:

It's instructive in my opinion to compare this article to Barbara Bakhmetev. (Bakhmetev was Mikhail Lermontov's muse and inspiration, as Chitty is claimed to be Paul Simon's.) I translated Bakhmetev'a article, so I'm not averse to articles about literary muses. But in my opinion Barbara Bakhmetev is marginally notable -- notable enough to have an article, but not inarguably so. Chitty falls quite far below this standard.

I mean -- Lermontov anguished over Bakhmetev his whole life and not only wrote much poetry (and made paintings) about her but also based a major character in the seminal novel "A Hero of Our Time" on her as well as (in part) characters in other works. In contrast, Simon had a short affair (about 1.5 years) with Chitty such as young men have, moved on and married three other people, and wrote one song about her ("Kathy's Song") which was an album track and not a hit song, an acknowledge great artistic achievement, or otherwise notable.

He mentioned her briefly in three other (more important) songs, but only in passing.

• The reference in "America simply uses the name "Kathy" as a name -- the pair was never together in America and the events described could not have involved Chitty.
• Another song has the throwaway line "It was 1964. I was living in London with the girl from the summer before" which hardly bespeaks a profound influence.
• The reference in "Homeward Bound" (the refs are off-line so I'm taking on faith that statement that it's "widely believed that this song is also about Chitty", although off the top of my head I can't see why that would be so or who the "widely" in "widely believed" actually is) is slightly more developed, although the song is mainly about the touring rather than Chitty and the joys of home life.

It's not enough. It's not even close. I'm granting that the recent AfD (result was delete) did not have a quorum or a proper close, but can we put this one to bed now? Herostratus (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This page was deleted for the reasons stated by Herostratus above. I missed the 2nd nomination discussion and so have reinstated the article pretty much as it was when it was deleted. My reasoning for wanting to keep the article was that Kathy Chitty either inspired or is mentioned in a number of Paul Simon songs and consequently her involvement is worthy of note. Most of these songs have an article of their own so a large part of this article could be included in the individual song articles to put their inspiration into context. However, on balance it seems better to have a separate article regarding Ms Chitty rather than repeat the same wording in the different song articles.

This article had originally been longer but has been (quite properly) edited down to remove references to Kathy Chitty's later life, but those references indicated that Paul Simon considers Ms Chitty to have been important to his inspiration at the time. For example, at least twice at huge concerts Simon has mentioned from the stage that she was in the audience. These were not casual references to a passing acquantance but to someone he ackowledges to have been his muse at the time.

We must be very careful of BLP issues but I believe that the reference to the reason Ms Chitty broke off the relationship 45 years ago is acceptable. If others feel that is too intrusive then that is a separate argument but not one for deletion of the article.

Also, I think the views expressed during the discussion for the 1st nomination for deletion are still valid.

So a "keep" from me. It may well be close to the boundary, but definitely on the "keep" side.

If there are factual mistakes as Herostratus indicates, then these need to be corrected. Rickedmo (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My vote last time as WP:BLP1E. To be frank, I'm not sure even that covers the situation, and WP:NOTINHERITED comes closer. Ms Chitty was Paul Simon's girlfriend whilst he was in England. He was thinking about her when he wrote some of his songs (to which, I am tempted to add, so he should have been), he was attached to her (ditto), she was doubtless a source of comfort and encouragement. If he had married her and she had gone with him to the US it would still not make her notable in her own right without some much more significant and verifiable influence on the music. So the argument for keeping the material in the article is that it is relevant to the songs and to the biography of the artist. That I understand, and the same situation can arise with visual artists and novelists for example. No coverage of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood would be complete without Elizabeth Siddal, but her involvement with DG Rossetti was of an altogether different order. I still think that Ms Chitty should be mentioned in Wikipedia only insofar as it is directly relevant to the context, for example where it is verifiable that a reference in a song is to her, or the relationship had a direct impact on Paul Simon's mood at a relevant time, and not have her own biography. --AJHingston (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or (2nd choice) Merge and redirect to Paul Simon. WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Paul Simon. Suze Rotolo is a good example of a solid article of a person with a similar relationship to a pop star. However, this particular article is just a line or two of Simon-related biography and long quotes from song lyrics. I suggest we move the line or two to the Paul Simon article and a solid article can be broken out later, if a solid article can ever be written. Gamaliel (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And re Rotolo, that's Bob Dylan. While Paul Simon is very very notable, Dylan is in a Valhalla of notability with very few other artists, the place where one's used kleenex are notable (I exaggerate, but Dylan has his own category (38 pages + 7 subcategories), his own wikiproject, a Nobel Prize movement, yadda yadda. Dylan is ranked the #2 artist of all time by Rolling Stone, behind the Beatles and ahead of Elvis; Simon, together with Garfunkel, comes in at #40). And even then, you might compare Chitty to Echo Helstrom -- and Helstrom's article was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echo Star Helstrom) notwithstanding that 1) she is willing to talk about her past with Dyan and 2) she just might be the the Girl from the North Country). Herostratus (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - really, it could just be deleted G4 as nothing whatsoever has changed since it was deleted before. The previous AFD was closed as delete ... an editor asked the deleting admin to restore it to userspace so that it could be referenced/improved/whatever ... the article was moved back into articlespace with no changes. That's a horrific circumvention of our deletion process. --B (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a technical, not a horrific, violation. The previous AfD had a grand of total of one vote (not counting the nominator) even after relisting. That's not really a quorum and it should have been relisted again probably. Herostratus (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m sorry if I did not follow the proper action by reinstating the article in the way I did.

The reference to the Suze Rotolo article is interesting. She is definitely worth having an article about. However, if the BLP policy were applied to the article when she was alive very little of the article would remain – it would be comparable to the present article on Ms Chitty.

If we consider what should be done with the article generally, Kathy Chitty is only notable for her connection with Paul Simon. The options seem to be:

• delete the article. This does not seem to be the correct thing to do as Kathy Chitty has some notable connection with Paul Simon and someone coming to Wikipedia searching for Kathy Chitty should be able to find something.
• merge part of the article with the article on Paul Simon. The obvious place to place it would seem to be in the section “Personal life.” A couple of the paragraphs of the original article would fit here. However, the references to the individual songs and their circumstances would be out of place here, so that is not entirely satisfactory.
• merge parts of the article with the existing articles that deal with the relevant songs of Paul Simon. That would work but would mean repeating identical wording in a number of different articles and you would loose the overall connection between the background to the songs.
• leave the article generally as it is. It may be a small article but to me this option seems to work best.

The article must be accurate and consider BLP policy. Rickedmo (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I see a chunk of the article that helps to set the context has already been deleted while we are debating its future. I feel that is a pity so I have re-instated it. Rickedmo (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems to be quite a private person attached to a notable boyfriend for a while, clearly does not quality for a wikipewida BLP under her name. Fails WP:NOTABILITY, main claim of note is to have been mentioned in a few of her boyfriends songs. and has clear WP:BLP1E issues. [[Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable in her own right. Notability is not inherited. Arzel (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I stand by everything I said in the first discussion (which by the way was an overwhelming keep). There is nothing in here unsourced or controversial,and so what if she's a marginal case for inclusion? Over the long term, somewhere between 50 and 80 people a day look at this article - I don't see the point in deleting something two years old that has survived two AFDs already, and which people obviously find useful / interesting. This is the kind of thing that drives people away from WP. Is it ethical to just keep nominating articles until people get so tired that they don't care any more? Chris (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirectDelete - While it is understood that Ms. Chitty was at least as great an influence on Simon as Patti D'Arbanville was on Cat Stevens, and that Simon is far closer to being "a very important A-list artist" than Stevens is, Ms.D'Arbanville is not notable solely as being Stevens' muse. Having one song written about her, being mentioned in another and being alluded to in two more is probably not enough for Ms. Chitty to be a notable muse

Anything relevant to Kathy's Song can be added to The Paul Simon Songbook, anything relevant to The US bus trip that inspired America (Simon & Garfunkel song), which Herostratus states did not happen but for which a reference is cited in the article, can be mentioned in that article if the citation is genuine, and other cited and relevant information about their relationship can be mentioned in Paul Simon#Personal life. It is probably best to transfer the information before the article is deleted. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• merge I said keep previously, on the basis that while my knowledge of this music is pretty minimal, even I know the relevant songs and would be interested in the person behind them. As far as BLP goes, I am unwilling to assume from the information given in the article what the person might now want over 40 years later. However, the suggested merge to the Paul Simon songbook is plausible and might solve the problem. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Giarratano[edit]

Joe Giarratano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject has questionable notability, no Google news hits on subject, cited sources are vague, article may have been created by subject Jweiss11 (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Joe Giarratano is well known in the US professional taekwondo circuit but there isn't much online coverage of the sport to cite more accurately — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.15.14 (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete My search found nothing to show he meets any of the notability criteria--either WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. The article doesn't show notability and the sources are weak. The above keep vote was by an SPA and smacks of WP:ILIKEIT. Papaursa (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found no evidence he is an "international competitor". I didn't find him mentioned at the USA Taekwondo website, even when I searched the hundreds of pages of results. Being a state champion, which is not even verified by reliable sources, is not sufficient to show notability and I don't see notability for anything else. Astudent0 (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find evidence that he was a state champion, much less an international competitor. The article doesn't have any supported claims of notability and lacks good sources. Actually, I'm not sure there are any claims of notability, supported or otherwise. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 17:00, 27 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 03:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Flores (Mexican footballer)[edit]

Francisco Flores (Mexican footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Has not debuted professionally, he has only appeared in a youth tournament not a senior tournament. It also fails WP:NFOOTY GoPurple'nGold₂₄ 03:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Don't see any evidence that this player meets any of the relevant notability guidelines. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. All coverage of him is routine and trivial, meaning he fails WP:GNG, and he has not played in a fully pro league, or for his country at the senior level, meaning he also fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:40, 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 03:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Elliot's Party Boats[edit]

Captain Elliot's Party Boats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Serious concerns about notability and verifiability. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 02:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My search for reliable sources yielded a single passing mention back in the 1990s. This company is not notable by Wikipedia standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per lack of notable mentions. On my Google and Yahoo search, all I found were Facebook and YellowPages websites. SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per a literal interpretation of WP:WHOCARES. There are 800 companies on this 'exceptions' list and that they got one is immaterial in any sense. No sources at all to speak of, and even then, it's just your average charter boat, of which there are many. Nate • (chatter) 06:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. This business apparently charters sport fishing boats. They're an outfit with 10 employees that got a waiver from some requirement of the Obama health care bill. I don't see either of these claims meeting the minimal claim of importance needed to make them an encyclopedia subject, much less a significant impact on history, culture, or technology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of notability — membership in a list of companies with waivers doesn't establish notability, and there is no evidence of individual notability of the company based on the cited sources. If the article is kept, it probably requires work for WP:NPOV; note the use of the "Obamacare" epithet to explain an otherwise unrecognizable abbreviated form of the health care reform bill's name. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:25, 28 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. (non-admin close) While "we should not dismiss the subject's concerns out-of-hand", the BLP subject's wishes can't figure overmuch in the weighing of sources or notability. Several editors make the case notability and verifiability were assessed in successful A-class or FA review. No consensus to delete or merge. Fairly clear consensus to keep. BusterD (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making sure I address editors concerns, WP:GNG is amply met, so WP:MILPEOPLE doesn't figure in at all. WP:BLP1E instructs that in cases of a significant incident, persistence in sources is the guideline for involved parties. However, as an executive in a significant maritime military contractor, the subject is notable for other reasons. BusterD (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Moosally[edit]

Fred Moosally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am the original creator of this page and later successfully nominated it for Featured Article. Upon review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People, however, this individual does not appear to meet WP's standards for notability of a military person. The event for which he was most known was for being captain of a battleship upon which occurred one of the worst peacetime maritime disasters in the US Navy. He, however, does not appear to have been directly responsible for the accident. His career and life since the accident don't appear to be particularly noteworthy. Cla68 (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. The individual himself submitted an OTRS for the article to be deleted (see here). Cla68 (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2009, that seems hardly applicable at this point, since we've decided to keep it for two years hence. The subject's issue was with one of the sources, but that in and of itself does not change the subject's notability. Silverseren^C 04:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Ahem. Good luck in your quest having an FA deleted. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, that's way too combative. My question on your talk page shows better manners, I hope. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, I didn't see anything on the article talk page. Did I just miss it? Drmies (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment From memory, a small number of FAs have been deleted in the past. Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It would have to be a most unusual situation that would lead to a featured article being deleted from Wikipedia. Our procedures for vetting featured articles are so stringent that only a small fraction of one percent of our articles qualify. Since the nominator has gone through this process, certainly this person knows that better than I do, because I haven't. Notability of this person is well established. Blame is not assigned unfairly. If the article, though featured, needs improvement, then the nominator (or other informed editors) should improve the article through the normal editing process, rather than arguing for its deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly a notable subject, even if one of the sources has potential issues (which were never specified), that doesn't change his notability in the slightest. To make it to FA status, it seems very out of place to say that the subject is not notable. Silverseren^C 04:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:SOLDIER indicates those standards as guidelines for inclusion. The subject of the article has definitely received significant coverage in reliable sources, which is enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Rymatz (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Would Wikipedia be better off with or without this article? Easy call. "Meets General Notability Guidelines" for those of you who enjoy following rules... Carrite (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOWstorm in July Keep - A featured article? On my AfD? Is this some kind of bizzaro Wikipedia I have found myself logged onto today? The subject satisfies WP:GNG, and he has clearly gone through the citation rigamarole of FA discussion. He doesn't need to be a notable solider, he just needs to be plain notable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with USS Iowa turret explosion or Delete. Seems to me like a pretty obvious case of WP:BLP1E. That it was a featured article seems to prove that there is a flaw in the featured article approval process. Perhaps we see a long, well-researched, well-written article, as this one is, and we tend to overlook fundamental flaws. I'm unclear why it is being nominated at this time, but the nominator is to be commended for taking action upon reconsideration. I urge the closing admin to base his/her action on policy, and the wishes of the subject, not that it was a featured article. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BLP1E just isn't the case here:

• Moosally was involved in an explosion on the USS Iowa . Moosally's role in the event was covered in-depth by many sources.
• Moosally was the subject of a film based on that event.
• Moosally's (and others') lawsuit against the company who made the film is also covered by secondary sources because of issues over libel, etc..
• Later working for Lockheed Martin, Moosally was involved in a whistleblower scandal regarding their Deepwater program.

And no, I'm not trying to say these latter events are nearly as well-covered as the ship explosion. But they are covered, and that is sufficient. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, but I doubt very much we would have an article on this man were it not for the explosion. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you noticed, but your doubts carry no weight supporting deletion. The coverage is persistent, regardless of the reason. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of non-trivial mention in sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge to articles on the notable events. --JN466 21:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're saying we should merge to four different, potential articles? Silverseren^C 04:01, 27 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. v/r - TP 20:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Namecoin[edit]

Namecoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable sources that would suggest notability. Cybercobra (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Cybercobra (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Cybercobra (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Has not distinguished itself as anything bigger than something made up at school one day. Shii (tock) 04:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment oh come on, it is hardly something that was made up at school. it's a real project with real users. a better argument against it existing would be the lack of references that lead to non-partisan sources. or the lack of a real history section. but it is not something just made up at school. i vote to merge with bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.73.110 (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most popular Namecoin exchange[23] traded roughly $20,000 in the last 24 hours. Imperi (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE --Cybercobra (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I vote keep because I found this notable source from CNN: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/17/the-clock-is-ticking-on-bitcoin/ . Relevant quote: "Now there are even other Bitcoin-like currencies, such as Namecoins, which are bought with Bitcoins and used to pay for domain name hosting." Tommy (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That single sentence is the entirety of that article's coverage of Namecoin; one sentence is definitely not "significant coverage". --Cybercobra (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the article does not significantly cover Namecoin according to the "significant coverage" definition. Would anyone have anything against a merge with the Bitcoin article instead? And if so, why? To everyone who is upset about a likely deletion: Namecoin will probably become notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability very soon anyway. We can re-add it when CNN or someone considered about equally notable writes a complete article about it. Do we need to make a backup of the Namecoin article until it becomes notable or is there a way to restore deleted articles? Tommy (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • To your very last question, yes: WP:REFUND --Cybercobra (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What is it with rampant deletionism on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.148.129 (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not notable? Many thousands of people are mining namecoin, the hashing power today is 1 terahash. It's certainly new, but the adoption rate has been exponentially faster than bitcoin (BTC) already and there are no signs it's going away. In fact, in a month or less, NMC will be mined by everyone mining BTC. At that point it has to be considered every bit as notable as BTC, moreso if you consider the p2p dns system of namecoin has the potential to remove the need for internet applications to use centralized DNS for name to ip services. A deletion now will certainly mandate an addition later, at the least. I could see the benefit in merging it into an 'alternate block chain' article as other competing alternate blockchains such as beercoin, multicoin, and weeds deserve mention, if only in the history section of such an article. Some external links of interest: http://exchange.bitparking.com, http://namebit.org, http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/18/ruxum-wall-street-level-security-comes-to-bitcoin-with-new-exchange, http://namecoin.us, http://dot-bit.org. Note the new exchange (ruxum) is supporting NMC to many new currencies. ---- comment added by Bougyman (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No strong opinion. Long term, this article is going to exist. Delete it a few times in the meanwhile if it helps meet some internal wikipedia standard, or whatever. Note that one way to organically grow it could be to have a "derived blockchains" section on Bitcoin. That'll give a place to keep developing and sourcing the topic, at least until it becomes proportionally too big to stay in the Bitcoin article. 99.58.56.123 (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The only real article about Namecoin I've found is this, which indeed is a significant coverage of Namecoin, but one can argue against the reliableness of download.bg. Also some of the editors here should take note that AfD discussion is not a voting process, but searching for consensus. Rymatz (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin | http://github.com/vinced/namecoin | https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Dot-bit | http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=6017.0 | http://www.reddit.com/r/namecoin | http://bitcoinweekly.com/articles/technological-jailbreak-bitcoin-to-namecoin | http://thebitcoinsun.com/post/2011/06/07/The-Rise-of-Namecoin | http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=23505 | http://www.tribbleagency.com/?p=8072 | http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2546815 - This seems to be nothing more then a Troll to get this entry deleted. Anyone using google can tell that namecoin is indeed a real project and has the right to be on Wikipedia, if you delete this entry you might as well delete the bitcoin entry. comment added by (netxshare) 00:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Those sources appear to all be either primary or unreliable. Re: your last sentence, see WP:OTHERCRAP. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A logical argument against the premise above as well as logic for denying notability of a currently actively traded currency, rather than repetition of the initial technicality of reliable sources; a subjective metric, would be appreciated. Bougyman (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's far from mere a "technicality", it's a key leg of one of Wikipedia's core guidelines. We likewise have guidelines for determining source reliability: WP:IRS. The generally-accepted yardstick is the general notability guideline, not arbitrary statistics (including number of users or market volume). --Cybercobra (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If bitcoin entry is valid should the bitcoin wiki not be a valid source? comment added by (netxshare) 01:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not supposed to cite itself. And please Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki --Cybercobra (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was talking about https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin that Wiki, I was saying since bitcoin has a entry on Wikipedia should their Wiki ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin ) not count as a valid source? (netxshare)
      • Ah, my apologies. Probably not, since it's an open wiki; see WP:USERGENERATED. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Shii. LiteralKa (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems that canvassing has occured. LiteralKa (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarcasm What an horrible link, filled with calls for ballot-stuffing and irrational hatred. Oh, none of that? Oh well, good thing the shields are up now, or God knows what would happen to this page. Also, thank you for erasing half of the article you wish to see deleted. — 99.58.56.123 (talk • contribs) has made no meaningful edits whatsoever, not even within this topic. 21:32, 23 July 2011 (CDT)
• Delete How dare people presume they are good enough to appear on this fine website? We can't just start letting riff-raff like "namecoin" in here to sully up our image amongst professors and esteemed universities as a first class source of all things knowledge. Delete it I say, delete it at once!--Dumpstercake (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bitcoin is a big, front-page deal now, and Namecoin is a similar project in a different application space; both projects are technically interesting, socially important, and increasingly widely used. I look forward to this article being expanded as the project grows, but it's definitely worth keeping this stub. I like the joke delete vote above, btw. Fang2415 (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- lacks reputable independent sources. Lorem Ip (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Obviously there's a major canvassing issue here. But that aside, this lacks the significant coverage from independent and reliable sources needed to pass the GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Bitcoin. Not notable in its own right according to WP:GNG, but worth retaining as part of a parent article due to popularity and future notability. Yunshui (talk) 07:50, 27 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 delete per G7. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erotically shaped plants[edit]

Erotically shaped plants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Rather unencyclopedic, subjective article. Is there some objective classification of 'erotically shaped'? If there were is this a subject notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia? No and no. Prodego ^talk 01:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Of course there are objective classifications of 'erotically shaped'. It is well known fact that coco de mer and orchids shaped erotically, it is clearly seen at the images. It is also clearly stated in the reliable sources I'm using. So, nothing subjective there.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like a non-notable and artificial category of plants that doesn't deserve its own article. The content is ok, it just should be in the respective plant articles, not synthesized into a combined article. I would say the same about an article on Urn shaped plants. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. If a reader is looking for the plants that are shaped erotically or sexy plants for that matter (and I am sure many readers would), how he/she, the reader, should know what individual articles to look at? This article, if it is to survive AfD, will be expanded in November, when "The Untamed Garden – A Revealing Look At Our Love Affair With Plants" with lots of interesting info is published. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, reluctantly. I think this is a really interesting article, but I have to admit it doesn't seem encyclopaedic. I made a small effort to search for sources, and although there is plenty on the plants individually, I can't find any sources about erotically-shaped plants in general. I agree that we should move the content to the respective articles, as I would like to see it stay in Wikipedia even if it can't have its own article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I just saw the comment above about "The Untamed Garden". It looks like there will be a reliable source available in the future, which I think we can definitely take into consideration here. Is anyone aware of any other sources? If we can find the sources I will change my vote to keep. Also, I think this topic might be better off presented in list format - pending confirmation of notability, would anyone else support a move to List of erotically-shaped plants? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, This is going to be a reliable source that mentions orchids and coco de mer together. So why to delete the article now? Besides practically all sources I am using call one plant or another "erotic" or "sexy". This source mentions coco de mer and Phallus impudicus together. It could have been added to the article, but why to loose time, if it is going to be deleted? --Mbz1 (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps we should consider userfying this article for now, since there's a reasonable expectation that we'll have better sources in the near future. (Also, why isn't Banana on here!) Qrsdogg (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree that the content is sourced but that it's not a stand-alone article. Does the proposal for list-ifying suggest trimming the content that's there, because I'm not in favour of that idea. The upcoming source being mentioned in the lede I find waaayyy out of bounds, and normally seeing that I'd suspect conflict of interest. And disagree with userfication, as even accepting that the book would be a reliable source, it would just be one such source. I am, however, suprised that this topic is does not have more sources. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as combination of separate topics unified by one solitary book which hasn't even been published. Articles on the individual plants already exist (most created by the same user who created this article [ed. see below]), and there is no need to propagate the information into more and more articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Question. What articles I created coco de mer or maybe orchids or maybe Peter pepper? What?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're right. Let me adjust: the same user who created this article also created the Legends of the Coco de Mer content fork and a number of pictures of these plants; there is no need to create yet another pointless fork article as another venue to post your pictures in. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What it has to do with my pictures! What another pointless fork article I created? Could you ever simply for laughing try to assume a good faith at least once in a while you know! I guess, no.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:59, 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. v/r - TP 20:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of books about hyperinflation[edit]

List of books about hyperinflation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

List based on personal opinion. Inclusion on this list, especially fiction entries, is debatable at best and original research at worst. Comprised mostly of red links to articles that likely wont meet notability WP:NBOOKS RadioFan (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep and clean up/reference as necessary. That includes deleting removing any works which are not obviously and incontrovertably about hyperinflation (e.g., Hitchhiker) unless a Reliable Source says they are. Red links are not a problem. Ma^t_chups 04:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment which works on this list do you see as obviously about hyperinflation? What reliable sources say that they are?--RadioFan (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without reading them, I'd say only the ones with "Hyperinflation" in the title, but the content (or even the ToC) of others may make matters equally clear. They are reliable sources regarding their own subject matter, but my understanding of policy is that sourcing is not necessary for obvious or well-known facts. Most of the articles on integers have unsourced statements that are easily proven. Ma^t_chups 03:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we really dont need to read them to categorize them, that would be original research. We do need a reference to base this list on however.--RadioFan (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment - Why is it when I read that list of titles that I get a sneaking suspicion that this entire piece is Hitchhiker's Guide cruft? Carrite (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wondered about that as well, but the only other articles the creator (and pretty much only contributor) of this list have been involved in appear to be in promoting a group called the GoldMoney Foundation May be an attempt to legitimize that (now deleted) article on the foundation.--RadioFan (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. "Hyperinflation in fiction" is not a valid category for search or study; the list of non-fiction is comically incomplete. No definition of hyperinflation is presented. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge into hyperinflation article - This list of nonfiction books could very nicely be placed into the existing "Further reading" section of the hyperinflation article. As for the fiction works, they could be placed into a new "Hyperinflation in fiction" section in that article. However the list of books needs to be scrubbed to ensure that hyperinflation is a major theme of all of them ... some of them look suspect. --Noleander (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much on target. Key books on hyperinflation should be in Further Reading on that page. Fiction on hyperinflation isn't worthy of notice. Carrite (talk) 05:17, 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. J04n(talk page) 00:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anila Naz Chowdhury[edit]

Anila Naz Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:N? Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this Bangladeshi singer. While I attempted Bngladeshi searching as well as English, I recognize the language challenge, additional sources welcomed as always. joe decker^{talk to me} 16:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete, no coverage in reliable sources. Incidentally, when I tried searching on the Bangladeshi name, I got only Wikipedia mirrors and such, so I suspect it's misspelt - if anyone manages to figure out the correct spelling, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll re-evaluate. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My research shows only very minimal, very marginal coverage. Does not meet WP notability requirements. --Noleander (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notable coverage, I didn't get any hits on Google or Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 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. v/r - TP 20:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo López (musician)[edit]

Gustavo López (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced biography, looks like it has been written by a family member. Notability per WP:NMG seems dubious. bender235 (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per lack of notable coverage. I didn't see anything stand out on a Google and Yahoo search. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 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. (non-admin close) Discussion has revealed precedent of etymologies as notable enough to support a WikiProject. Retaining and improving such a list is common practice. No consensus to delete. BusterD (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Irish origin[edit]

List of English words of Irish origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Etymologies belong in a dictionary, delete per WP:NOT#DICT Gnevin (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is one of a substantial set of articles under Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin and a smaller set under Category:Celtic loanwords. So while te article itself has been copied to Wiktionary, should it nonetheless be maintained here as part of these wider structures? AllyD (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If the nominator's right to say we need to remove all the etymologies from Wikipedia, then someone had better tell Wikipedia:WikiProject Etymology to go and get their coats.  :) But in fact, a consensus about this has already established in 2009, following User:Wolfkeeper's unsuccessful one-man crusade to purge the encyclopaedia of etymologies. Discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-logy or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-onym have established that etymologies belong on Wikipedia. I also want to say that AllyD's remarks are perceptive and relevant—Lists of English loanwords by country or language of origin is also worth considering.—S Marshall T/C 18:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Strong keep per Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin and because the influences on English of foreign languages is an eminently notable and encyclopedic topic, and this page is essentially a subset of that. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 11:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As explained by TreasuryTag, see Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin. --Noleander (talk) 22:59, 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.   -- Lear's Fool 06:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Low-Kick at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje +70 kg[edit]

Women's Low-Kick at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje +70 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

also nominating:

• Women's Low-Kick at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -70 kg
• Women's Low-Kick at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -65 kg
• Women's Low-Kick at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -60 kg
• Women's Low-Kick at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -56 kg
• Women's Low-Kick at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -52 kg
• Women's Low-Kick at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -48 kg

another sprawling series of non notable sporting results. almost all of the participants are non notable. women's kickboxing gets far less coverage than men's coverage and thus dismally fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete all Most divisions just had 2-4 fighters and no indication of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete all Essentially, these are more non-notable fights that don't belong on WP becuase this isn't a catalog for every single fight that ever happened. No coverage and no notable fighters means no article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - per IJethrobot. --Noleander (talk) 23:02, 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.