< 4 July	6 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Sehgal[edit]

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

Shameless autobiographical/self-promotion. Biker Biker (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article requires cleanup, but I think that the references establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at any of the sources? urdutoday.com is mostly a web forum. unibook.com is a book sales website. urdudost.com is for people to self-publish their work. None of these references establish notability, all they do is support the assertion that the article's main author is a self-publicist and that the article should be deleted. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed a related WP:AIV entry, placed immediately prior to the entry here. Let's keep this in one forum. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even looked at the sources? Sehgal is profiled in not one, not two, not even three but four international newspapers. Notability is easily established (see the talk). Obvious keep -- Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd really like to read the supporting sources. Unfortunately, the citations do not include a link to online versions of the Times of Karachi or News International articles. I'm assuming good faith that the sources really are there and establish notability as required. — Brianhe (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian, the scans are here. All listed sources are there. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 23:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N and WP:RS. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns Dear Sir,Biker Biker, I have some concerns that what you are raising questions ,I think they already have been discussed previousely, and editors reached the consensus,by User:Nolelover,User:brianhe,and User:Jeepday, and they closed the issue,but you are raising it again without proper checking Talk:Ehsan Sehgal, and references.My question is that is it not voilation of consensus??. Thanks. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Ehsan is saying is that three editors (including myself) had come to the same conclusion of his notability. See my link above. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WIthout proper checking? How do you know what checking I have done? It is perfectly valid to raise a concern about an article that has been subject to such autobiographical abuse. If the article does survive - and if that is the wish that is reached by consensus then so be it, I am very willing to accept consensus - then perhaps you would be best placed to stay well away from it. Your autobiographical intentions are crystal clear by the fact that your own user page even redirects to the article. Step away from the article and let others decide on its merit. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biker, you are biting someone who has no idea what WP policies are and who has always accepted them when we corrected him. Please bring it down a notch? You really haven't raised many valid concerns about the notability of Ehsan. Perhaps you could clarify your "checking"? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 23:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Hello, Biker Biker,please remove your wording "Shameless autobiographical", it is not a way to express your concerns,and it is also not suitable for the dignity of wikipedian editors,"self promotion" wording is enough to criticize someone.Thanks. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I beleive that Biker Biker was correct to bring his concerns to the community via AfD. Wording could have been a little less bitish, but live and learn. The removal of questionable references, and the retention of WP:RS makes it clear that the subject meets WP:N. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article requires structural improvement, otherwise the subject is generally meets notability. Mar4d (talk) 09:54, 10 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. Protonk (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen (6teen character)[edit]

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

Insignificant fictional character who mostly shows up in non-speaking appearances. The character is not notable. There are no sources and nothing to merge and the article's name has no value as a search string. Jed Stryker (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely non-notable character. Probably could've speedied this one--GroovySandwich 02:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect. Non-notable character in mid-level cartoon. Nate • (chatter) 06:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 16:58, 11 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. Protonk (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rommel Hunter[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:BAND or WP:BIO. Google search for "rommel hunter"+"inspiracion urbana" results in 48 "unique" pages, mainly Facebook, Youtube, and personal pages. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure spam, unsourced BLP, not nearly notable, your pick - frankie (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per lack of notable third party mentions. On both Google and Yahoo, I only found YouTube and the official website...Not my idea of notable. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 6 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 Mamas_Gun#Discography per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Routes to Riches[edit]

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

Derailed Prod. Prod reason was "Unreferenced Non-Notable album Per WP:NALBUM". A reference was added but it is almost a copyright violation about charting. Notability is still lacking Hasteur (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition [6] shows a quick blurb on the bilboard magazine, but does not say that the album charted, only that a song did. IMO, this is still not demonstrating notability. Hasteur (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 21:42, 5 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! 03:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EEye Digital Security[edit]

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

Non notable, a lack of 3rd party sources, all refs lead back to the companies website in addition to being edited by what appears to be a role account. Mifter (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting either way, even though I started the article, but I've reverted most of the content back to the state it was in before the COI accounts took over. Still needs work but at least it isn't as offensive now. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of third party sources. I only found one mention here on Yahoo, and I saw either zero or same results on Google. It isn't a terrible article, it justs needs additional references from other sources. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, as outlined above.
Keep A cursory google search (or just clicking the template above) shows an abundance of potentially reliable sources. Protonk (talk) 20:02, 12 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. I am receptive to arguments that subject specific notability guidelines such as WP:SOLDIER are subordinate to the general notability guideline; however, the sources available are difficult to scrutinize for coverage and import. Both sides of the debate have made good points and the "numbers" are roughly equal as well. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rice E. Graves[edit]

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

Nothing particularly notable about this Confederate casualty of the Civil War. Satisfies none of the WP:SOLDIER criteria. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page should remain. Major Graves was a notable figure in the Civil War, particularly in the advancement of artillery warfare. He was an important figure in the Kentucky Orphan Brigade as well as the Army of Tennessee. It's time the olitical correct types leave important historical figures as Major Graves alone. He is part of Kentucky and Tennessee Civil War history and there has been much published about him, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.170.188 (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. There seems to be enough coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline irrespective of the essay WP:SOLDIER. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems well written and referenced Softdevusa (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a lot of work, and needs to be POV checked; but that is not the point of an AfD. The subject of the article appears to be notable per significant mention in multiple independent reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I seem to be fighting a Lost Cause, but I don't agree. The article is plentifully referenced, but are the numbers deceiving? About a third are from the Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, which has a circulation of around 22K, suggesting to me that this is a person of local interest only. Surely, if he were truly notable, other newspapers would have mentioned him. Four each of the references are clustered around him being Chief of Artillery and a quote, another three that he joined the Confederate Army. 71.87.170.188 says he "was a notable figure in the Civil War, particularly in the advancement of artillery warfare". What is this "advancement"? Graves' Battery states the unit he led consisted of 73 men. It also claims that a "large section" of Fort Donelson National Battlefield" is named in his honor; I see a plaque[7][8]. There really isn't anything in the article that gives any indication that he did anything particularly notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A mid-ranking officer with no especial claim to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the general notability guidelines are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It's not whether we feel that he's important in some absolute sense, it's that multiple independent sources have thought him important enough to write about. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this is a tricky one to summarise. The article does not make it clear why the subject is notable and has multiple issues including point of view, referencing, grammar, style and format. Equally I share the nominator's concern that although "plentifully referenced", the bulk of the citations used in the article do seem a little flimsy. Regardless, from a Google book search it seems to me that Graves appears in quite a large number of reliable sources, both historical and modern, although often only in passing or with very little detail. Although I wasn't able to find anything which suggested a reason for his notability, I am prepared to give this one the benefit of the doubt and assume that this consistutes "signficant coverage" under WP:GNG. If kept hopefully someone with knowledge on the subject can bring it up to standard. Anotherclown (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notible regional civil war figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewishprincess (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a very easy one, but I would note that ""significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail" and that a trivial mention is not enough. Certainly I could not cite the dozens of very reliable phone books that have mentioned someone to substantiate venerability. Some of the sources used are that clear cut, but most of them aren't. I can't look at most of the sources themselves, but common sense requires that we look at what they're cited for to see if they really support notability. Of the 15:

One seems to be about his father and his young life
One says that he graduated West Point and gives his class ranking
Three indicate he joined the Confederate Army
Five give his rank and unit
One indicates he was wounded in battle twice
Four quote a glowing commendation

Most of these are just entries in books or periodicals that a listing each and every fact they can find about any soldier in particular areas, units, or battles. They do not show notability. I just don't think that having a certain number of sources is enough.‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 23:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A worthy biography of a little-known historical figure. One can nit-pick sources about this or that article, but here are the questions we should all ask ourselves before we go hauling things to AfD or blowing them away with our chrome-plated .44 magnum: (1) Is the information accurate? (2) Is the information verifiable? (3) Would Wikipedia be better off with or without the article in question? Too many people get lost in notability guidelines, I think, or obsess over the fact that there are not "adequate" sources at their fingertips from a fly-by 30 second internet search. We have to make allowances for pre-internet biographies. The bottom line is that this article makes Wikipedia better. Flag for more sources if you will, but Keep + Improve is the way to handle material such as this. Carrite (talk) 14:30, 9 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 Tristane Banon. Mainly per WP:BLP. What little consensus there is in this discussion resolves to Off2riorob's claim that the article is substantively an allegation (which would justify deletion or redirection). Should someone want the material behind the redirect deleted I can do that as well but leaving the history up will facilitate easy access to what content may be appropriate for retention. Protonk (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Strauss-Kahn Tristane Banon alleged sexual assault[edit]

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

This issue is already well covered in the BLP of the woman Tristane_Banon#Alleged_attempted_rape_by_Dominique_Strauss-Kahn - such an allegation - is not notable for its own article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This issue has already received significant attention. Giving it its own article removes the problem of whether to deal with it mainly on her page or his page. It also resolves possible confusion with Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case‎. PatGallacher (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Off2riorob (thanks Rob). The forker didn't even bother to open a discussion on the Banon Talk page. He had opened one on the Strauss-Kahn case and received no support at all. He blanked an entire section created over several weeks by several editors and mangled it in his fork. He misunderstands in his title a really significant issue inolving statutes of limitations in his naming of the section. That is to say the complaint is one of attempted rape, so that it falls under the 10 years limitation for attempted rape, and not of sexual assault because the limitation is only 3 years there. I am an asssisting editor with this article and hadn't got around to editing for the situation before the fork was made. Finally, as Rob says, the issue is dealt with adequately in the article. The complaint was only due to be filed today. A little early to be thinking of forks, especially in the French judicial situation where we shall hear nothing for months while a magistrate investigates the complaint, which as Rob stresses, remains an allegation and one which is being met by a cointer-suit by DSK's lawyers. I can't imagine a more inappropiate fork in the circumstances, to say nothing of the manner of doing it. FightingMac (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply We are sometimes supposed to be bold, see WP:BEBOLD. If there is a a problem with the artcle title it can be moved easily enough. There may be problems with the format, but I can surely tidy it up given a little time. PatGallacher (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Just do it! (with civility, of course!)"

But I don't really think you were civil. Why didn't you discuss on the Talk page first before blanking so much content?. That wasn't very civil. Why did you discuss in DSK (where you got not support) and not Banon? At any rate we're in the 'discuss' phase of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Please don't blank content from Banon again like this (whatever the fortune of your article). Thank you FightingMac (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We only need to create a separate article when - and if - this subject ever becomes important enough in its own right to warrant it. As things stand, it sits well enough within the article on Banon. Paul B (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When somebody come here looking for something, they should be able to find it,Jewishprincess (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the first place they will go is the article on Tristane Banon. That's where they will look, that's where they should find it, and that's where it already is. No-one is suggesting that the material should be censored, just that it should not be hived off to a separate article. Paul B (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Dominique Strauss-Kahn and redirect to that article. Otherwise it is just a content fork.Divide et Impera (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge to Dominique Strauss-Kahn and not Tristane Banon?

Because Tristane Banon is, in my opinion a clear example of WP:1E, and its content will eventually be merged into Dominique's page as well, unless she establishes notability other than for the attempted rape. Divide et Impera (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. If we decide she's not notable enough to merit her own page, then do we strike out her name too? (e.g. "Someone else" also accused Kahn of sexual assault?) :-) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tristane Banon is a translation from a French page where she's clearly considered notable in her own right (thrice published novelist, prize winning debutant). It's amusing of course for we Anglo-Saxons to be supercilious about French letters, but the fact is she's as successful in their terms as any of our own minor novelists. And if WP:BLP1E was ever arguable it's certainly not after her filing this complaint

If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.

Your position simply isn't tenable. FightingMac (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. The fact that Tristane Banon is translated from the French Wikipedia doesn't make it notable and suitable for the English wikipedia. 2. I don't see how she has won any prizes, because they are not listed in the article. 3. Having written three books doesn't make you notable. As a result, the only thing that makes Tristane notable is that she has filed charges against Dominique. The event is per se notable, but she isn't in my opinion, because if she had not had been involved in that event, she would fail a hypothetical AfD. Or would she have survived it in your opinion?

Prize was "Prix du premier roman de Chambéry 2005". In the infobox, was in the article but got churned out and I didn't bother to re-add. It's not perhaps a very prestigious prize, really it's a festival, but still it's a prize. Her first novel sold more than 100,000 copies. That's very respectable. I did comment on the Talk page, on the whole agreeing with you, and right I think she might well not have survived an AfD before now. But most likely it would not have received any attention and would have been unresolved. The French article has been going since 2008. I haven't checked at what point the DSK allegations went in but they certainly weren't there to begin with: here's the diff. Note that it was quite detailed from the start and it has evolved. There has been active editing going on there. In practice full translations of other language articles aren't deleted, at any rate not by administrators under speedy deletion. We have articles for every single member (bar a couple or so) of the French National Assembly, all 577 of them, most of them totally obscure for English letters and most of them just a single line long ( random example). So I think you can safely say that Banon with her three by no means failed novels, her from founding association with Atlantico as something of a youth icon and of course the DSK affair is here to stay. I wrote at boring, somewhat philosophical length, on the Talk page about her possible impact on the way French understand gender relations, which indeed is truly exceptionelle by other European standards. I suspect she will find a place in the history books over there. I'm quite sure her chimpanzé en rut will make it to the quotation books, though curiously it was not her who actually first made that remark about DSK. And one last thing, taking her at face value, if she really didn't press charges because she didn't want her writing career to be sullied by the allegations, then that was a brave thing to do. That first successful novel pulling in respectable sale figures, was written long before a breath of the DSK scandal had hit the public consciousness, though the details were well known in her (elitist) social circles. She's only tuned 30 years old and novelists don't usually produce their best before 30. Look at someone like Alan Hollinghurst, another journalist, who had his first, I grant you it was a masterpiece, at 34. I think you're being too dismissive. Don't you worry it might also not be very attractive? FightingMac (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 100,000 copies is unsourced and the prize is minor to make her notable. In 2007 she said in a French TV show that DSK tried to rape her, and her article in the French wikipedia was written in 2008, so just after her public confession. My initial concern was that no content was wasted, so I wanted to preserve content by bringing it to DSK's page, not hers. However you make your case on foreign articles being preserved, and I actually am too a fan of that. Well, then I'll retire my case, by restating redirect to Tristane Banon. Thank you for your very well argumented piece.Divide et Impera (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers DeI and thank you for your very pleasant remarks on my Talk page. As I remarked originally on the Banon Talk page we were never very far apart on this. Appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob, there is no need to have an article for every person mentioned in wikipedia. And no need to have it as a redlink either. Divide et Impera (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as content fork, salvage whatever's important and not already represented in the articles on the principals. Not (yet) clear that either of those articles should be the target of a redirect, given the implausibility of the title as a search term. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: allegation Can I just stress Off2riorob's extremely cogent observation right at the top that this is still an allegation. DSK hasn't been charged with anything yet here. It's way too early for a fork. As for searching, the Google terms "Banon, rape" currently produces the Tristane Banon article (whose content was lifted in one big unformatted mess to create the fork) as its third hit. FightingMac (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content to Banon's page. Accusations do not merit their own pages. It's interesting that we're so protective of the accuser in a sexual assault case, but then many of us are happy to help libel a public figure based on nothing more than an accusation. BLPs are supposed to be extremely conservative with a focus on the individuals privacy. We should not be putting allegations and slanders on biographies. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; minor issue without standalone significance - these DSK forks are a mess. Should be deleted under IAR and content merged as needed. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with others. This is an allegation. Bgwhite (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. True or not, it's evidently been receiving coverage since 2006. NOTNEWS does not apply. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork, and with due regard to WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NOTNEWS does not apply. has recieved coverage since 2006 evidently.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notnews is not the reason for deletion - its a content fork about an allegation that is already well covered in the BLP of the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Ms Banon is now prosecuting so this MUST be included. You can't ignore it now.86.25.245.118 (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — 86.25.245.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Tristane Banon article was updated accordingly within minutes of the Paris prosecutor's office's announcement of an investigation (not a prosecution - different system than the US/UK adverserial system). Just as soon as I got the email (hi I :-)) Nevertheless it remains an allegation (per Off2riorob above) and it may not even become a trial case. It will be weeks, even months, before we know. If it does a fork might well then be a good idea. But not right now. FightingMac (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Factual and informative content should be housed in the Tristane Banon and Dominique Strauss-Kahn articles. Neutrality^talk 18:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let it churn. Experienced editors can keep an eye out to avoid libel, but otherwise their efforts are better spent elsewhere on Wikipedia. Don't let articles like this take so much of your time and effort. The merge/split/move issues will be resolved over months. Benefac (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Let it churn" is an interesting thought, but not a good keep rationale in a AFD discussion. This content is already covered in the main article, so letting this churn is not a benefit to our readers. Deleting it now will also save us time watching the WP:Content fork in two locations rather than one. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reason for deletion is obvious from the article's title, it seems inappropriate to have an article dedicated to a mere allegation which is still under investigation and where there isn't even a prosecution. I would in particular echo the comments of Bob drobbs.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - At first glance, it appears that there a number of reliably sourced articles specifically covering this case, which would seem to satisfy WP:N. Additionally, given that this is a developing story, it is likely that there will be more references for this subject over time(note: I realize here that the "it will become more notable with time" argument is a little specious). NickCT (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badly written aside, it's a developing story but remember that Wikipedia is not a news source. That this topic will have lasting significance is WP:CRYSTAL. Rennell435 (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that this is notable, covered else ware. Mtking (talk) 02:40, 12 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. 19:28, 7 July 2011 Fastily (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Jordan River (director)" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan River (director)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An Italian film director and producer. Reference are to conferences he attended in which he was part of a panel and two of them are to blogs. He is not listed on IMDB. He has a film coming out in 2012 called The Sacred Code. From the references given, sounds like he has been at the film since 2009. He is associated with Delta Star Pictures, but only info on their site is about the Sacred Code. Unable to find something via a search that is not related to the Sacred Code. However, "Jordan River" is common.

His article has been deleted via AfD in the past.Bgwhite (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 as a re-creation of a page previously deleted by a deletion discussion. This article appears to be substantially identical to the version that was deleted last September. The page should not be re-created again except pursuant to a deletion review. As a second choice, delete on the grounds that a filmmaker who is not even listed in the Internet Movie Database yet is very unlikely to be notable yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 6 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) 00:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Brannan[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:MLB/N, Brannan played two years in the low Minor Leagues, and one year in an independant league. Adam Penale (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — --Adam Penale (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — --Adam Penale (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the subject of the article fails MLB/N & WP:SOLDIER, the subject of the article has been significantly covered by multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG, and therefore warrants inclusion. The article can clearly be improved, but irregardless the subject meets the notability criteria set forth in GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RightCowLeftCoast. In addition to the sources already in the article, there is also at least [9] and [10]. Rlendog (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no encyclopedic information in this article. It looks like a few facts about a non-notable individual. If he is actually notable, there should be something that makes this look like an encyclopedia article, rather than just class notes for his high school newsletter. Ma^t_chups 12:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should definitely be improved by editing it, using the sources that are currently listed as external links and the ones linked above. But that the article in its current state requires clean up is not a reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 01:41, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether he meets any subject guidelines or not, he clearly meets and exceeds our basic notability standards. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Since the sources exist, WP:RUBBISH says an article can be cleaned up and those sources can be added to improve the article. Since there is enduring coverage of the subject over multiple years, this is more than just coverage of a news item and should not be deleted. —Bagumba (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm convinced this article meets WP:GNG per the numerous independent sources. The only delete vote so far just wants it gone because the article needs cleanup. So? Fix it. The article needs expansion with the multiple sources integrated into the article, not deletion. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 15:15, 8 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. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American 3rd Party[edit]

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

Nominating on the request of an IP editor at WT:AFD. I'm neutral at this time. Rationale from talk page is For one thing, there is no evidence that the party was ever more than two old school friends. The party lacks reliable sources. A Google search reveals that very few sites mention the American 3rd Party, except for the old website Blackhorse 2000, which lists a lot of third parties. Apparently all the owners of a party had to due was to conact Blackhorse and request a page on the website devoted to them. The "We the People Coalition" appears to have existed online only, and their website is no more. So in conclusion, this article lacks reliable sources and is not notable. 71.184.241.68 (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per stated rationale. Non-notable party.--JayJasper (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more evidence of existence can be provided. (Hugh 21:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughwho (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multicultural education[edit]

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

Political views aside, this article reeks of leftist bias, including such unsupported statements as "Whiteness is not included as an ethnicity—it becomes an invisible barometer of normality. Education is a form of ethnicity striping for economic success."

This is not an encyclopedic article; it belongs perhaps in a leftist publication, but not on Wikipedia. Falconclaw5000 (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 5 July 2011.

Keep: For the following reasons:

The passage you quoted was cited in the article as part of Kincheloe and Steinberg's book, Changing Multiculturalism, which notes on p.216 that blackness is seen as not-normal and that whiteness is "the common sense norm". So your own argument doesn't really hold up there.
Multiculturalism has been a part of the U.S. educational program for the last 30-40 years, so the topic is certainly worthy of an article.
Multiculturalism has in fact been part of the liberal political movement and has been very critical of conservative educational policies that have too often ignored the presence and contributions of non-Euroamericans; so even the most neutral article on multicultural education is probably going to read as a criticism of conservatism (a.k.a. "leftist bias").

Maybe the article should be better cited; maybe it should rely on a wider variety of sources other than Kincheloe and Steinberg; maybe it should be edited to provide a more clearly neutral tone regarding criticism of conservativism (there is no criticism section right now); maybe it should be renamed "Multiculturalism in U.S. education". But there's no good reason to delete the entire article. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Encyclopedia of education and human development for its article on Multicultural Education and Its Typologies. Assembling such material into an NPOV whole will not be easy but seems feasible given time. Our editing policy is to proceed by ordinary editing rather than deletion. Warden (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One source hardly qualifies an article as being free from overwhelming bias. Falconclaw5000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep since the other alternative is worse. What would be nice is a fairly short article telling the readers what multicultural education (a notable topic clearly) is, with some history. I don't seriously expect this to happen. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the only reasons stated by the nomination are WP:IDONTLIKEIT, ((refimprove)), and WP:POV. Of course it has a POV, but that can be fixed, like all the other issues, through the normal editing process. Whole textbooks and college courses exist on this topic; thus it's clearly notable and a search should have been done before the nomination. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click Google news archive search at the top of the AFD and you get about 7,150 results. Seems like there would be more. Hear about this all the time on the television news. The topic is notable. If you have a problem with the current way it is written, then discuss it on the talk page, and work it out through normal editing procedures. Dream Focus 03:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify: although the stated topic is most probably notable, the article itself appears to be on the topic of Joe L. Kincheloe's and Shirley R. Steinberg's theories of multicultural education -- which most probably isn't. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:05, 11 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) 15:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ImDisk[edit]

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

Fails to comply with Wikipedia:Notability guideline as it does not provide any evidence of having received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Fleet Command (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fleet Command (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Fleet Command (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I belive that the article merely lacks more References, but has had plenty of coverage. I see no competing software, or some other software for MS Windows which offers the same feature as this one, let alone one with much more coverage than this one.
The talk page discusses this a bit more. HuGo_87 (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. 89.204.137.229 (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search finds only download links, no news coverage or independent reviews, in fact not even any user reviews. This software has not yet achieved notability. Looie496 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limit your search to get rid of the download link farms: google:ImDisk+site:microsoft.com shows links on Microsoft. –89.204.137.229 (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shows some links on Microsoft forums, posted by users! (WP:SPS). Also shows some other links that are from Microsoft Support but are not about the product and are pure accidents, such as: "Ein reaktivieren der Disks im Disk Management brachte auch nicht den gewuenschten Erfolg." Fleet Command (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable software. References in article don't come close to WP:Reliable sources guidelines. As Looie496 notes, just a lot of download mirrors. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe convert three Google scholar citations to better references. My link search for diddy.boot-land.net was not convincing. –89.204.137.229 (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what diddy.boot-land.net has to do with anything, but the three Google Scholar links just show abstracts; notability requires non-trivial reliable source coverage. None of those articles are about the software per se, and a passing mention doesn't cut it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

diddy.boot-land.net is the source in the 3rd reference. Thanks for checking the scholar hits. –89.204.137.229 (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails notability and reliable sources requirements. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - using the search links on this page I found two reviews [11] and [12]. –89.204.137.229 (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are WP:SPS and hence not even acceptable, let alone evidence for notability. Fleet Command (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  I found a book [13] listing ImDisk as forensic tool, and a rather dubious page with six YouTube videos: [14]. –89.204.137.229 (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Yes, a passing mention. No significant coverage. I guess phone directory also lists ImDisk too. ;) Fleet Command (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - No need to be so rude. A phone book list everything. These sources mention just what they considered to be notable software for getting the job done. You can't expect most software to get any detail coverage, when there isn't much to say about it, other than a sentence describing what it does. There isn't much to write about. Dream Focus 17:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly! If there isn't much to say about it, and we can't find detailed coverage, it doesn't get a page on Wikipedia! You're arguing against yourself, so uh, thanks, I guess.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Obviously someone trying to promote their own product/company. —SW— ^spout 16:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith please. The user started Wikipedia on July 25th 2005 and created this article on May 17th 2009, with other edits about a variety of things over a long period of time. Dream Focus 17:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does it have to do with assuming good faith? He has checked the article and it seems promotional to him. You should really stop accusing people who comment on this article's notability of being "rude" or "not assuming good faith". Comment on contents, not people. And if I may say so, you should not bludgeon the process. Fleet Command (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google books shows results. Windows Forensic Analysis DVD Toolkit By Harlan Carvey, gives a description of it and a picture on what it looks like running. Google translator says the main language on the site is Italian, although I think that's a mistake, and its actually Swedish. Might be more results if someone could search for that language. Anyway, one reliable source mentions it. You can't really expect to find anything more than what they mention for software like this, there just not much else to say. Nothing gained by deleting it. Dream Focus 17:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, the book you refer to mentions ImDish a few times, but in the context of mentioning it as a good free program that can be used, with no greater coverage. By no stretch of the imagination could that be significatn coverage. Second of all, you argue that, since nothing more can be found, the page should be kept. This is the complete opposite of true; if we can't expect to find anything more, it should be deleted, not kept. Please stop !voting keep if your arguments say otherwise.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant you can't expect more coverage than the details listed in there, so that one source counted as reliable sources. Dream Focus 23:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, if there is nothing more than the coverage in there, the article fails to have multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. A source soes not become reliable on a particular subject because there is not much to say about it and the source says it all. What that means is that the subject itself is not notable and is unsuitable to have an article on Wikipedia. - Nick Thorne <font color = "darkblue" ^talk 23:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dream Focus, we can't and we don't expect more coverage but we also do not expect things that do not have more coverage to appear in Wikipedia, per WP:N. Fleet Command (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right. Your statement is a delete argument with the word keep in front of it. Hopefully the closer will see it the same way.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to pass the GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well established category of software (See List of RAM disk software), and this particular utility is free and useful. Yes, I know that being useful doesn't merit Wikipedia coverage, but I expect others to provide the needed coverage as part of the rescue effort. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a voting booth. So, if you do not have a reason for keeping the article other than "I expect others", don't even expect us to consider your entry. Fleet Command (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - An administrator considers the entries and decides whether to keep the article, or not. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know that. I was reminding him that administrators have certain instructions regarding entries: Vote does not replace consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I'm not seeing much in the way of independent coverage. Wikipedia is not a software catalogue. Reyk _YO! 10:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: little indication of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (either via Google News/Books or in the article -- a blog entry, an online how-to page, a single sentence & illustration in a computer forensics book does not meet this standard). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:30, 11 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 Flipnote Studio. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flipnote Memo[edit]

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

Notability has not been established, the only reference is a brief mention. What little verifiable information is in the article could be merged with Flipnote Studio if applicable. SudoGhost ™ 13:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Flipnote Studio. You're right. Because it has little information, and not notable enough to become it's own article at the moment (WP:NOTABLE). Information may come eventually, but this is just a small sequel of something and not very significant at the moment. Mathew10 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Yep, needs to be merged for right now. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Reliable sources available but basically just trivial mentions. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:14, 7 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) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:43, 7 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 closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Souleymane Coulibaly[edit]

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

A footballer who is not notable at present. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No senior appearances (Serie B nor Coppa Italia) Matthew_hk t c 17:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, he is rumoured to be signing for Real Madrid where he will most likely play for their B team. At least wait until this next season begins, he has a tournament-high 9 goals at the 2011 Fifa U-17 world cup, no other player will match that. This article should stay open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalway (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth footballers. No prejudice to recreation if and when he makes his senior debut. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears to meet WP:GNG. Many reliable sources can be found here. Just as a point of reference, this search for Souleymane Coulibaly yielded about 2/3 of the amount of hits as U-17 World Cup did in its entirety and 1/4 of the amount of hits as a similar Under 17 World Cup search did. A player of this much importance to the event is notable. Don't take this the wrong way, to think that I am using "inherent notability" as my reasoning. The stats and link I have provided prove that he has had significant coverage from many reliable sources. Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - just about passes WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNGWarburton1368 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided are enough to indicate to me that he's a notable player, whether he technically meets NSPORT yet or not. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources meeting WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Notable enough. (Gabinho^>:) 09:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG even if he fails WP:FOOTY. Even if he never plays pro, being the all-time top scorer at the FIFA U17 World Cup is no small feat and is enough to warrant an article in my opinion.TonyStarks (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Very notable. Jaime 070996 23:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG Sexyeamo 17:48, 11 July 2011 (AEST)
Keep This young football player has a bright future soon, as international top teams want his services for their teams, this kid is amazing, and playing in Italy only keep his value soaring.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Creation's Tears. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Eddie Reynolds[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP. Rational provided on attempted nomination was:

Page was created and maintained by himself. He is not a notable person and I would class the article as advertising/spam. Falls under Biog of living person, not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.245.127.15 (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2011

I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Are we sure it is actually him writing the article? It does seem to be the work of an insider but we should be careful of saying it is him unless we are absolutely sure.
Anyway, I am inclined to say Redirect as I see nothing here to suggest that he is notable separately from the band. The TV, DJing and traditional music stuff is very thin. No more than a sentence or two of it should be merged across to the band's article. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to band, lacks independent notability. One big mass of WP:COI. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to band. The sources that the article cites are affiliated with the subject, so the article would be better on the band's page. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 7 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) 15:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentblogging[edit]

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

NN neologism. Appears to be self sourced, I couldn't find evidence of notability with a google search. Syrthiss (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear to be a neologism but unless you're culturally aware of this growing movement you'd know that it's not. And, this lifestyle (earning a living through online technologies) has been happening for quite some time. jleekun 8:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism. No mention of the term in Google Books, Google News, or Google Scholar: there appear to be no reliable sources mentioning the term (hence it fails WP:GNG). Nor is it clear why monetized blogging is particularly notable when Christians do it. The article history also suggests a possible WP:COI. -- 202.124.72.161 (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how could you determine what is a non-notable neologism especially when it's a new concept based on a very historically-significant foundational concept? tentmaking is a biblical concept - see tentmaking which is a long-understood lifestyle. the methodologies of tentmaking continue to evolve as technology changes - if St. Paul was alive today would he still be making tents (he is one of the original notable tentmakers) without the use of modern web technology? probably not. Google news, google books, google scholar have not yet picked up on this advancement or evolution of a long-standing lifestyle and culture. in addition, i have no relation to the IP address noted in your comment nor have I touched those articles WP:COI. -- 202.124.72.161 (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jleekun (talk • contribs) [reply]

Delete for Wikipedia to have an article on a neologism we need to have reliable secondary sources that discuss the history and use of the term (WP:NEO). We can always re-create the page if this condition is met later. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:51, 7 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) 15:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boyzone Fifth Studio Album[edit]

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

IP-contested PROD. Future as yet to be named album that contains an unreliable source and no definitive release date, so therefore it fails WP:NALBUM as notability has not been demonstrated. ArcAngel (talk) ) 11:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is reliable with sources, look at coldplay fifth album and it is the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madiera1234 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The article gives next to no details at all. There is no track listing, no recording dates, no guarantee that you will ever actually be able to buy this. The sources just confirm that they are planning to put out an album at some point, but it's certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility that an album could get scrapped, turned into solo albums, or just the product of wishful thinking. I think this page needs to go on the back burner until at least a confirmed title and proposed release date is given - that would cross the notability hurdle for me then, even if the album gets canned. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No album title, release date or track listing - subject appears to be a textbook instance of WP:HAMMER and does not meet WP:NALBUMS at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 15:45, 5 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) 15:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satan Is Metal's Master / Sperm of the Antichrist[edit]

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

no independent notability shown for this split ep. no charting or awards. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per above, fails WP:OR as it's not referenced. Is it even that notable? I mean there are mainstream artists, such as Lady Gaga who had a few of her album songs deleted --- just because of notability, and all due respect if a Lady Gaga song article were deleted, song articles, such as this, stand no chance whatsover, just putting it out there. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:11, 10 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) 15:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judeobeast Assassination[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) 09:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, per WP:NALBUMS and duffbeerforme remarks. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:56, 10 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) 15:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mocking the Philanthropist[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) 09:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:36, 5 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) 15:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Moldova Grand Prix FEA 2009[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews and all google shows is kickboxing sources (not third party) and event listings. nothing to satisfy WP:RS. the good old argument of "it contain notable fighters so strong keep!" won't work here as none of the fighters are notable! all the article is a page of result of a sporting event of no third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that is event was notable. Simply seems to be routine sports coverage of a minor event. Astudent0 (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent sources and there's no indication of notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:54, 9 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) 15:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Australian renewable energy articles[edit]

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

Delete. The contents are best served by the Renewable energy in Australia article and it does not fit in well with all the other "List of ..." articles (see Category:Indexes of articles). Also, the boundaries will never be as clearly defined as the other indexes. There is no prejudice in this AfD since I am an environmental consultant and environmentalist. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, these can be included in a See also section of Renewable energy in Australia if not already linked in that article, and it's redundant to the category Category:Renewable energy in Australia which contains most of, if not all, these articles anyway. --Canley (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that they should be in the See also section of Renewable energy in Australia. The index has articles that are more appropriate in other articles, for example individual solar power plants belong in Solar power in Australia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list is fine. Best not to bury the content in Renewable energy in Australia, but instead use this list as a link in the See also section there to keep things manageable. And the list is not redundant to the category, but complementary to it, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Johnfos (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the contents of the index not be buried in Renewable energy in Australia since may of them are not needed in an article in that level of the page hierarchy eg individual power projects. Also, all of the articles in this index can be reached from the sibling articles of Renewable energy in Australia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These links are better served for navigation purposes through a category and perhaps a template. Neutrality^talk 18:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A template might be an idea but the disparate nature of the articles in this index means that only a small number of links from it would be appropriate. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is insufficient articles on the topic of this index to justify it. The result is a list that does not have a decent structure. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As someone interested in the topic I found this list of little help and somewhat counter-productive. As stated above Renewable energy in Australia and category:Renewable energy in Australia provide much better structured overview and navigation. The fact that is unmaintained (from ca. 200 articles in the category there are only 25 in the list) I also interpret as a proof of limited use. --Elekhh (talk) 03:02, 10 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. TerriersFan's edits have rather mooted the complaints of both the nominator and User:Curb Chain. Ironholds (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

500 (ball game)[edit]

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

Not remotely notable. No sources. (Article was proposed for deletion, the reason given being "Unreferenced, no indication of notability and not likely to ever gain any." The PROD was removed by the author of the article without comment.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not useful article. ~~The nomination was not done correctly because the article's deletion template does not link here~~It links here, but the color of the link is red.Curb Chain (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is usually, if not always, the way with a newly created AfD. The link turns red when the article's cache is renewed. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess it is a bug then? Can someone report that to bugzilla?Curb Chain (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article could use a more notable reference. I just added one reference and a reference section to improve it slightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softdevusa (talk • contribs) 19:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - Have we lost all our sense of fun on Wikipedia? With harmless pages such as this one, that has been created less than a month ago, why not give it a bit of time to see if more sources can be found? The title of the subject, '500', makes a search for sources particularly difficult. Anyway, I have done further work on the page.TerriersFan (talk) 01:51, 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, Sandstein 05:34, 5 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hak5[edit]

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

no real notability shown for this "home-grown" video podcast. notability is not inhereted from notable contributors. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. most current sources are by Hak5. others are not significant coverage. nothing satisfying WP:WEB. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wanted to find a reason to delete this because it looked useless to me, but after reviewing the references, there has been some actual coverage in reliable sources about the subject. i kan reed (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage has not been significant. The best is one short paragraph. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to worry about the signifigance of coverage, as that's really subjective, and you may be right. I just use RS as my main thermometer. i kan reed (talk) 12:58, 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, Sandstein 05:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Duffforme is right to say there's no significant coverage for this article, I've also checked thoroughly, so on that basis it should be deleted. On the other hand it has existed for over 5 years and been maintained by someone - it is NPOV and harmless - therefore might well be allowed to exist on those bases alone. Its my understanding that WP:guidelines are just that, guidelines, not rules to be read to the letter. Mark^Dask 11:59, 5 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. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackthedonkey.com[edit]

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

There's currently 1 reference in the article, which does appear to be a valid, reliable source. However, after I removed one non-reliable source, there's nothing else. Furthermore, I can't find any information on this site in news or even general online searches that isn't directly related to the company. As such, I don't believe that this site has received enough coverage to establish notability via WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Also advertising: a social network for social good where members are encouraged to be social, discover new music, while making change for the charity of their choice - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - ~~I have rewritten the article to remove the advertising and added sources. I believe the site meets notability guidelines.~~ GB fan (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Relooking at the sources that I added (based on Qwyrxian analysis on article talk page) and after looking for other sources and not finding any I have to change my recomendation. GB fan (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks to the efforts of GB fan. Nice work on an article I almost nominated for speedy delete! 78.26 (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:No, sorry, not a single one of those meets WP:RS as an independent, reliable sources. THose are press releases, blog posts, and other SPS. I have removed all of them per WP:RS, and thus the article still has only one independent, reliable source, not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you do not think they are reliable sources does not mean they can't be used in the article. I have replaced them. You can argue that they aren't reliable sources which would impact notability but sources even primary ones can be used as sources to verify information. GB fan (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If those are the best sources that are out there, then no, they don't really make a case for notability (and a site called killerstartups.com probably makes a case against it.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't matter much, but I think you (GB Fan) are fundamentally wrong about sources: every time any editors sees any patently unreliable source (blogs, SPS, press releases, etc.) in any article, it should be removed immediately. But, that has no real impact on this deletion discussion, as you point out. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard to tell if this is a joke, given its name? I think it might be serious, but hardly notable among the many similar sites that come and go. I do not follow above comment, since "patently unreliable" seems a bit of an opinion. With the demise of paper publishing, we going to rely more and more on online news sources. I see it more of a continuum, and these tend to be of the more self-congratulating nature. So will vote negative on this. W Nowicki (talk) 20:09, 6 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) 15:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck McCauley[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this musician under WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO. Another editor made an attempt to source, redirected to Avail, and was reverted. Long-term unsourced BLP. The redirect would be fine with me. joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Avail and protect, this is the only band that he has been in with any claim to notability (multiple albums released on Lookout! Records). Unable to find any reliable coverage on the individual. J04n(talk page) 04:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete who??? Not even a blip on the radar, so fails WP:MUSICIAN Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 5 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! 03:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SkyGrid[edit]

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

Article entirely written by April Souvannarith, a SkyGrid employee. The article reads like an advertisement, and uses SkyGrid's site, press releases, and other self-published sources extensively. Ms. Souvannarith recently removed "COI", "Advert", and "Primary Sources" tags from the page without dealing with these issues. Even if the company is assumed to be notable, the article would require an extensive rewrite. Another article that this user created, Kevin Pomplun, was about SkyGrid's CEO and was recently speedy deleted. Dimension31 (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Probably qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising: SkyGrid’s name comes from the combining the word “Sky” representing a limitless space and “Grid” a simple way to organize an unlimited amount of information.... building technology to create a way for people to see what information was traveling the fastest.... building technology to create a way for people to see what information was traveling the fastest.

Note also that if we don't delete this, it substantially increases the possibility that powerful androids will be sent back in time from the future to the present to menace you and your children. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dimension31 and Smerdis. Thanks for the helpful reply. I posted a reply here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SkyGrid), but it looks like that's not the right place. I also apologize for removing the posts at the top of the page, I understand wikis and thought I was supposed to remove it with the cleaned up article. I've now updated the article with your suggestions

removed all references to our site, press releases, and self-published sources (I mentioned my reason for that on the talk page originally)
have only notable third-party sources like CNN, The Washington Post, Reuters, the USPTO, and others
have removed the reference to our name, which some people had asked about

Also I asked our engineering team about "information traveling the fastest" and that is actually a reference to a physical property of velocity. In other words it's a literal statement about measurement. Your suggestions are very clear and I'd like to update the article with any other changes we need. We're also rewriting the article about our CEO which we created in the format of several other wikipedia articles and by using NPOV, "verifiability", and "no original research". What you said here will be helpful also.

If you have any other suggestions, please let me know. Souvanna (talk) 9:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Even after Souvanna's supposed improvements, the article still reads like an ad and still has about 15 out of 18 self-published sources. This may be related to the fact that the article was entirely written by a SkyGrid employee. Dimension31 (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I pruned back a lot of the article due to COI issues, I think there are enough source to indicate its notability though: [15][16][17][18] Qrsdogg (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update Qrsdogg's improvements were removed by Souvanna. Dimension31 (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep & Help Hello Dimension31, Smerdis, and Qrsdogg. I've read more about WikiPedia Policies and have learned a few things that are helpful for the discussion of the article. I read that there are Talk Page Guidelines, and was happy to learn that I have the right for others to treat me in a way that meets these Wikipedia policies -

Personal details posted without my consent fall under Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable and Wikipedia let me know "Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely."
No insults are allowed under Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable and the comment about SkyGrid menacing people and their children is an insult and does help me write a better article
I also think I've been very open I'm new...and learning and was happy to see Good Practices Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices let me know others should "be welcoming to newcomers" and to "assume it was an unwitting mistake.

If you can help me and follow these three policies, I will really appreciate it.

Specifically for the article, I looked at the sources and when you said "15 out of 18 are self-published sources", I counted and 3 out of 21 were which shows that was not the case. I also appreciate Qrsdogg mentioning the sources are notable.

For the article, I was asked to show notability and did. And then the items showing notability were deleted. Like I said above, I just want to help make a post that meets Wikipedia criteria and am excited for others to improve it over time. One other note is that the details on management were not all correct, and I also thought the way they were written seemed like they were not under NPOV. Because if they were under NPOV, they would include people who have joined as well as left the company, to be neutral, but they just include people who've left and quote negative items, so it appears it's not following the policy of NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight. I also think from what you said before about notability, the details of a smaller company and who has joined or left meet notability. I'm now going to update the article, and would really appreciate it, if you could give me help and suggest any changes here.

I'm sure everyone's just trying to help and I feel much more comfortable now I know Jimbo Wales Policy #2 and #7 User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles#Principles "Newcomers are always to be welcomed" and that people are to "present their problems in a constructive way...working for a common goal". To be open, I felt a little bullied before, and now feel better. I'm happy we can all make Wikipedia better together. Souvanna (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The article is now edited and was updated according to the suggestions at the top of the page. Specifically -

For 'puffery' I went through the article and did not find any word that promotes. I think this may have been because of the word 'fastest', but that is used to describe the type of measurement, not to as a comparative word about the technology.
For 'sources of reference it now has 18 and 0 I think that are not from third-party publications.
For NPOV, I tried to write every sentence as a literal fact. If you think we should remove the sections about SkyGrid's being featured by Apple and Google please let me know. Before I was told we needed to show notability, and am not sure. I'd like to just make sure it meets NPOV. Souvanna (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response These edits are totally ridiculous. You fail to understand the concept of COI and the Wikipedia policies you link to. Dimension31 (talk) 20:36, 11 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 - T P 00:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Fudge[edit]

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

Having declined speedy deletion, I'm nominating the biography for deletion here. The article sets out coverage in reliable sources. 1 doesn't cover Fudge directly, it uses him as an example to open an article on balloon art generally; 2 is a video piece complementing Article 1; 3 is very much a puff piece. I think reasonable minds might differ on this one (hence declining speedy deletion). I don't think it's enough independent and reliable coverage to support a biography. Mkativerata (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable biography. The article was speedy deleted earlier. — Abhishek ^Talk 03:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the article, I don't see why this would be deleted from this website. This seems to be an accurate piece on a young mans accomplishments in a hard economy. I remember seeing this article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal a few years ago and I have followed his art on his website and facebook ever since. He seems to be an accomplished young man, and I don't see how this website can erase a piece of written history because he's not technically famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyart7 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the only edit of the above editor and might be a sock of the author User:Entertainmentnow. — Abhishek ^Talk 05:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, lovely! - a human interest story. Nice balloon twisting, but don't quite see how he satisfies any criterion of WP:ENTERTAINER Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was deleted before. I nominated this one as well for speedy deletion and suddenly here it is. It does not change the fact that this is a non-notable biography. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen wiki articles with less material, lol. Don't see any reason to delete this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christianally (talk • contribs) 14:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, smells of autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: both Friendlyart7 and Christianally blocked as socks, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Entertainmentnow. Hairhorn (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per violation of guidelines. Wikipedia is not a personal website or blog. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 5 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 Vulcan_(Marvel_Comics). v/r - T P 17:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third Summers brother[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD was closed as a no consensus. The problems that caused the first AfD are still present. Because of this, as suggested in the deletion review, I'm nominating it again. None of the reliable sources cited within the article addresses the topic as a plot point. The only one that actually addresses the topic is a fansite, not a reliable secondary source. The content of the article appears to rely on original research by synthesis at best, by taking information from four different fictional characters and creating a topic that is not covered in detail in reliable third-party sources. The article never establishes the importance of the third Summers brother as a plot point and it merely details information about the fictional characters that at some point were though to be the third Summers brother. Of all references, there is only one reliable secondary source that addresses the topic, which is Comic Book Resources (CBR), but even in that publication the plot point is not addressed directly (only in one of the CBR references the plot point has some overage by repeating the plot of the comics, the rest are trivial mentions) and none of them shows reception or significance for the plot point in the real-world, so the plot point, as a topic, does not show evidence that it can be covered in an encyclopedic manner as required by Wikipedia since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The only thing related to a real-world perspective are the interviews to the authors that were related to the creation of the fictional characters, which means that all real-world context is taken exclusively from primary sources. With only one reliable secondary source that does not give analytic or evaluative claims about the third Summers brother as a plot point, I do not believe that as a subject the plot point meets the general notability guideline. Also, I do not think that the third Summers brother plot point meets the presumption that as a subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia because it has no reception or significance in the real-world and it can only be described from a plot-only perspective or by putting rea-wolrd context taken from primary sources exclusively. A search engine test does not show anything different as all results are either unreliable sources or repeat the information from this article. Jfgslo (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vulcan (Marvel Comics). In the previous discussion I had argued to keep the article because I could add a reliable source and that the article should be merged if I could not find it. I was unable to find the source I was talking about, so I think it should be condensed and merged. Spidey104 04:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vulcan (Marvel Comics). I do not agree with the source description and the article analysis given by Jfgslo. I have already stated my opinion in the previous AfD and described my vision of the article and the sources which is less dark than the nominator's opinion. I won't rewrite everything, I focus my efforts by explaining my vote for a merge. Before this AfD, two merges have been proposed, I agree with Kurt Parker's analysis in the previous AfD "I realize there have been merge discussions before that ended in consensus to not merge, but those were conducted under the natural assumption that both articles would continue to exist. I think all editors that were against the merge before would not be for the merge instead of losing the article's information completely. Vulcan would be the best location for this merge, but obviously I think keeping it as a separate article would be better.". Xymmax closed the previous AfD with "Editors may wish to consider carefully if an appropriate merge target can be developed." Merge has been suggested in the deletion review. We discuss the problem of this article with other contributors [19] [20] and our solution was to condensed and merge to Vulcan (Marvel Comics). --Crazy runner (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vulcan (Marvel Comics). As above. would be a waste to delete good work on these grounds, and is an interesting dangling thread of continuity in the MU.Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 11:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How's this for a reliable source: a link to an article Robert Weinberg, a former writer on Cable, wrote on the subject: http://www.comixfan.net/forums/showthread.php?t=24515

I wasn't sure whether to credit Robert Weinberg or Jim Lemoine, so I went with the former, since he wrote the article. I'll leave the finessing to more expert hands than mine. :D --Gokitalo (talk) 07:04, 11 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) 01:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star Machine[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the standards of WP:NALBUMS. The album has won no awards or honors, and has not been mentioned in multiple reliable sources. --I Jethrobot (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NALBUMS. a promotional single that never charted nor received indepth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have subsequently provided verifiable independent references. Dan arndt (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Cirt (talk) 02:07, 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 02:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless stub. Or redirect to Jebediah per WP:ALBUM Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No reviews, didn't chart, but can be a redirect to the article on the album. Edgepedia (talk) 07:23, 6 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 - T P 00:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Wilson[edit]

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

Non-notable film character with only one major film appearance (in a relatively minor one at that). Article itself consists of trivia and plot descriptions GroovySandwich 01:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PLOT and WP:WAF; a fictional topic needs to have real-world context with in-universe detail existing to complement that context. Looking in Google Books and News Search, the character does not seem to have attracted any discussion that would warrant a stand-alone article. Any information about the character can be covered in the film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mentioned in a number of plot summaries, but that's all that I can find (failing WP:PLOT). Qrsdogg (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline as a stand-alone topic and any article about him can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article itself is completely unreferenced and relies on original research and original research by synthesis to generate the content. A quick search engine test shows nothing different to presume otherwise. Jfgslo (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I considered redirect per SunCreator, but as the author of the article in question pointed out, "Nuwaubu is not nuwaubianism". Consensus is delete. v/r - T P 17:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuwaubu[edit]

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

Non-notable and only vaguely defined term whose references are primary or unreliable. Article really is a kind of essay consisting of synthesis. Read the last sentence: the meaning of the word, apparently, has yet to be defined. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also included:

Comment This term is apparently a part of the belief system of Nuwaubianism, just so people know the context. The term's originator (mentioned but not linked in the article) is Dwight York. A. Parrot (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both pages cover stuff that's within the scope of Nuwaubianism but is covered there in a better-sourced and less-POVish way. I would add Nuwaupian (created by the same author as Nuwaubu and Nuwaupu) to this AfD. —Moorlock (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I totally disagree with the notion the Nuwaubu article is non notable, because it is very notable in the theological and philosophical circles, and also in the media, and if in doubt, check on the internet in general (google the word Nuwaupu/Nuwaubu). Firstly, this article is predominately on the word Nuwaubu alone, and the article purposely avoids other related but independent topics as found in nuwaubianism which is a relatively new, generally broad term covering lots of areas at various levels of depth (look at the nuwaubianism content box). Secondly, I disagree with the notion that the references are unreliable, the only oversight I have done in my humble opinion, is to not cite enough references for the sources of the concepts written in the definition section of the article (this oversight will be corrected in the next 14 days, after which, I intend to expand the article still further in due time) These references that I will introduce as the sources of the concepts, also provide proof of non-synthesis. Thirdly, I do however agree that the last sentence in the article should be fully, and thoroughly read (please quote/paraphrase/cite more accurately and thoroughly so as not to accidentally mislead or cause confusion). And I Quote “To date, the word Nuwaubu has yet to be fully defined by Dr Malachi Kobina York.”. This clearly states that Dr Malachi Kobina York has given a definition but it is not fully complete and there is still more to come. Therefore, the definition that is give in the article is as much as what is available (research pending). Fourthly, while during construction of an article, if the linking to the originator or any other links are overlooked, wiki allows anyone else to do so. Fifthly, I would agree that nuwaubianism only partially covers the etymology of the word Nuwaupu which is covered in less than 70 words, but it goes no further than that. The actual definition of the word Nuwaubu is not given at all in any way, shape, or form what-so-ever. The article Nuwaupu goes into much more depth (over 1000 words just on the word Nuwaupu alone) as there is a lot of information mentioned here that is not found on the nuwaubianism page or any other wiki page for that matter. As for the Article Nuwaupian, this is not mentioned in this article for deletion page. It is not relevant, or appropriate to discuss other independent articles at this point in time. Lastly, I have not given a POV (point of view), but a detailed definition, and as aforementioned earlier in the second point, additional references will be provided proving it a legitimate independent definition. Logistical One (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC) — Logistical One (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well, that "research pending" is the problem. We don't have an incomplete article--we don't have an article to begin with. To say, basically, "just google it", is not enough: there need to be reliable secondary sources that establish what this term is and what it means. As for sources, as I indicated, the sources in the article are mostly primary. Nothing is cited that could be called reliable and secondary. That you created two articles with only one letter difference only adds to the confusion, as does the existence of Nuwaupian. The way I see it (and that article offers nothing else), a Nuwaupian is an adherent of Nuwaubianism, plain and simple, and I intend to merge it as such: see Talk:Nuwaubianism#Another_merge:_Nuwaupian. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you are totally mistaken, as demonstrated in your response. You stated “Well, that “research pending” is the problem”, when in actuality the opposite is true. It is not the problem, but the solution because obtaining more references through research ensures articles are in order as demanded by wiki. You have also stated, and I quote “To say, basically, “just google it”, is not enough: there need to be reliable secondary sources that establish what this term is and what it means.” It is clear what you are trying to infer here. This section is basically about me saying to google for references, which is erroneous and misleading. What I actually said was, and I quote “I totally disagree with the notion the Nuwaubu article is non notable, because it is very notable in the theological and philosophical circles, and also in the media, and if in doubt, check on the internet in general (google the word Nuwaupu/Nuwaubu).” It is clear from this section that Notability is the only thing being discussed in that statement, and it has absolutely nothing to do with references (although references was raised and refuted in the second issue afterwards). This quote make the point that the evidence of notability is obvious when the word Nuwaupu/Nuwaubu is googled (even though proof notability is not required within an article). I will ask you for the second time to please quote/paraphrase/cite more accurately and thoroughly so as not to mislead or cause confusion. The point you have raised about confusing those visiting the articles because of one letter change is a weak and mute argument because the issue is addressed and totally clarified in the second sentence of the articles, and I quote “The word Nuwaupu is a more modern upgraded variant to the original word Nuwaubu because it was later revealed that the P and the B is interchangeable.” (the bold emphasis is what is on the actual article for additional clarity). Again I must stress that the Article Nuwaupian is not mentioned in this article for deletion page, and that it is not relevant, or appropriate to discuss other independent articles at this point in time. Logistical One (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have shown that your arguments for the article Nuwaupu to be deleted is weak! So much so, that you have resorted to raising the fact that Nuwaupu is an article for deletion elsewhere within the issues of another article (especially after I have state that it is not appropriate to talk about it here). And I quote “Nuwaupian has nothing to offer that's reliably sourced. Phrases like "Our unity works on the principle of synergy, where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" are indicative of POV editing, and the references are obviously not independent of the subject. Author has tried to make the article rely on Nuwaubu/Nuwaupu, which are both at AfD and likewise have no reliable, secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)”^[1]

Firstly this is an inappropriate action that contradicts the wikipedea rules/code of conduct. It is regarded as Biased Canvassing, more specifically campaigning^[2]. The article Nuwaupu (when compared to my first efforts) is now a fuller, more polished article with a more clarity and states valid quotes and references. The disputed article Nuwaupu falls in line in terms of quality as required by wikipedea.

Secondly, since you are desperate to make a point using the article nuwaupian, lets go there then. The Nuwaupian page is a poor first attempt as was the Nuwaupu page, but the Nuwaupu page has been evolving, updated, upgraded, and improving and continues to do so. Unfortunately, the main reference to state the definition has been lost and at present I can’t find a replacement reference. Due to the articles main reference going down, I have stripped away what can’t be used and I have merged what was left of the Nuwaupian article into the Nuwaupu article.

Thirdly you wrote, and I quote “Author has tried to make the article rely on Nuwaubu/Nuwaupu,”. This is an erroneous statement using a poor choice of words. The word Nuwaupian is derivative of the word Nuwaupu, just as the word American is a derivative of the word America. Both the word nuwaupu and the word nuwaupian are etymologically related. It is a relationship not a reliance which is why the statement is fundamentally flawed.

Fourthly, you wrote and I quote “Phrases like "Our unity works on the principle of synergy, where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" are indicative of POV editing, and the references are obviously not independent of the subject.” It was actually meant to be a quote, but the page was poorly constructed. (this is not an issue now because of the merger)

Lastly, the sources of reference on etymology used in the Nuwaupu article are secondary and reliable. Unless you are a highly renowned etymologist, or can bring evidence that the references are wrong, and thus show that the sources of reference here are unreliable, any claims referring to unreliable sources on etymology is just an opinion. The reference used for the word nub^[3] pertaining to gold was from a web site which can be proved to be both a secondary and reliable reference. Here is the evidence that a reference from the Online Etymology Dictionary^[4] is secondary and reliable, as they state some of their sources, and the site gives you the option to scrutinize all their sources via their link. It is important to note that not all primary references are bad. Logistical One (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The most important point I will raise is that Nuwaubu is not nuwaubianism. When you look at both articles, nuwaubianism is a very general and broard term, while Nuwaupu is much more specific and thus detailed, which is why I have suggested a split on the nuwaubianism page. Please note that the Nuwaubu page is still in development. Logistical One (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see nothing to suggest this is notable. Trivial sourcing, almost an advert for Dr Malachi Kobina York. IF the article is to stay it could do with being cut of the unsourced stuff. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable in wikipedia amounts to WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both due to trivial sourcing redirect to Nuwaubianism. Else delete them. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Notability - Lets be real and honest, how can anyone say that the word Nuwaupu has no notability when there is so much controversy around it, even in wikipedea itself (read nuwaubianism article and then check the “View History” tab). Also nuwaubianism which you do acknowledge is notable is a new word not much more than 5 years old, and itself is a derivative of Nuwaupu which is over 40 years old. There is clearly a contradiction here.

Lastly, Just because you were unable to find anything does not mean there is nothing there that does not show notability .It would be difficult to find proof of notability amongst the many thousands of entries in google, but if you look thoroughly you shall find. I did not sample all that I found (there was quite a lot actually) but here are a few links to get you started.

These are links to news paper articles using the word Nuwaupu

http://onlineathens.com/stories/030307/news_20070303052.shtml

http://onlineathens.com/stories/061806/news_20060618080.shtml

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2006/06/19/met_85885.shtml

And the word Nuwaupian

http://www.macon.com/2009/08/27/823146/hundreds-of-nuwaubians-petition.html

http://www.macon.com/2009/08/28/824869/thursdays-top-stories-on-maconcom.html#storylink=misearch

http://www.macon.com/2009/07/16/779576/wednesdays-top-stories-on-maconcom.html#storylink=misearch

http://www.macon.com/2009/07/15/778201/nuwaubians-founder-malachi-york.html

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/caged-man-in-orange-554677.html

The word has clearly been found in two top ten articles, so there you have it. There is much more proof of notability out there on the net, but if you want more evidence you will have to do a more thorough search yourself (as I have done and shown with the proof above). This point on notability has now been addressed.

On Trivial sourcing - Etymology is relevant as it has been done less thoroughly on nuwaupianism. The definition of the word and sources is even more relevant, but this is not done for the word Nuwaupu on wikipedea anywhere. If the etymlolgy of Nuwaupu with references showing a full and thorough breakdown of the word composition, and the definition of the word with reference showing where the definitions can be found, is in your opinion “trivial”, then different strokes for different folks. There are many who search for the definition and a breakdown of the word Nuwaupu, and can't easily find anything of substance. Now for the first time on wikipedea, they can. Everything has now been sourced and therefore nothing left to cut (and the article got bigger in the process, thanks for the tip). Lastly, as for the comment on advertising for Dr Malachi Kobina York, he is only mention twice, and there is no form of promotion of any kind in the article. Logistical One (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Logical Conclusion – The whole case promoting deletion is based on the following statements as submitted as follows:-

“Non-notable and only vaguely defined term whose references are primary or unreliable. Article really is a kind of essay consisting of synthesis. Read the last sentence: the meaning of the word, apparently, has yet to be defined. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)”

The section stating “Non-notable” has been proven false by the evidence submitted in the above links showing notability.

The section stating “Vaguely defined terms” is also false because the definitions were clearly described in detail as found in the references , and are simplified in the summery of the article.

The section stating “reference are primary or unreliable” is totally unsubstantiated as all of the references are reliable, and most of the reference are secondary in nature. An example of secondary reliable reference in relation to the online etymology dictionary was given in an earlier section above. There are a few references that I will admit are primary in nature, but they are allowable under the wikipedea policy concerning references. The primary references are for descriptinve purposes only as stated in the policy, and I quote “A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.”, as found on the Wikipedea:No original research^[5] page. Due to the fact that all references follow the wikipedea guidelines, all references used in the Nuwaupu article are valid.

The section stating “kind of essay consisting of synthesis.” Is note based on any facts at all. This section is voicing an opinion or viewpoint which is totally unsubstantiated. The references for the sources of the definitions provided prove it is not synthesised.

The section stating “Read the last sentence: the meaning of the word, apparently, has yet to be defined” was totally discredited in my first response (see above responces).

The logical conclusion based on evidence submitted is that the whole argument of deletion has been proven unnecessary, and unfounded. The articles Nuwaubu/Nuwaupu should be kept and additional it should not be merged into another general article of limited details. Additionally, I will redirect the Nuwaubu article to the Nuwaupu article to avoid any confusion, and soon afterwards make it even more clear and precise. All the issues raised have been addressed. Logistical One (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References Of Evidence[edit]

^ Talk:Nuwaubianism [1]
^ Wikipedia:Canvassing [2]
^ Nub [3]
^ Online Etymology Dictionary [4]
^ Wikipedea:No original research [5]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam and Rosario Maceo[edit]

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

These two have their own articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reason to have a combined article about these brothers, as each is notable and has his own article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sense keeping this around. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:40, 7 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. v/r - T P 17:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pride Critical Countdown 2004[edit]

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

also nominating Pride Critical Countdown 2005. neither event gets any real third party coverage. gnews shows mainly MMA which is not third party. [21] and [22]. google search shows almost all fighting sources or event listings. simply having notable fighters is not a reason alone for keep or strong keep. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep Now you are trying to delete PRIDE events – this is getting ludicrous. I feel that I don’t really need to justify any defence this is PRIDE we’re talking about – the top organization (ever) in MMA with notable fighters such as Ricardo Arona, Quinton Jackson, Mark Hunt, Sergei Kharitonov, Semmy Schilt, Heath Herring, Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira, Fedor Emelianenko and Kevin Randleman. The event was also part of the 2004 Heavyweight Grand Prix Tournament. If this page gets deleted all MMA and kickboxing pages have no defence against this onslaught - do you really think you are improving wikipedia? What next Libstar – UFC events? Also please stop trying to tell people that they can’t use keep or strong keep, you are not in charge of wikipedia however much you would like to think. jsmith006 (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2011

again the criteria here is WP:GNG, not very notable fighters. my favourite National Rugby League team played another team last weekend. the game was full of notable players, in fact it was reported in the media. yet there is no need to create a WP article out of it.LibStar (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libstar do you have any idea whats you doing right now? You are full on to discrediting yourself so bad its not even funny.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hardly. LibStar (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Libstar - Events in MMA/kickboxing tend to be different from team sports in that individual promotions hold far less shows per year than Australian Rugby League teams play games (24 in a regular season I believe) – something that PRIDE certainly did not do. Also the PRIDE event you have nominated is like the knockout stages of the UEFA Champions League – why don’t you go over to the football pages and start nominating them for deletion as well. While Rugby League teams have a history stretching back sometimes for decades, the emphasis on league games (unless derbies or relegation/promotion) is not generally as important as individual mma and kickboxing events in my opinion. I believe that events in MMA and kickboxing by important promotions such as PRIDE are shaped by their events and with less media coverage than Rugby League or Aussie Rules football, it is the only way really on wikipedia to gauge how important an event or promotion is – of course unless you think that mma or kickboxing has no place on wikipedia. As for you discrediting yourself even your fellow deletionists are starting to find your nominations and behaviour slightly ridiculous. You know the world isn't going to implode because you haven't nominated a mma or kickboxing page in the last couple of hours. jsmith006 (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2011

nor is your world going to implode if some of these kickboxing articles get deleted. LibStar (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have like a method how you pick those articles or its just whatever you stumble upon, seems like you having some sic kinda satisfaction about all this.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(To Libstar) My world will remain intact but large swaths of the martial arts section of wikipedia are going to be turned into red links by your actions. How much effort do you think it takes to build something and how much effort do you think it takes to tear something down? You do actually realize you would get a far more positive response from people if you actually tried to be helpful but you are very rigid in your actions and see yourself as a Paladin of wikipedia who is totally in the right because you can quote WP like some sort of maniac lawyer. All you’re doing is turning off any potential new editors and scaring off existing ones who don’t want to waste time arguing with you. jsmith006 (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2011

if you're trying to discourage me, why not properly source these articles in the first place instead of endlessly coming up with arguments here and WP:ADHOM attacks like "manic lawyer"? LibStar (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why can’t you start speaking like a normal person – I was almost starting to warm to you with your ‘Rugby League’ example. Your saying I’m coming up with endless efforts to discourage you but I’m saying you are coming up with endless nominations that seem to be aimed at notable organizations (PRIDE, SuperLeague, SuperKombat, United Glory) most of which have a variety of sources but because they are not from the New York Times or The Australian then you are refusing to even acknowledge them. You also seem to be bringing in new arguments each time we come close to satisfy an existing one. First we had no Gnews hits and then when something had Gnews hits it was not notable and there were no independent 3rd party sources, then when these were found there weren’t enough sources, then the sources weren't good enough sources, then it was the promotion is notable but the events aren’t and so and so forth. In terms of discouraging you that will never work but I hope other people will realise just how crazy it is to delete huge areas of Wikipedia just because Mr Libstar doesn’t think mma and kickboxing are relevant. Btw you may think 'Maniac Lawyer' is an attack but I feel that your delibrate targeting of these pages is far more aggressive and hurtful to the editors who have put in so much hard work. You can call me any names you feel like just leave these pages alone. jsmith006 (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2011

WP:OWN if I ever saw it. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even my page and I don't work on MMA articles (I added or updated fight box for Cro-Cop but that was for kickboxing). I just strongly disagree with most of your nominations - not all I haven't defended several pages which have no sources or do not have any notable fighters.jsmith006 (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2011

Keep The article has no independent sources and it needs those to avoid removal. However, my search found so many sources I'm sure that some good ones can be added to the article. I'm willing to give the MMA editors a chance to improve this article. Astudent0 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please provide evidence of indepth third party coverage. see WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep A PRIDE event doesn't get deleted. Since it appears that sources are the issue, then we get it sourced, which ,as said above, isn't hard to do if you know where to look. Instead of nominating to delete, improve the article. Jahahn (gab) 21:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please provide evidence of indepth third party coverage. see WP:MUSTBESOURCES. The article remains unreferenced. LibStar (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just referenced it and cleaned it up. Will shortly do the same for the 2005 article as well. Jahahn (gab) 22:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are now referenced, and thus justifiable. Jahahn (gab) 23:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but you'll need evidence of wider third party coverage than sherdog.com has any mainstream news service covered this event? LibStar (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherdog is the CNN of MMA. It is a great MMA news service, with reporters at every major event and several minor ones. They are affiliated with ESPN and provide extensive, reliable coverage for their website [23]. (Notice the Sherdog links at the right hand side of the page towards the bottom.) If the news sites you are looking for are places like CNN and MSNBC, you are mistaken. Also, since I see that you are not a member of, or perhaps not even aware of, the Mixed Martial Arts WikiProject, you wouldn't know of this wiki policy WP:MMANOT. As you can see, it clearly states that PRIDE is very notable organization. Jahahn (gab) 00:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (see below) WP:MMANOT is an essay, not a policy. How did all these articles get created without regard to citation and sourcing? A clickthrough of the template reveals most of these events have virtually no sourcing. If Pride FC was a significant player in MMA, then surely someone can pull a couple of magazines out and provide sources justifying inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sans sources, this is all OR and I see no reason to keep ANY of these events. Since the Pride website can't be used to assert notability, if only Sherdog sources are used, then a majority of these pages fail WP:DIVERSE and must be deleted. BusterD (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as alternative As a reasonable alternative to deletion or improvement, I recommend we merge all the events and sources into List of Pride events which should be renamed List of Pride Fighting Championships events. The few events which do have significant sourcing could be kept and bluelinked on that list; the others would be nolinked/deleted until sources are found. Nolinked articles could be userfied so that the hard work these contributors have put in wouldn't be lost. BusterD (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to point out that based on the lack of sourcing, a vast number of Pride events could in fact end up deleted. I don't think User:LibStar wants that, or more of these events would be up for deletion or prodded now. I had the impulse to prod what I saw myself. But I thought, someone could go through my list of contributions, and notice that many of my creations lack inline citations. I'm sure I have provided good sources, but a reasonable case could be made, so someone might tag or prod them. I was thinking, wow, I need to make sure my own creations meet the standard I'm asking others to meet. So I'm going to avoid getting involved in more deletion discussions until I can stop acting in this slightly hypocritical manner. BusterD (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow the deletion rationale. It looks to me like the nom is rejecting sources such as MMAWeekly and Sherdog because they are about MMA, and are therefore not third party. This is preposterous. Third party sourcing is to avoid sources related to the subject itself, not the general subject matter. We don't (I hope) reject articles from Variety to establish notability of film projects, even though Variety is about the film industry. Or, possibly the nom means something else entirely, in which case, what? gnfnrf (talk) 23:20, 11 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) 02:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley World Island Challenge[edit]

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

Contested PROD - Non-Notable puzzle video game Mtking (talk) 01:17, 5 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) MrKIA11 (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no publication has reviewed this game. No other coverage. Therefore not notable. Optionally redirect to Zushi Games. Marasmusine (talk) 10:48, 5 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.

Collective salvation[edit]

The result was Keep now that the article has been substantially re-written and the nomination withdrawn. 28bytes (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable neologism. The article is a massive collection of original research and synthesis. Many of the sources I could access don't even use the term, including the one used to source the statement: "Those that believe in collective salvation often claim Christianity and other religions as their base religion, but see all religions as one of many paths toward salvation." Sun Myung Moon and Barack Obama (!) do use the term, but with different meanings - and I'm pretty sure neither means the same as our article, though I could be wrong, given that the article is rather hazy on what collective salvation is actually supposed to be. I'm also pretty sure neither is a reliable secondary source. Huon (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination due to complete rewrite and addition of scholarly sources by Qrsdogg. Since hardly anyhing of the original article survived, we could have deleted it and started anew, but this outcome ist just as good. Huon (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new one. I have seen bad, but this is in a class by itself. Makes Wikipedia look bad, just being there. Any any effort spent here discussing the salvation of this article could go to better use fixing other things elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it has been rewritten, it is no longer an insult to Wikipedia, so keep it. History2007 (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tried to make it a bit more neutral and historical, but the current editors have a clear doctrinal bias against the topic and make all sorts of fallacious identifications between the topic and Christianity, Marxism, social justice, liberal theology, etc., none of which are necessarily connected to CS. They seem to confuse political perspectives with religious ones (citing Obama as an example of religious CS, e.g.), and they ignore the history of CS viewpoints in other religions or even in historical Christianity. And their use of sources is clearly OR -- they don't report what other people have said about CS but instead present their own examples of CS. I deleted several such citations--use the history button to locate those. If there is any kernel of an article here, it would need to be renamed "Collective salvation in contemporary Christianity", but even then it would need to be heavily monitored for POV problems. I started cleaning it up before the page was nominated for deletion, so some of the problems in the early sections have been consigned to the history page unless one of the editors reverts them. Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.

I have never seen such an shark pack attack on Wikipedia before. Multiple deletion request pages with the same arguement. Gutting of the original article changing the focus and deletion of references and notes. Thus making other points weak or null. In general, I have always thought Wikipedia editors to be generally supportive in helping others in making better articles. Using a phrase for the need for deletion that was under review - AS Noted under the section Sources and references above by Editor2020 above and pending change as documented above - the main requirement for deletion. Before the massive gutting the article was like this here.

It is painfully obvious that an agenda is being driven by a few editors. Dicredit, refocus and neutralize. I used to support and encourage people to use Wikipedia. I can see that it has been radicalized by the PC police.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcrin001 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 July 2011

Comment: The article as it stood demonstrated a clear doctrinal bias against the very topic of the article, contained loads of synthesis and had huge gaping holes in logic. And you accuse US of having a bias? The article you were writing was "Criticisms of modern Christian ideas of collective salvation." If that's what you want to write, then write it, but make sure the title of the article actually matches the content. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: It's clearer to me now that the article has been written in order to bash liberation theology. While there may be many sources out there that critique liberation theology, it seems odd that you'd write an encyclopedia article with the sole purpose of bashing the topic. This approach is clearly non-encyclopedic at its core. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Per nom - WP:NOR. Elizium23 (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Speedy keep of the rewritten version. Elizium23 (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Social Gospel. For those who don't know, this term is a Glenn Beck obsession. He likes to harp on the Obama collective salvation quote. But what he's really talking about is the social gospel - not some notion of being (spiritually) saved collectively. --B (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Keep Obviously the idea of collective salvation is out there, the article just doesn't define it well. Oddly enough Obama might well have picked it up from Moon since Joseph Lowery is a mutual friend. Borock (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you also help with the "work" on keeping it please? It will be nice for those who vote keep to participate in the work. As is there are always too many generals and not enough troops in Afds, as always. End results is that junk accumulates and everyone asks for it to be improved, but no one will spend the effort, as I started out saying here. History2007 (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will help out if the article is kept. Borock (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, it means multiple different things. I'm sure that Moon means it literally, but nobody, within the framework of Christianity, believes in a spiritual "collective salvation" concept - meaning that God is going to say this group of people is going to Heaven because of their teamwork as opposed to their individual state of grace. Obama is just using Christian words (salvation) when he really means a secular concept (helping the poor). He is trying to express the view that if any of us are in poverty, it affects all of us - he isn't making a theological statement. What this article is trying to do is to take two Obama quotes out of context, pretend that he was talking about a spiritual concept (as opposed to using spiritual language in discussing a secular concept), and attack him for it. That's fine for Glenn Beck's show but it's not fine here. I'm no fan of Obama and I can count on one finger the number of democrats I've voted for in my life, but this is really an unfair attack on him. --B (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article seems to have a strong POV slant but POV is not a reason to delete an article. The topic of "collective salvation" seems to be encyclopedic (per Aristophanes edits which he has since reverted out). The stuff from Rev. Moon, Obama and Glenn Beck should be mentioned briefly rather than being the focus of the article. In brief, someone needs to take an atom bomb to the article and rewrite it but the suppression of POV editing should be done via the dispute resolution process not via AFD. I would urge Aristophanes to restore his edits and recruit more editors to improve the article by focusing on the 2000 year history of the concept. (BTW, when the Old Testament prophets exhort the Hebrews to abandon their sinful ways and return to obeying God's commandments, isn't that a kind of collective salvation? Your nation will prosper if you obey God.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your help in setting aside several days to improve this article will be greatly appreciated Richard. I am sure you can improve it. So shall we count you in on the rescue team? As I said above, there are never enough people to carry out the keep recommendations in Afds, so help in doing the work, post-Afd will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Yes, I will... I will be away for a week so I might not be able to help right away but I certainly will help. Per the comments by Qrsdogg and Aristophanes below, I would be OK with stubifying the article and starting from scratch. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. This is a established theological concept that has received a lot of attention: [24][25][26][27][28]. If the current article is deemed beyond repair we could just stub it for now. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources seem much more neutral than the ones being used before. If the article were built around that kind of theological discussion of the concept (as opposed to being an outlet to bash liberation theology and social justice), then I would vote to keep but radically rewrite it. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have just stubbed the article and began a rewrite using only academic sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the new stubbed version. I reviewed the previous version via the history and I can see why people want it deleted, however I think it is a topic deserving an article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article as it stands now is entirely different from the article that came to AFD. I believe a renomination should be made if the AFD is still desired. Ryan Vesey (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Current version passes muster, in my view, and solves the POV-drenched issues of the incarnation brought to AfD. I especially enjoyed the succeeding quotes of Barack Obama and Reverend Moon in the old version. Conservapedia is that way, my friend. -----------> Carrite (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks better now in shorter form. Just needs to address 1 Corinthians 12:12 "all the members of that one body, being many, are one body" because people will think about that as I did, and then it is an Ok stub. History2007 (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I'll see if I can find a good source about that. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:32, 10 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) 02:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satan Disciples (gang)[edit]

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

There's enough online for this to pass A7, but I can't find enough to support this gang's notability. Specifically, it is not included in the National Gang Threat Assessment 2009. I should note that I have found a number of lawyers' blogs and other documents to support the existence of this gang - but they are not reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - I endorse this deletion. The article does not meet wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -It meets wikipedia's guidelines for notability and it clearly cites sources. The stan Disciples are crearly notable group gang-activity-injunction-gang-members — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChicityJOE (talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC) — ChicityJOE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - "stan"??? "crearly"??? It seems that the only reason that this article was created is to help recruit gang membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.198.223 (talk) 22:26, 7 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. v/r - T P 17:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

God of War: Blood & Metal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: Not notable. What relevant information there is already at God of War (series). Definately not WP:NOT#IINFO. Better suited to a fan page. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The gist may be able to be merged to the main page God of War (series). After all, why allow this article to exist by itself when standard practice is to incorporate small efforts like this into a main article, a la Vagrant Story ([29])? Thebladesofchaos (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know that that practice is "standard" so much as "the usual thing when the sub-topic isn't notable in itself", but even if it is, AfD isn't really the right place to address it. The main thing that AfD is for is examining notability, and the main tool we have for examining that is the WP:GNG. If what you really mean is to be proposing a merge, AfD isn't the place to bring those; merge discussions are normally handled on the article's talk page, and if consensus there supports them, are executed by integrating the material from the merged article and then converting it to a redirect, not deleting it. There's no reason you can't propose a merge if this AfD nomination is closed as a keep, but I'd wait until it's done in any event to avoid confusing the process. —chaos5023 (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In response to the Vagrant Story, that is the game's soundtrack, not a compilation of songs written by outside artist that do not appear in any of the games whatsoever (by outside, I mean bands who did not compose any of the games music). Merging could be done after this process here is finished, however, that's going to clutter up that already huge article. JDC808 (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - —chaos5023, I agree. I can also allay JDC808's concerns as a happy compromised can be reached. If it can be done for an article such as Vagrant Story (irrespective of content), then it can be done here. It would just be case of using the most relevant information. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no reason to delete this article. Its information is verifiable with sources. There's more information on this page than the series page. This page was made so that the series page would not get cluttered with its information. Also, in response to the WP:NOT#IINFO above, how exactly does that apply to this particular article? (JDC808's comment).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't believe the existing references in the article demonstrate notability due to lack of independence and/or reliability. But, a quick source review (the "news" link above in particular) shows that there is probably enough coverage in actual independent reliable sources to support notability. Whether the article content is "too fannish" or whatever is, as always (yet it keeps appearing in AfD noms) irrelevant to a deletion debate. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - or merge back to the series. There is no critical reception shown for this album, which is typically the benchmark for spinning a game album out from a series/game article. WP:NALBUMS states that articles with little more than a track listing can be merged back to the parent, so I'm okay with that too. --Teancum (talk) 12:38, 6 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) 01:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeToPDF[edit]

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

Non-notable software project; how-to tone and second-person, with no sourcing but its own website and no hint of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 00:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable software, on the par with one of my scripts ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:28, 5 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 - T P 17:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human fit[edit]

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

As I was browsing, I noticed that this article's lead only describes the topic indirectly, without telling what the thing is. So I tried to look it up, and couldn't find it online anywhere. It appears to be a neologism and original research. None of the citations given pertain to the topic "human fit", rather to aspects of the concept. Also, the article does not establish the notability of the topic. Please take a look around and correct me if I'm mistaken. Thank you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 04:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. The article does not describe its topic clearly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gobbledegook, almost speedyable as 'nonsense' Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see that the two words are used fairly regularly, but that does not mean we must have an article with the title. As best I can tell, the article is basically about "cohesion in human relationships" which is an encyclopedic topic I suppose--but already covered by articles such as Interpersonal compatibility and Organizational culture. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's a comment in the article page that a Keep decision made on 28 June, but I can't see in the history who made that decision, and why. So...I'm confused by that comment - can anyone help by explaining the comment and/or pasting that KEEP decision into this page? The content of the article could be kept as it provides a single placeholder for several related terms which DO have notability - e.g., Organisational Fit - the page also has a useful coherent collection of navigation links in this area. So it could be kept at least until the content and references can be integrated into the articles mentioned - Interpersonal compatibility, Organizational culture etc - and the coherent set of links retained, perhaps partly in disambiguation page(s)? -- any editors who could contribute to this work would be more productive for the encyclopedia than a straight deletion. Just a thought Mediation4u (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}[reply]

Comment: Your concerns do not address WP:N or WP:NEO. Is "human fit" a real term? Are there sources out there (books, articles) specifically about "human fit"? I couldn't find any, could you? The notability guideline is very clear:

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.

So far, nobody has provided reliable third party sources (or even first or second party sources) on "human fit". I couldn't find any dictionary entries out there, no news articles about this topic, no textbooks defining the term, nothing. In order to allow this title and its accompanying page to continue, someone needs to verify that the title of this article has been published out there somewhere. WP:VER states:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material.

I challenge the title of this article. If you can establish per WP:BURDEN that this term is notable and is not a neologism, I'll withdraw the nomination. According to WP:NEO:

Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. You may wish to contribute an entry for the neologism to Wiktionary instead.

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 20:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have done much work on tracing the statement, so I defer to your expert opinion on it being insufficiently notable as an article in its own right. Especially as google agrees with you - no matches here -> "Human fit" in-book-title search.

By the same measure, "Organisational fit" is a notable term.

Where would you stand on my suggestion of a little effort on integrating some of the content into other articles?

As one example, I don't see a Wikipedia article on "Organisational fit", yet it is a notable term. Content on such terms could appear in other, related, articles without needing articles of their own. Mediation4u (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}[reply]

Does anyone think there is anything worth salvaging? I would drop the external links as they don't pass the neologism test, as clarified above. Mediation4u (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 01:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gamera 4: Truth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unremarkable fanfilm - not even listed on IMDB. Only claim to notability is that an original director said he enjoyed the film? Previously deleted: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamera 4: Truth. RockinghamNights (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Kusunose 15:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 00:10, 5 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. soft deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crowbar (software)[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. Software package with a claim on the talk page it will become more and more famous - not seeing anything yet. noq (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 5 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. Protonk (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute FreeBSD[edit]

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

Unremarkable book. No references, author has no article, Google news search finds no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [| Open up your one eye wider, mike] :) Plenty of references out there, (per Google). On the article, two are junk ,the distro watch and the Freebsd website, neither mention this book, however,both O'Reilly and No Starch press (reliable and known publishers) reference this book, as does Safari books and Amazon.It's reliable, (not to mention FreeBSD rocks as an OS! )

@-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 20:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I really see there are forums and blogs. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about this book in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources and cited assertions to demonstrate the notability of this book. Hasteur (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; falls short of notability. bobrayner (talk) 21:22, 12 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. Leaning toward no consensus, but the sources provided in the discussion give weight to the keep arguments. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XQuery API for Java[edit]

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

I felt tempted to tag this for speedy as "no context" but I believe it is about a piece of software. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article's one citation, though from a reliable source, does little more than establish that the subject does, in fact, exist. Sources that establish relevance should be necessary. I know personal knowledge isn't supposed to come into play, but as a Java developer, I'd never heard of this, a certain hint that it might not exactly be common or notable in the java world. i kan reed (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As another Java developer, I say keep. JSRs are notable in the tech industry, and adopted by multiple notable frameworks as I've mentioned in the edit summary for removing prod. XQJ is already explained in multiple other articles: this article is an obvious and only reasonable result to appear when searching for XQJ, unless you have suggestions otherwise. Just for your reference, "no context" is for: "Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article." (see: WP:SPEEDY) The subject of the article, "XQuery API for Java" is as the title suggests. I can't imagine how the subject of the article could be any more blatantly obvious.--Bxj (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While JSRs are important, it should be a part of every wikipedia article to establish the relevance of the subject. Could you, just unsourced and informally, explain where and to whom xquery might be relevant? Given that information we might be able to stage an article rescue, without it, we've really got nothing more than WP:ITEXISTS here. i kan reed (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Currently, when a user looks up the word XQJ, they get a perfectly fine definition. If it's deleted, this will no longer be the case. By saying that we need to "rescue" it, you make it sound like it's in a dire shape right now. By saying you're a Java developer, you make it sound like you want to speak from authority, so that others who don't understand the details should just nod along to your opinions. By linking to WP:ITEXISTS, you make it sound like I haven't said anything already. It's backed by Intel, Sun, Nokia, and Oracle in the Java Community Process[30], and it's implemented in the Oracle database, as well as other databases listed in the article XML database. It's an API for a major language and for a W3C Recommendation known as XQuery. Not to mention, the criteria for not screwing things up by deleting a perfectly fine article is completely detached from keeping the reader's interests a priority.--Bxj (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: no sources. may be worth redirecting, but I can't work out what would be the best target out of all the links on that page. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment are you suggesting that after your own thorough investigation, you were unable to find sufficient amount of references that you think would be necessary for an article, to the point that it would be worth inconveniencing users searching for XQJ, and wasting valuable time of editors like myself who have contributed to this article? Are you saying that you did this research and find the topic in and of itself unworthy of coverage on Wikipedia? I don't see you putting this amount of thought and time into it to be able to reach this conclusion. --Bxj (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are some good sources actually: InfoQ (an enterprise software site), XML.com (which is published by O'Reilly Publishing), SOAMag (PDF) and DevX. It is also mentioned in a few ACM conference papers - here, here. It is also mentioned in a few books including Java and XML (McLaughlin and Edelson), XQuery (Walmsley), Querying XML (Melton and Buxton), Oracle Essentials: Oracle Database 11g (Greenwald et al.).—Tom Morris (talk) 11:31, 5 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 - T P 00:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeFaces[edit]

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

A specialised software library with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how i can prove it? here, there are some companies who uses primefaces library: http://www.primefaces.org/who/uses.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.36.178 (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No "significant coverage" in reliable sources, no indication of notability, created by an SPA, so possibly spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:53, 9 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) 01:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hanseen Abdelnaby[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I checked the two books cited and neither appears to contain any reference to this person. Google searches all seem to point back to wikipedia. (The article was kept following an AfD in 2006 but, I assume, no one actually looked at the cited books.) rgpk (comment) 15:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikiproject Egypt notified (by AAlertBot).--rgpk (comment) 21:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject appears to lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources as is therefore likely not notable under the WP:GNG. This information could possibly be included elsewhere if a citation could be found, but it seems like there isn't enough for a stand alone article to me. Anotherclown (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't work out whether it's systematic bias or hoax. either way, it's unsourced Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failing WP:V, no prejudice towards towards re-creation if legitimate sources are found. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:37, 5 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 St. John's Red Storm#Mascot. With no prejudice toward recreation should new sources arise. Protonk (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Thunderbird[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. noq (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to St. John's Red Storm#Mascot -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that this article should be removed because it does not correspond to the guidelines of WP:notability. The article's title is very specific in relation to the content of the article, which discusses several mascots. The information could later be reproduced in an article concerning all of the schools mascots or, more preferably, the schools general history. This article seems to have a larger purpose than it's title suggests. --Patrick750 (talk) 04:05, 5 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 Ishqiya#Sequel. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 00:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dedh Ishqiya[edit]

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

Film has not entered production and has not had a notable pre-production; per WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY2008 19:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ishqiya#Sequel where thiis pre-production film is already mentioned. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 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 - T P 00:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson County Toyota Teamwork Classic[edit]

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

It's a high school basketball tournament that fails WP:GNG. A Google search provides Facebook pages, mirror websites, and brief one-line mentions of its existence through local media outlets. It does not receive significant, non-trivial coverage, let alone as a stand-alone event. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage that is not WP:ROUTINE from multiple WP:Independent sources. —Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being another run of the mill roundball tourney. ArcAngel (talk) ) 18:39, 11 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. v/r - T P 00:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lull (EP)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Release from highly notable band that has received significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's been reviewed by a number of notable publications. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NALBUMS: notable band, mainstream record label, two professional reviews, verifiable content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:57, 8 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 - T P 00:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fresku[edit]

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

Contested prod. Largely unreferenced, especially for the claims of notability. Google search shows no corroboration on multiple award claims. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Doesn't really meet the criteria of WP:NMUSIC. There are a few articles about him in news from The Netherlands. This one is about a concert/rally for islands outside of The Netherlands, this one on a workshop which includes some bio information, and this brief on a tour (Note: The articles are all translated from Dutch). I was also unable to find any evidence of awards in these articles. I'm not convinced these articles are strong evidence for notability. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 23:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 23:31, 28 June 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} 23:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 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.