< 17 June	19 June >

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. There is a stronger, more policy based consensus for the article to be kept, and the sources provided by Buster prove notability.(non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 01:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rishab Aiyer Ghosh[edit]

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

Despite the promotional tone in this article, he does not appear to be a notable academic. Editorship of First Monday (journal) does not seem like the kind of journal that automatically qualifies someone for a Wikipedia biography per WP:PROF. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. While the article needs to be re-written (for example, "His work helps reshape the global understanding of FLOSS, including in the academic world" is really not appropriate as an unreferenced assertion), he is apparantly a founding editor of a magazine that is notable enought for its own article. It also looks like he has been an invited speaker at a number of panels (see, for example [1]]). That being said, I appreciate notability is not inheritable, and I would be more comfortable with keeping this article if there were references that this person has been the subject of third-party reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete with a GS h index of only 12 in a highly cited field. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per Xxanthippe. Note that he is not the editor-in-chief of First Monday.
Keep Passes general notability, based on in-depth coverage by multiple independent sources. I just added links from Information Week, The Inquirer, Linux Journal, The Register, and Hindu.com, If I could read German or Russian, I could have added about 5 more good ones. Some of these links are interviews, and at least one discussed the Wikimedia Foundation's hiring Ghosh's group for research. I only know about him myself because of a speech he made at Wikimania 2006. BusterD (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He received sufficient coverage outside academia in his academic capacity, so I think he passes WP:PROF#C7. GNews gives 62 hits[2], and quite a few of them make it clear that he is regarded asa significant figure in the public policy debate regarding open source movement. E.g. here[3]:"One of the key persons behind this study is Rishab Aiyer Ghosh....He also wrote for technical and mainstream publications. In addition, Ghosh had his own newsletter, "Indian Techonomist", that went out to people such as Reed Hundt and Vint Cerf. At the request of senior Indian government officials, he contributed various consultation papers concerning opening up internet policy, especially to small providers." And here: [4] "The study was prepared by senior researcher Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, who did a tremendous amount of FLOSS studies the last few years, amongst them on FLOSSpols and FLOSSWorld." Etc. Overall, passes WP:PROF#C7. Nsk92 (talk) 19:24, 25 June 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 00:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The HTML Sourcebook: The Complete Guide to HTML[edit]

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

Seems to be an average non-notable tech book. No independent coverage given. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent secondary sources, e.g., a review in a WP:RS, to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Wikipedia is not a catalog WP:NOTCATALOG. Msnicki (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just tried to do my own search for the book, and I can't find anything to support it meeting one of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. Singularity42 (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like it fails WP:NBOOK. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:23, 20 June 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 00:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Morgan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Session musician who has not become notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would the 13 years of recording with Elton John create notability? This site claims that he has 6 albums. It also states that he has appeared on international TV shows. I am not positive that this is from a third party and not a mirror of his web page. According to the IMDB on him he cowrote the soundtrack on The Bill and has worked with 9 other movies. He even appears in the title of this iPOD touch app and this iPAD app. Not sure how much good my last two points are, but this person is notable per WP:BAND. Especially point 10. It clearly states that this establishes notability if there is any other claim to notability as well. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Performed at Live_Aid as part of Elton John's band. ("At one point midway through the concert, Billy Connolly announced he had just been informed that 95% of the television sets in the world were tuned to the event, though this can of course not be verified") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliewebgirl (talk • contribs) 04:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Performed on Something_About_the_Way_You_Look_Tonight, the biggest-selling single of all time in the UK. (This song is on the platinum album The_Big_Picture_(Elton_John_album) and credits are listed there).
Performed on 20+ Platinum albums including:

Elton John - Ice_on_Fire
Elton John - Leather_Jackets_(album)
Elton John - Live_in_Australia_with_the_Melbourne_Symphony_Orchestra.
Elton John - The_Big_Picture_(Elton_John_album)
Elton John - Made_in_England_(album)
Kate Bush - Hounds of Love
Kate Bush - The_Red_Shoes_(album)
Kate Bush - Lionheart_(Kate_Bush_album)
Kate Bush - The Sensual World
Wham! - Music from the Edge of Heaven

Performed on multiple top-grossing films, including Thelma & Louise, GI Jane, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, Tomorrow Never Dies, Quantum of Solace. Movie soundtracks typically don't credit the musicians, but he's shown in the first 5 seconds of this video on David Arnold and the making of the Quantum of Solace soundtrack.

I have his extensive discography (aside from the 20+ Platinum albums, he has performed on 50+ Gold albums and countless more). Perhaps I should list them all on his wiki, once this is settled. Juliewebgirl (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IF the sources are added. It's great and all to point out what sources are available, but we DO have to write an encyclopedia here, folks. Bearian (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is clearly notable. He has recorded with many notable people, and also helped create the theme music to a notable television series. Dream Focus 07:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that the topic meets the actual criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Closest call would be criteria 10, which Morgan fails as he is only the co-composer, not the performer, of the theme music. In any case, that could easily be mentioned, with a redirect, at The Bill title sequences#Music (per that criterion's recommendation). "He has recorded with many notable people" = blatant WP:INHERITED. Little-to-no indication of substantive sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, he co-wrote the music for the one movie, and performed music in many other movies. Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His movie work seems to be either "uncredited" or on fairly minor films. I do not see this adding much notability. His co-writing for The Bill would have to qualify under WP:COMPOSER -- which requires a "notable composition" (i.e. that the composition has notability in its own right), not just "a theme for a network television show". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - He is far from clearly notable based on Wikipedia's general, and musician specific notability guidelines. This Google Book search shows hits with some snippet views that indicate that coverage goes beyond just mentioning him. This newspaper article is behind a pay wall, but appears to feature Morgan as the primary subject. Much of what is visible online is just passing mentions, but there appears to be enough material available in offline sources to satisfy notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:31, 23 June 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Rowland[edit]

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

Non-notable, apparently a former fashion model now hoping to establish a blog. Per Special:WhatLinksHere/Dean_Rowland not linked from any other enwiki articles. No results found google-searching The Stage ("Dean Rowland" site:thestage.co.uk) or Sky's website ("Dean Rowland" site:sky.com). No results found for this "Dean Rowland" in Google News search. The two principal contributors—Wikione123456 (contribs) and 92.9.214.250 (contribs)—seem to be single-purpose accounts. - Pointillist (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the fellow apparently exists, (at some point [5] this source was removed from the article, along with three more problematic links), i was unable to find multiple, reliable sources which provide in-depth coverage of him. --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I've added the MSN TV reference to the lead para. AFAICS however (as I think you were implying) it isn't sufficient to establish notability. - Pointillist (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep. :) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pointillist (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There seems to be fairly clear consensus that Marshall is not notable, and it is on that ground that I'm deleting it. Those arguing keep (and, in other cases, those arguing for deletion) need to understand that it is not enough to simply make bald, inflexible, axiomatic statements about notability; you have to be able to support them. User:Palbert is welcome to argue that Marshall is notable because of support from the Venter Institute; if he cannot provide reliable sources stating that this is the case, his argument is invalid. Comments about notability, events or anything else do not lose the requirement for verifiability just because they're made at AfD rather than in the article text.

Having said that, I take great issue with the way this AfD was brought about, and most particularly with Jimbo's nomination statement. As User:Lambanog says, "This biography has been problematic, with the subject deeply concerned about the veracity of it. Because Marshall's theory seems to arouse the passionate ire of some, neutrality and high quality may be too difficult to achieve." is not a deletion rationale, and it seems like one of the core reasons Jimbo wants this out is precisely because keeping it around is getting awkward. I do wonder what his position would be if the person was notable, but the article was similarly problematic. However problematic the article is, that cannot be a factor in what we do with it in terms of inclusion or exclusion. We cannot start working on the principle that if somebody kicks up enough fuss about their article, or somebody else kicks up enough fuss about that article, we will remove it. This is Wikipedia, not MyWikiBiz; we include things regardless of how difficult the content may be. Passionate ire, the subject's opinions and the problematic nature of the article are not concerns. If you feel differently, feel free to change the Five Pillars to exclude Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and replace it with "Wikipedia cares more deeply about those individuals covered by its content than it does about being an encyclopedia". Ironholds (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Marshall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Emerging consensus on the talk page of the article appears to be that Professor Marshall is himself not notable, while the Marshall Protocol may merit a small article. This biography has been problematic, with the subject deeply concerned about the veracity of it. Because Marshall's theory seems to arouse the passionate ire of some, neutrality and high quality may be too difficult to achieve. I believe we are better off without this article, and with - perhaps - an article on the protocol, if it can be shown to be sufficiently notable itself. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure that we should ever give up on an article just because it will be difficult to maintain neutrality, but agree that there is a notability issue with Marshall. Primae facie, one would expect an article that has been around for more than four years to to state why someone is notable - this one doesn't. There are very few mainstream sources and academic citations are, in my opinion, too limited to reach the standard of notability required by WP:ACADEMIC. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have no strong opinion on the notability one way or the other, but I am concerned that the lack of neutrality on the part of editors with this article is what is instigating this AfD. I just feel that we are going against the proper policies and methods of this, just because it's a contentious BLP. Silver seren^C 22:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If having an article on the Marshall Protocol instead of the professor himself is going to be used as an excuse to bring the same content outside the remit of WP:BLP, resulting in a reduced ability to forcibly prevent Orangemarlin from adding his original research[6], then I really don't see that as an improvement. As the Marshall Protocol is strongly associated with its eponymous creator, having the content as an actual part of a BLP to ensure that BLP-level policy enforcement can be applied is extremely important. If this article is deleted, the Protocol shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia in any context. Chester Markel (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user.[reply]
Comment leaning towards Delete I was going to say that this was probably notable per Criteria 7 of WP:PROF; however, after reading the notes to criteria 7, I clearly see that he falls short. In addition, I was going to cite the example that he is a board member of the Autoimmunity Research Foundation, but notes for criteria 3 clearly shows that he falls short of that as well. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marshall protocol per WLU. What ever notability this article has is because of the protocol and the protocol itself is not mentioned because of BLP concerns. It would be easier to describe the protocol if it were distanced from its author. Boghog (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not convinced Trevor Marshall is notable, and I am not convinced the Marshall protocol is notable. There is very little information in reliable sources about either. Maybe both are borderline cases, but certainly not more than that. If Trevor Marshall is borderline notable, then it would be a bad precedent to delete the article merely because a bunch of 'sceptic' editors can't be prevented from filling it with original research and scientific claims sourced to blogs and letters to the editor. I am sure that if this article is deleted, Marshall protocol will be created and we will get the same issues there. The only difference will be that the focus of discussions will shift from WP:BLP to WP:MEDRS. Hans Adler 09:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS is actually harder to fulfill, so... .-. Silver seren^C 09:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it has already been claimed that per WP:PARITY (paragraphs 2 and 3), sources of lower quality can be used for the topic. Of course the claim that this is a fringe topic and therefore falls under PARITY in the first place is far from obvious, and is supported only by sources of the lower quality that are permitted only by PARITY. Unfortunately I can't even argue that this circuitous logic is a misreading of PARITY, as WP:FRINGE in general does not give any useful guidance on how to determine its scope. In the current climate of cleaning up BLP violations it will be easier to get away with the claim that PARITY takes precedence over MEDRS than that PARITY takes precedence over BLP. Hans Adler 10:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussions on the talk page, accurately described by Jimbo Wales. If an article can be written on the Marshall Protocol (and I am not sure that there are enough appropriate sources to do so) the present title could be restored as a redirect to that article. Mathsci (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. It seems clear that the subject is not notable outside the context of the Marshall Protocol, and even if that were notable (not clear), notability is not inherited. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think this subject meets our site's notability criteria, as expressed here and here. In particular, there is scant evidence of coverage by intellectually independent, reliable secondary sources. Incidentally, this article is a good example of why such sources are essential - it's impossible to write a policy-compliant encyclopedia article without them, and in their absence all sorts of silliness leap in to fill the void. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per MastCell and others. It's good to see that the sockpuppet was banned.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Obviously a major ideological stouch here. GS gives an h index of 8, hardly sufficient for WP:Prof#C1, but subject seems notable for being controversial for his non-standard views on vitamin D. I think the article should be kept provided that it is made clear that his views are not accepted by mainstream biology. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The article (even including the now-deleted cancer/vitamin fringery) presents no evidence of passing WP:PROF nor any reliable sources that could be used to pass WP:GNG. He has been mentioned in a Washington Post article about vitamin D but only in a trivial way, nothing that can be used to support an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The reason Trevor Marshall is notable is exactly what you see happening with the article about him. He has put forth new theories about autoimmune disease and inflammatory disease. Many of these theories are quite different from the mainstream. As such, most people become uncomfortable with them and are tempted to denounce him as a quack. But, in reality, that label doesn't apply. To some extent, his hypotheses, even those about vitamin D, are holding up in at least several arenas. They seem to be holding up with the J. Craig Venter Institute who asked his group to author what they considered to be today's best interpretation of autoimmune disease viewed through the lens of metagenomic research. They hold up with hundreds of mainstream physicians around the globe who are choosing to prescribe his therapy over the standard of care for their chronically ill patients. They hold up with scientific groups in numerous countries who are asking him to give speeches that they do not just give to anyone. For example, he was asked to give the keynote speech at a prestigious international gene conference like DNA Day right after a Nobel laureate. Surely, the scientists who ran this conference do see merit in his work. His hypotheses are holding up with journal editors who have invited him to publish in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps some of you don't fully appreciate the resistance that people meet in science when putting forth new theories. (See Kuhn.) That Marshall continues to be invited by mainstream sources to speak and publish about his research when those ideas significantly challenge standard thinking is very notable in its own right.
Furthermore, while the alleged commenter above may be a sock puppet (quite honestly, I don't know who this is), I think he nails it, so I would like to restate what he said above as it is worth reading, whoever said it, "If having an article on the Marshall Protocol instead of the professor himself is going to be used as an excuse to bring the same content outside the remit of WP:BLP, resulting in a reduced ability to forcibly prevent Orangemarlin from adding his original research[7], then I really don't see that as an improvement." Palbert (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, you should probably adjust your rhetoric, since this isn't an infomercial. If the J. Craig Venter Institute has somehow endorsed Marshall, then please cite a reliable source to that effect (personally, I couldn't find anything of the sort when searching jcvi.org, but maybe I used the wrong terms). Sharing a lectern with a Nobel Laureate isn't necessarily a mark of anything at all. About a week ago, I noticed that I was standing at the urinal next to a Nobel Laureate. Does that somehow bestow additional credibility on my words here?
  This smacks of an attempt to make an end run around the need for actual independent reliable sources with a bunch of six-degrees-of-separation claims. If this subject truly met our notability guidelines, then it would be straightforward to demonstrate intellectually independent reactions to his work. They don't seem to exist, just as the truly peer-reviewed articles seem to be pretty scarce. MastCell ^Talk 03:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know if this is what is referenced above, but if you look here, you'll see Marshall as being a Keynote speaker behind a Nobel Prize in Chemistry laureate. Silverseren^C 03:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Non-notable conference. And Palbert...who cares what you think. I certainly don't think much of your comments. But then again, I'm bored, and I think another sockpuppet investigation is warranted. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - SPI is not for fishing expeditions. And threatening to open an SPI in order to get a user to stop commenting is harassment. Furthermore, you'll have to explain to me how the conference is non-notable. A conference doesn't have to have a Wikipedia article to be important. Silver seren^C 06:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        What the fuck happened to AGF? So you threaten me? Oh, I'm hurt. I filed an SPI, but it had nothing to do with anyone here, nor was it to do with anyone involved with this. It was on a whole other article. My comment was in reference to the complete dullness and immaturity of the personal attack by Palbert, so I thought I go deal with a sock. Which I did. Thank you very much, I'm here to keep this place pure and virginal. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Settle down, OM. You know, my comment really wasn't that far out there. Is it really fair to say the only way I could have my point of view is if I am a sock puppet? Palbert (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - What the fuck ever. Like I actually give your statements more than a nanosecond of consideration.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment Marshall's development of the ETI 3600 & ETI 4600 synth / moog is of interest to electronic music historians. the Adelaide News 1973 newspaper article/clipping on his site here mentions Electronics Today International were interested in his designs. articles on the history of the Fairlight CMI such as this one mention ETI mag owner had been frustrated with the current synths eg the ETI 4600 and then went on to build the Fairlight CMI, which is one of Australia's notable music instrument inventions and was used by many international artists eg Peter Gabriel (see long list on Fairlight page). so perhaps this isn't enough to save Marshall's page, but perhaps this background / engineering work could be added either to the Moog synthesizer / Modular synthesizer pages. (the ETI 4600 is mentioned on the modular synth page) (& I'd have to research more, but it sounds like the model number prefix ETI also refers to the magazine's interest in releasing this synth) Kathodonnell (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it very unfortunate that a reason given for the deletion is "because Marshall's theory seems to arouse the passionate ire of some, neutrality and high quality may be too difficult to achieve." Deleting this article on such ground then would justify and encourage acts of "passionate ire". I do not believe in rewarding such editing behavior. Lambanog (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that the reason for deletion is actually a failure to meet this site's notability guidelines. Do you think the page meets those guidelines? MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not what the majority of the nomination statement seems to be about. Rather it's about the contentious nature of the subject and how it makes it difficult to keep it neutral, even though I don't actually see why it should be so contentious. Ability to assess the subject's notability is compromised by the pushy editing of certain editors that I think goes beyond the pale. The article has been on here for years and a case for it to be kept can be made. Lambanog (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - So then make the case. Respond to the part of the nomination/deletion rationale that you consider valid. You haven't actually addressed the lack of independent, reliable sources; you've just set up a strawman and bashed away at it. I notice that you didn't actually answer my question - do you think the subject meets this site's notability guidelines? MastCell ^Talk 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - He has Springer as a publisher and apparently Nature too. His work has been cited multiple times by authors from what appear to be respectable publications. It seems he may be of interest to more than one field. If I recall correctly he was also a president of a publicly listed company. As for your accusing me of setting up a strawman, the current behavior of many of the editors here, and more troubling still the apparent coordination of it, is of concern since it directly interferes with the ability to impartially and consensually assess notability. Do you dispute that? Then I refer you to the nomination statement. Such behavior can damage not just this article but many articles and alienate many editors as well. If those who think this subject is non-notable are confident of it then they can learn to express their concerns better rather than through methods that put off people. You ask does it meet the notability guidelines? Ask me after a group intent on keeping it has worked on it, not one intent on deleting it. Lambanog (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So does this pass the notability requirements of WP:PROF? If so, then why not demonstrate this through the citation of reliable sources? The page has been worked on by many, many people, yet we're still having this discussion because notability hasn't been clearly established. Feel free to integrate the appropriate sources. It's not up to people to demonstrate a source is not notable; the requirement is on the positive claim. Anyone who believes the subject is notable should demonstrate it through the citation of sufficient quantity and quality of reliable sources sufficient to pass the appropriate guidelines (WP:PROF). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are those who have a habit of asserting non-notability and deleting or dismissing anything that might demonstrate it. He is cited by other researchers and quoted in The Washington Post. Results from Google Scholar. Editors here are free to believe that is enough or not. But anyone here who is predisposed to think the subject non-notable but extensively edits the article applying their bias anyway should refrain from making demands of other editors and proclaiming there aren't any good sources. By the way WP:PROF is not the only criterion that applies, so does WP:CREATIVE. Lambanog (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:GHITS, a dump from even google scholar isn't convincing. The article in the Post was about vitamin D, not Marshall specifically. Do you have any evidence Marshall passes WP:CREATIVE? I wasn't aware he was a performing artist. If so, please integrate it into the page so it clearly passes the notability criteria. If you're talking about the creation of "a significant new concept, theory or technique" (WP:CREATIVE, point 2), then it will probably be the consensus of most here that Marshall's theories are not significant as they lack acceptance and are not positively cited outside the narrow group of people who are already committed to the ideas. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CREATIVE it applies to scientists as well. The entire point of this process is to determine consensus. Your commentary on what other people probably think is unnecessary and best left said by those other people. Best to concentrate on your own comments and arguments. For example your last statement seems to conflict with your comment below to redirect. Lambanog (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marshal protcol and cull most of the information on Marshall himself. Much of the issue seems to be people asserting notability without demonstrating it. The coverage in independent sources is minimal. This is very much a borderline case, one that would be improved if more sources could be located. For everyone who wishes Trevor Marshall or Marshall protocol to exist, rather than asserting his work is revolutionary it would be helpful to provide MEDRS citations that state his work is revolutionizing/ized/izes/ionary vitamin D research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think Marshall himself is borderline and hard to call. His protocol, however, is not worthy of its own article in my opinion. It is a revolutionary idea that failed to garner much of a response from the scientific community and I think that's indication it's been dismissed. If we keep the main article there should be a section on the protocol, and I think WLU's was well written. N^oformation ^Talk 05:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no response from the scientific community might be because there's a Big Pharma conspiracy that has bribed every scientist to not participate. Or, per Occam's Razor, it's possible that most practicing physicians actually ascribe to "do no harm" and would never use the Marshall Protocol. I think it's been dismissed without prejudice towards Trevor. I agree that WLU nailed it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Change in the medical world is a slow process. As German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once stated, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” The Marshall protocol is going through this prosess and only the members know how good it is to be in control of the microbiota when VDR receptors are turned ON ! Dfv1 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)dfv1 — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Dfv1 (UTC).[reply]

That's pretty close to an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion, specifically WP:LIKE or WP:VALINFO, as well as presenting problems per WP:CRYSTAL (which is also an ATA - WP:ATA#CRYSTAL). Until Marshall or his work is ridiculed, opposed or accepted in a large number of independent, reliable sources, then it does not pass WP:N. Again, notability is not asserted, it is demonstrated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did Schopenhauer address what happens to falsehoods? In my experience, they pass through two stages: they are dismissed, and then they're promoted relentlessly on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 16:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MastCell's reasoning. I don't honestly believe, from looking at the evidence presented, that he is independently notable. All I can find in my library's manuscript collection is [8], and I can't find anything on the catalogue - which is strange given that he's based at my uni. Orderinchaos 02:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PROF Shot info (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WLU's proposed draft with others inputting. My concern is that via deletion, Wikipedia won't serve as the encyclopedia of record for those considering objective information about the Marshall Protocol; I think it likely that thousands of people are using this protocol worldwide, and many others considering its use. If---as has been mentioned by other editors---there are indeed concerns over treatment side effects (potential vitamin D deficiencies, renal effects, etc), and serious health issues remain open to further assessment, the public should have a neutral (and arguably) scientifically based source of reporting to turn to, i.e. Wikipedia. As it stands, there are currently a myriad of questionable articles, myths and wive's tales out there drafted by people wanting to perpetuate any ideas they see fit. In any case, I'm not sure my logic here is supported by Wiki policy, but I think it an important factor to consider. Ronsword (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is whether it is sufficiently notable as a fringe theory to attract much attention. The sources used to criticize it are uniformly dismissive, but also brief. Unfortunately it's a borderline situation, I'm hoping those who !voted delete, if it becomes or defaults to a keep, will contribute to the discussion regarding redirection. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets to keep, I'm not totally convinced in the necessity of redirection. Marshall is inextricably linked with the protocol and vica versa; while there are already serious issues with Marshall as a notable BLP subject as it is, there seems to be no notabality at all without the protocol. So it seems that having two pages about this particular individual more or less attaches too much weight---ironic considering that the discussion has partly been about narrowing or even deleting the subject. (One suggestion might be a BLP with a very condensed description of Marshall's protocol and its lack of primary, secondary, other sources?) Ronsword (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This person is not an influential figure. Rather, he is a man who is trying to become an influential figure and having a Wikipedia article about him only helps further spread misinformation by inadvertently lending credibility to him as an influential figure. It aids in the common logical fallacy of "if it is on the interwebs, it must be true and significant!" Let him promote himself on his personal website like the rest of us. He is not notable outside of the Marshall Protocol community. nooneyouknow 16:26, 22 June 2011 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.165.82 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. Patrick Capps[edit]

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

"Prisoner activist" of suspect notability. Google search on name only brings back less than 40 unique results. No significant coverage found from independent sources. References provided in article appear only to be local coverage. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Capps does not meet the notability requirements of WP, in that he has not attracted significant independent secondary source coverage. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Per WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, plus, someone stating that they were Capps posted on WP:BLPN requesting deletion. In cases of borderline notability like this one, we take the wishes of the subject into account. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:25, 21 June 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) 18:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perl Cookbook[edit]

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

No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Google search reveals blog posts and reader reviews at Amazon and elsewhere, but no formal reviews that qualify as reliable sources WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a catalog WP:NOTCATALOG. Msnicki (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting my nomination. One source (a Dobbs review) has been provided and it seems likely a second can be found. Msnicki (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of many programming books. Not clear how this one is more notable than average book of this kind. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~The whole~~ A lot of the O'Reilly catalog appears to have been copied onto WP; see Category:O'Reilly Media books. I assume good faith WP:AGF and that many contributors to these pages thought they were doing the right thing. But WP is not a catalog WP:NOTCATALOG and it's pretty unlikely there are sources to establish notability WP:GNG for most if not all of these books. Msnicki (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O'Reilly has way more books than that. But those which do have pages here seem to have been selected on editors' interests. A lot of Perl stuff for instance, probably because some of the Perl consultants edit here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People write about what they're interested in. I don't think there is some evil conspiracy going on here to indirectly increase the revenue streams of these hypothetical consultants... —Ruud 14:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Among the most notable and iconic of O'Reilly's books. —Ruud 10:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A policy-based argument would be more helpful. Msnicki (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable? —Ruud 14:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on satisfying what part of those guidelines with what evidence? Simply claiming it's notable without explaining why is an argument to avoid. WP:ITSNOTABLE Msnicki (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I had this book confused with Wall's Programming Perl when I made the comment above. That clearly makes its notability somewhat less than blatantly obvious. However, apart from the blog posts and reader reviews the nominator mentioned, I found reviews of this book in the Library Review and The Computer Bulletin. Also mentioned 21 times in other books. —Ruud 14:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked though a few of those links. Not surprisingly, they are other books in the O'Reilly catalog, e.g. [9]. It's a common practice for commercial publishers to plug their other books in their own books in an attempt to increase sales. That kind of citation is not independent. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, more than half of those, are simply back matter mentions of the kind: "X, author of such and such book (Perl Cookbook in this case), says this other book is awesome". Such mentions are mere PR for the person doing the back matter endorsements; a way to get something for their hassle, in the form of publicity for their own book(s). FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to User:Dominus the Perl Cookbook sold at least 150 000 copies [10]. Anyone know of a reliable source against which we could verify this? —Ruud 20:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added arguably sufficient notability-establishing citations to the article. If you'd like more, this would be a fine place to start. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely have one, the Dobbs review, and I agree it seems likely another can be found. Msnicki (talk) 21:22, 24 June 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 and redirect to Smoking in England - (NAC) - frankie (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Howitt[edit]

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

Nominated on behalf of User:Christian1985 per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 18. I am neutral.—S Marshall T/C 21:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Perfectly good article. Notable in the context of the smoking ban, verifiable, encyclopedic. Robinh (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I feel Hamish Howitt is not of any national or even local significance to warrant a WP article. We don't give local councillors or other campaigners a WP page so what makes Hamish so special. This has nothing to do with my views on his campaign, I genuinely feel he is not of any significance or notability. Christian1985 (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remain neutral, but I think some guidance might be in order here.
If I were arguing "keep", then I would say this: On Wikipedia, there is an objective test about whether or not something is notable, which is called the general notability guideline. Hugh Howitt would be notable, for Wikipedia's purposes, if there were significant coverage about him in reliable sources. The BBC is a reliable source, and the coverage is here and here. The Scotsman is a reliable source, and the coverage is here. The Blackpool Gazette is a reliable source, and the coverage is here. The Publican is a reliable source, and the coverage is here. Also, not cited in the article, the Manchester Evening News is a reliable source, and the coverage is here. Therefore there is significant coverage in reliable sources, so Hugh Howitt is notable.
But if I was arguing against keeping the article, I would point out that this is a biography of a living person. We have clear rules about those, and one of the rules talks about people who are only notable for one event.
So this AfD needs to consider questions like: What are the sources really about? Are they about Hugh Howitt, or are they about an event with which Hugh Howitt was involved? If we ought to have an article about the event rather than the person, then should we delete the article we already have, or would it be a better idea to convert it into a redirect to the event article?—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Howitt is only 'famous' for one event. He launched an unsuccessful campaign of disobedience of the smoking ban, I hardly feel this warrants a WP article. He should maybe get a short mention on the smoking ban article but not a full WP article. The references are all about events connected to Howitt and his campaign. I move that the article be deleted and redirected to the smoking ban in England article. Christian1985 (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That leads me to ask two questions. First, why would you redirect Hugh Howitt to smoking ban when smoking ban doesn't mention him? That's not helpful to our readers. And second, why would you delete the material before redirecting it?—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(later) Oh, I see you meant redirect to Smoking ban in England. But that doesn't mention him either, except as a "see also" which would need to be removed if Hugh Howitt were deleted.—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, well maybe a small section mentioning Howitt should be added to the Smoking ban in England article and then the Howitt article deleted. I can add a small section now eventhough personally I don't feel he should be WP altogether Christian1985 (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as if we're making progress. What you seem to be proposing is called a smerge: a selective merge from one article to another. That's a good idea because you would be keeping the reliably-sourced content, in accordance with our policy at WP:PRESERVE. (There are very few circumstances when it's appropriate to remove reliably-sourced content from Wikipedia and I don't think this is one of them.)
After a smerge, though, if we delete the original article, then how will we be preserving attribution? All of our content is licenced under the CC-BY-SA and the GFDL, so the people who wrote Hugh Howitt are entitled to be credited as the author of the material. Normally we would do this by preserving the article's history under a redirect to Smoking ban in England. How will we do it if we delete Hugh Howitt before redirecting?—S Marshall T/C 23:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a small Howitt section in 'Opposition to the ban' on the Smoking ban in England and I have copied over the references so it is still sourced. I agree with redirecting Howitt to the Smoking ban in England article, I feel this is a feasible compromise. But either way I feel the Hugh Howitt article should be removed. I don't have any objection to crediting it to the original authors that seems fair enough. Christian1985 (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the circumstances, this debate could technically be closed. (Technically, the close would be "speedy keep". WP:SK ground 1 applies: now that Christian1985 has moved his position from "delete" to "merge", nobody participating in the debate thinks that Hugh Howitt should be a redlink.) I suggest that this isn't done quite yet, so as to give Robinh a chance to come back and comment on the merge proposal before it becomes a fait accompli, and so that other editors may participate if they're so minded.
If the merge does go ahead, then I suggest the paragraph could be expanded a little, so as to allow the BBC sources to be used.—S Marshall T/C 01:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~- there looks to be some serious WP:BLP1E issues here. I say weak because, if the article could be reworked and/or merged to be about the event, I would be more than willing to change my mind. But as is, I just don't think it has encyclopedic value. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see now merge discussion has already been taking place above. Consider my vote for outright deletion withdrawn. Merge works. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Smoking in England (which already mentioned the topic), but remove/source unsourced material before doing so. WP:BLP1E clearly applies, as all (cited and Google News) sources appear to explicitly mention the smoking ban in their titles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How about keeping the section in Smoking ban in England and including a 'main article: Hugh Howitt'? Howitt isn't really famous for just one event: it was an ongoing series of events including appearances at court and an orchestrated campaign of civil disobedience. There was even support from other anti-smoking-ban activists (whose names I've forgotten). Admittedly all this was occuring in the context of the introduction of the smoking ban. It's very pleasing to see a civilized discussion. Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created a paragraph on Howitt from the original article in the Smoking ban in England article. I see no justification for keeping the Hugh Howitt article. I feel the mention in the smoking ban in England article is all he warrants. I stand by my earlier view the Hugh Howitt article be deleted. Christian1985 (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robinh: I think you're reading WP:BLP1E too narrowly. Regardless of whether it is strictly a single event -- or a closely-related-series of events, Howitt lacks notability independent of the topic of Smoking in England, so this article should be merged/redirected there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as something of a technicality. I think there is adequate coverage to meet the notability guidelines and the coverage deals with sufficiently diverse activities by the individual to avoid BLP1E. However, Howitt is not at all important as an individual in my view (though he is wiki-notable) so an editorial decision to merge some of the material into Smoking ban in England would be sensible. The present article history should be kept in these circumstances and a redirect would achieve this. I would also like to comment on how constructive this discussion has been and it has also introduced me to the idea of WP:SMERGE! Thincat (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do we agree the Hugh Howitt article should be merged into Smoking ban in England and the full article deleted? I am reluctantly happy to accept a compromise on this and I feel that is a workable solution. I completely agree with Hrafn above. Christian1985 (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. If Hugh Howitt is merged into smoking ban in England then I am opposed to the subsequent deletion of Hugh Howitt because of the contribution history aspect. Hugh Howitt should not be converted to a redlink. It should be converted to a redirect to Smoking ban in England. Although both outcomes mean that the current text is hidden, the "redirect" outcome means the history is kept.—S Marshall T/C 17:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I follow you, I am perfectly happy to accept that, redirecting Hugh Howitt to the Smoking ban in England, that would be fine with me, shall we press ahead with this action? Christian1985 (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of what Robinh says below, there is (as of this moment) no reason why any uninvolved editor can't close this debate as "merge". I would do so myself, except that I feel my participation in this debate stops me from being "uninvolved".—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Thincat; I agree that some material should move into the smoking in England article. No prejudice against reviewing this in a year or two to see if this person's marginal notability is maintained. --John (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect works for me. My interest is in strongly-held beliefs being ground down by The System. You can't fight city hall, and all that. Perhaps we could have a list of people who tried to fight City Hall and lost. And in Howitt's case, there is the added fascination that there was essentially zero popular support. And people who undergo this process are interesting. So, redirect is fine so long as we retain the ability to document Howitt's part in this phenomenon (and we also keep open the possibility of a main article: approach if the material grows enough). Kia Ora, Robinh (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All's well. We can document Howitt's part in the resistance to the smoking ban in England to the extent that reliable sources cover it, and if reliably-sourced information about other events in Howitt's life were to surface, then per policy, a main article could indeed be created again.—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No support for keeping this article. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and, separately, lacks the necessary "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". TerriersFan (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Jason Brown[edit]

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

Local councillor on North East Lincolnshire council, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. January (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a run-of-the-mill student union officer then councillor. Neither of those are notable in their own right. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:08, 20 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant Disguise (Law & Order)[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NRVE, non-notable, no reliable sources--Rajah (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see: Wikipedia:Television episodes. --Rajah (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just because the episode itself isn't notable, the series as a whole is. It's part of an episode guide, so I see no harm in keeping it. -- Thebrickwithouse (User talk: Thebrickwithouse) 17:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the series as a whole is notable. I'm arguing that this episode is non-notable and should be deleted. --Rajah (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not notable? Well it just seems to be a episode in what the Guiness World Records 2011 counts as the worlds most successgul police procedural show/ franchise, so we can scratch the not notable part out...and finding more references to the 1 reliable ref. that's already there, can easily be fixed. I have seen many articles, like this one, in worser states. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 02:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not notable. Law and Order itself is notable, but not every episode of Law and Order is notable. Please see WP:NRVE. It's not about the "state" of the article either, it's the notability which is the important factor here. --Rajah (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Most show's with seperate episode articles on this webstie are in the same shape and worse. So yeah, if you delete this one, half of this show and every other show's seperate episode articles on Wikipedia would have to go as well. And what more sources does it need, it's an episode not a episode guide! I could see if it had other information like if the cast departed, or the episode was swapped with another or some other peice of information but I do not see that here and that is not the case. I think it should be kept. Saying this page is not notable is saying every episode of House is notable.--SVU4671 (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one episode of Law and Order is non-notable. And yes, most episode articles on Wikipedia are non-notable. --Rajah (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This one episode of Law and Order is non-notable". Nice to hear your opinion. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is non-notable because it's notability has not been demonstrated. Instead of pointing out "my opinions", wouldn't it be better to post some evidence of it's notability? I agree that opinions don't matter, evidence does.--Rajah (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment What's wrong with a redirect to the 'List of' article? Seems a reasonable search term to me. Edgepedia (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as Wikipedia's rules now stand, a redirect to a 'List of' sounds like a reasonable idea. --Rajah (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of deleting these sort of articles, per WP:PRESERVE. I looked and I'm not seeing signficant coverage in independent media (e.g. reviews in newspapers), but this can change. Sometimes programmes only reach notability some time are they were orginally shown, and notability can be shown by number of books. However, currently there is no out-of-universe information apart from the viewing stats. Redirects are cheap, available using normal editoring tools and can be undone when an editor wishes to expand an article with such information. It also allows the episode titles to appear on disambiguation pages, guiding readers to the little information we do have on the episode.

Other editors have been saying "this episode is notable" but the article is in a poor state. Readers would be better served with a re-direct, and this can be easily undone if anyone finds a couple of sources and wants to work on the article. Edgepedia (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Okay what, if this was any other show would this conversation even be taking place? I think it should stay because: most episode articles are non-notable and have source issues, plus it's an episode in the final aired season of Law & Order. I really don't see an issue here, I say this episode's article should stay. As MelbourneStar1 and SVU4671 have said, there are more articles like this one and in even worse conditions. I vote: keep it.--66.217.112.3 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I intend to nominate other episodes from other shows as well, don't worry, I'm not just picking on Law & Order. As for their existence right now however though, WP:OTHERSTUFF holds that the "other stuff exists" argument doesn't hold water. The article is non-notable and there aren't verifiable reputable sources on it. That's it. By Wikipedia's notability guidelines, all television episodes that do not have verifiable sources should be deleted or at best, redirected. If people disagree with that, then the television episode (and many other subjects) notability guidelines should be rewritten or clarified. As it stands now, the rule is very clear and I haven't seen any evidence of the verifiable notability. --Rajah (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Law & Order episodes (season 20). There is nothing in the article to suggest notability of the actual episode (the notability of the show is not in dispute here) and no real-world information is included (such as behind-the-scenes production info, critical reception or academic analysis). Searching google books, news and scholar, I couldn't find anything that could be added. This episode could quite easily be considered notable in the future, if it receives more attention from scholarly sources. There could also be more information out there, such as newspaper reviews, that are not yet available online. As it stands though, it appears to be impossible to prove any notability. The standard for non-notable tv episodes is, I believe, to redirect to an episode list and to preserve it as a valid search term.--Beloved Freak 11:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. I agree that the TV show is notable. That obviously doesn't mean that every single episode of it is notable. If anyone can bring up some reliable, third-party sources discussing this episode directly, that would be different, of course. ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 21:35, 24 June 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Depression Diaries[edit]

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

Declined speedy under G3 on this because it didn't appear to be an obvious hoax. Perhaps it is a hoax, but it could be plausible. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Almost certainly a hoax. Google searches don't bring up anything. User:Thebrickwithouse (talk) 14:34, 6/21/11 (UTC).

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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crown University[edit]

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

Non accredited university. No sources, repeatedly recreated advertising for a dodgy university. noq (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is in such poor condition that it is hard to understand what it is talking about: Crown University never acquainted the charge of any accreditation from any organization. It is a cocky accurate body. It maintains all the all-embracing educational affection parameters. ... Crown University apprehend that apprenticeship is a appropriate for all citizens, behindhand of ethnicity, amusing cachet or wealth. It is a accepted actuality that the amount of tertiary apprenticeship continues to acceleration anniversary year. Looking at a prior deleted version of the article, it appears that the author may have started with a prior article about this university, and then substituted words selected from a thesaurus (or from a machine translation and then retranslation back into English) in place of most of the nouns and adjectives -- resulting in an incomprehensible text. In any event, the only sources cited in this article appear to be pages from the university's own web site which is not even accessible at this time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From the locations mentioned, the article appears to be about this online university. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That website was apparently written by someone with a similar level of writing skill: Applicant should submit his resume includes all his practical and educational experiences clear and obvious, though our administration team could evaluate it accurately and take a decision of acceptance. However, the student should provide the Academy with all documents and certificates proofs his experiences stated in his C.V. or application for admission. [11] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost qualifies for speedy deletion as a page with an indiscernible topic, but the URLs and some of the text do give some relevant clues. For the record, I can't access the website cited in the article (site's bandwidth limit exceeded). The institution is clearly a scam, but that conclusion is based only on my own original research; I can't find third-party sourced information about it. I think that scam universities should be documented in Wikipedia to the extent possible (including listing them in List of unaccredited institutions of higher education), but this one can't be documented (not even in that list) because there's no sourced information. --Orlady (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certainly a diploma mill. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Clandestine universities are not exempt from the notability policy. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 21:33, 24 June 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) 20:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITGS SL[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable course in the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme --K.Annoyomous (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned also. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 6 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, 10 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, Sandstein 19:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to relist this again? Unscintillating (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is still no consensus, with me being the only person wanting to delete this article. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This individual course for an IB does nor appear to be notable with significant independent coverage about the course. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 23 June 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) 00:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Cornish sentiment[edit]

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

Quite frankly, simply non-notable. There's no evidence that the concept of "anti-cornish sentiment" itself has been covered by either mainstream academia or simply multiple reliable sources. The current content shows evidence of offensive statements made towards Cornish individuals (or the Cornish as a group) but no actual coverage of the concept; it's instead simply a mass of synthesis and original research, stitching together individual and unrelated comments made over several centuries, adding a splash of weasle-worded commentary ("many people feel able to..." etc) and hoping that the resulting concoction resembles an actual phenomena rather than simply a series of tenuously connected individual events. I've had some pretty mean things said about me over my life, but creating an article on Anti-Ironholds sentiment, pulling out choice examples and claiming that constitutes a pervading theme of people-being-mean-to-Ironholds does not an encyclopedia topic make. Ironholds (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above really. The part about Giles Coren on the article could be transferred to the aforementioned man's article possibly.(If anything an article on Anti-English Sentiment in Cornwall should be made about the paranoid delusion some (And a very small some) Cornish have that the English are all out to get them, and the ramblings of an Already racist Journalist is no justification for this). --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About as clear a case of original research as one can get. Just to add to the above that the Anglo-Saxons and people in the 17thC pretty much said this about everyone. Logically we would need articles about anti-Norfolk sentiment, anti-Yorkshire sentiment, and, who knows, anti-Rutland sentiment. It might be worth a mention of this in the Cornwall article if it were based on reliable secondary sources.--SabreBD (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's not forget Anti-Devon Sentiment, Southern Anti-sentiment against the North, ect ect. It's silly. The Cornish have never been singled out. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reputable sources for historical and/or contemporary anti-Devon sentiment, then why not create? And a North-South_divide_in_the_United_Kingdom article does exist along with Geography and identity in Wales, North-South_divide_(England). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govynn (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Comment: Please now note that the wording about which concerns were raised regarding "weasel wording" has been removed from the text of the article. "I hate the Cornish." by Giles Coren is a very direct expression of Anti-Cornish sentiment, and to simply deny the existence of anti-Cornish sentiment is untenable. Another issue is the ongoing campaign to regognise Cornish people as a national minority. ^[1]

The historical expression of anti-Cornish sentiment is dealt with in Mark Stoyle's article in a scholarly publication^[2]^[3]

Govynn (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Alec Robertson; Doris Ansari; John Wood; Dick Cole; Jude Robinson. "Cornish National Minority Report 2" (PDF).
^ Stoyle, Mark (April 1996). "'Pagans or Paragons?': Images of the Cornish during the English Civil War". The English Historical Review. 111 (No. 441 (Apr., 1996)): 299–323. doi:10.1093/ehr/CXI.441.299. JSTOR 576504. ((cite journal)): |issue= has extra text (help)
^ Stoyle, Mark. "The Cornish: A Neglected Nation?". History - British History in depth. BBC. Retrieved 18 June 2011.

Comment You did well in removing the sections in regards to the Weasel wording, thank you. However to the main issue at hand, Giles Coren is known to be...abrasive, and his article currently has nothing about the Anti-Cornish sentiment he spurted out. In the section you wrote about it, it seems no back story as to why Coren came out with such gibberish is given. This seems very different from his attack on the Poles. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can you provide a citation for other "abrasive" material for Giles Coren? Govynn (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing to his attack on the Poles, lumping them all together and choosing to ignore Poles who rescued and helped Jews during that time (Which, is obviously something I know allot about if you took note of my username!) --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy now? Article edited. Govynn (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stoyle's article and the webpage do not establish notability of a general phenomenon. They are not focused on the subject of the article and frankly are a lot more nuanced that is being suggested here.--SabreBD (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Govynn, the articles you cited as evidence of anti-cornish sentiment being a recognised thing do nothing of the sort. The first is a report by Cornwall County Council - hardly the most objective of works, nor particularly academic. The second and third - by the same author - cover anti-cornish sentiment used for propoganda effect during the English Civil War, and a general history of Cornwall. The former is fine for a reference, if this article was about the use of anti-cornish sentiment in one period for one purpose on one occasion. Unfortunately it is not; this article seeks to set out the idea that anti-Cornish sentiment is a recognised thing which permutates society as a general feeling. The only sources of any use here show no such thing. The latter source is, of course, completely useless; again, it shows a single useage, on a single occasion, by a single person. Can you provide any sources which have covered anti-Cornish sentiment as a general phenomenon? If so, this article is useful. If not, you're essentially sewing a lot of individualised incidents together in an effort to present a coherent phenomenon, which is not what Wikipedia is here for. Ironholds (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but re-name and reformat akin to Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English. It would then be possible to add Anti-English/incomer sentiment from the Cornish as well as general relationship problems between the Cornish and English, e.g. tourism/second homes etc. Bodrugan (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - some editors have expressed "notability" concerns. I note that Wikipedia contains a very large number of articles on individual characters within a large number of fictional universes. This is 2011, storage is cheap and getting cheaper with time. Govynn (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: WP:OTHERSTUFF.--SabreBD (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additonal Further Comment - the article has substantial added material placing the Giles Coren quote in a broader context. A possible name change to the article is under discussion at the article's talk page Govynn (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some useful content, but it would definitely benefit from being reformatted as mentioned. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 17:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having re-read the article and Chris Neville Smith's reasoning I'm changing to delete for the same reasons --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 06:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation with proper sourcing. Notability isn't the issue here, original research is. The quotes listed in this article may or may not have been motivated by anti-Cornish sentiment, but that's not the problem. The problem is that anyone can claim their part of the country is being discriminated against, but Wikipedia is not and should not be a free-for-all where anyone can pull together a collection of quotes from contemporary newspaper columns and call it an article on anti-X sentiment. The benchmark, like we have for all article, should be whether anti-Cornish sentiment itself is being written about in reliable sources. There may well be such articles (I remember seeing such an article on anti-Scouse prejudice many years ago), but any Wikipedia article has to reflect what's written in these articles. What we have at the moment is someone's point of view, and no matter how many sources are quoted to back up this position, that's not what Wikipedia is for. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This is one in a list of articles created by the same user that has shown his repeated contempt for Wikipedia's guidelines. Support deletion per nom and per WP:N. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Ironhold's and Chris's reasoning. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:06, 24 June 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 K. A. Applegate. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Blondes[edit]

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

Non-notable, as it fails the notability guideline for books. No real coverage outside of booksellers and online book clubs. Nolelover^Talk^/^Contribs 23:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to K. A. Applegate. I did find this review. Teh review itself is written by a high school student, but the review is published by a newspaper. It is not uncommon to have a teen write a review of a book targeted for that age group; the newspaper has still exercised editorial control in deciding to have the book reviewed. However, that is the only review I could find. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:26, 3 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) 00:43, 10 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, Sandstein 19:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I have found two reviews, but one is blog: [12], [13]. I don't think this is enought to say this book has been the subject of multiple reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Torkington[edit]

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

No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The only secondary source offered only quotes him making a very general comment about Microsoft in an article about Microsoft's participation in open source. Msnicki (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 20:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 20:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having authored one Perl book and having given talks at OSCON is not really above the average technical writer. No independent sources cover him specifically. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a few references to him in his role as a commentator. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can see, not one of the citations you've offered supports notability. Notability requires reliable independent secondary sources that address the subject in depth. What you've added are a bunch of primary sources, unreliable blog entries and other junk. All it takes to establish notability is two decent articles; I still don't think they're there. Msnicki (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Brown (Nebraska)[edit]

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

Non-notable assistant college football coach; meets none of the requirements of WP:CFBASST: never been a head coach, no Broyles Award, never interim head coach etc; no 3rd party references that would show notability; fails the WP:GNG Tassedethe (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:CFBASST and I can't find any significant coverage in independent source that would show he passes WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assistant coaches are normally not considered notable unless there is significant coverage. The article does not seem to provide that coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:04, 22 June 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) 03:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jednom (2004)[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE, as noted by (declined) prod. GregorB (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fails to meet any of the criteria set in WP:MOVIE. Prod was removed by Jvujcic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is likely an account operated by this film's director Josip Vujčić or someone closely related to him. Timbouctou (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 11 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, postdlf (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM, no awards, no reviews etc. Tassedethe (talk) 18:58, 18 June 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wangtang (northwest of Guilin), Guangxi[edit]

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

Delete: no reliable source (databases such as GEOnet do not qualify), no Chinese, no pushpin named "Wangtang" in the vicinity of the coordinates given. I do not have any tolerance towards articles like this that don't even give Chinese or a more specific administrative division. Nothing found on xzqh.org, which is an authoritative source on villages and towns in China. Note that the closure of the previous debate occurred when there was only 1 vote (and that was to delete), and that closure was subject to deletion review. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 17:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you think GEOnet is not a reliable source. I believe the .mil in the URL means it's a US military database, no?—S Marshall T/C 18:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly isn't accessible now, and when it was, it probably was little more than a bundled list of villages or towns of a certain name in a province, which isn't very helpful given that villages are normally four levels below a PRC province. Also, it seems to impose US own standards on what is a city and a town, when all such administrative divisions are clearly defined in mainland China. A reliable place database should be verifiable with the local government. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 18:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's accessible via the Wayback Machine, which confirms that you're right: GEOnet is essentially a great big list. But the rest of what you say makes no sense to me at all. The US military is a reliable source. The Chinese government is perhaps less so. And quibbles about the definition of "town" or "city" don't seem relevant to me, when per longstanding consensus, even villages are inherently notable.
The key point here is that material doesn't need to appear in every reliable source. It just needs to have a reliable source. See?—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say. And are you saying that either Chinese government is less reliable than the US military when it comes to their own settlements? Be careful about what you say, and please look past possible political bias. "Quibbles about the definition of 'town' or 'city'" are relevant in determining whether a source is reliable. Think about it...calling a town in mainland China or Taiwan a 'city' would be a grave misrepresentation of the government's classification, which is all that matters.
Besides that, if you cannot find a settlement on the best of maps or the most comprehensive databases, you have a problem. —HXL's Roundtable and Record
It should also be pointed out that in the previous nomination for this and other villages, it was demonstrated that GEOnet coordinates were sometimes inaccurate by 15 miles or more, which to me casts some doubt on its reliability. Clearly, the database is not compiled based on satellite imagery or whatever if it is that inaccurate, so why should we trust it? Additionally, I understand your point about having a single reliable source, but shouldn't we at least check to make sure that there is some corroboration by other sources? The GEOnet database could be out of date; maybe it was taken offline for that reason.--Danaman5 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that the evidence so far presented is insufficient for me to conclude that GEOnet is unreliable.—S Marshall T/C 19:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not claiming it is error-free are you? We should never take any source no matter how "reliable" as being the absolute truth when other evidence suggests that an error may have occurred.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's an irony. :) The very first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability reads as follows: 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. In other words, policy appears to support my interpretation rather than yours.
However, the irony is that I have very recently been arguing that this phrase needs amending, and I said: "...it's a sin against the basic purpose of an encyclopaedia to publish known error except to refute it." So my own position is that the truth matters.
I think in this case we're best following the advice of WP:NPOV. Where there are various reliable sources, and it's not obvious how to choose between them, we're best off describing the dispute rather than picking sides. In other words, the article should reflect the honest doubt. It should begin with the words "According to GEONet...", and end by mentioning that we have not found any other source that mentions the place. But that isn't the same as deleting the material.—S Marshall T/C 19:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we go down that route, we will no longer have an article about a settlement, but about a supposed settlement - and there's a reason we don't have Catgeory:Possible Cities. We won't be performing the function of a useful gazetteer if we can only propound uncertainty. How many atlases have "London (or possibly not)"? We either assert that it exists, or we decide that in this instance that source is not sufficiently reliable (or we're just unsure, and IAR) and we don't have an article on it unless we find further sources confirming its existence.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I presume there's been a confusion with the Wangtang located 25km south-east of Guilin. Maybe someone had their map upside down. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it was probably unwise to reopen this AFD so soon after, but since it is here, I will comment. After doing some more searches, the only thing that I have been able to uncover is a pushpin on Baidu Maps, which can be seen by searching for"广西壮族自治区桂林市临桂县望塘". This pushpin seems to be in approximately the right place. However, the map itself is not labeled with this name, and I can't find another reference to such a place anywhere. The administrative divisions list for the county doesn't show it, nor does Google Maps, Baidu searches, etc. I think we may be dealing with an echo of the past or an error, and the creator of the Baidu Maps pushpin and Geonet may both be victims of it. I think I've shown pretty clearly in the past that I believe that small village articles should exist on Wikipedia, and that we should all do the research to make them accurate and complete, but I am not comfortable with an article based on such scant evidence as this.--Danaman5 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GEOnet is a reliable source, and the nominator's allegations to the contrary (without evidence, note) is just not enough to base decisions on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who presents evidence to the contrary. All it matters is that the evidence is found. And it has been, by others, and so it is evident that you are here only to attack me. This is highly folly of you when your efforts could be better spent improving articles on that vaunted gas-guzzling state. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to have an article on everything in GEOnet do we? We can decide that we don't have enough data to make a reliable and useful encyclopaedia article in this instance.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think if there is no extensive coverage from multiple sources (not just merely a name and location, but industries, economics, demographic, weathers, schools etc) on the city, the article failed Wikipedia:Notability. Quote: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists".

Delete - article does not have enough references to make it reliable or notable. Relying on Geonet even though its .mil is giving too much weight to one source. If there are reliable references to include population data, name of subdistricts or villages to improve the article, I'll withdraw my delete comment. Wikipedia isn't a directory, street map or repository for geodata. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 01:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original AfD was about half a dozen articles, each of which contained nothing but the name (in Roman letters only, no original Chinese) and geographic location. Most of them were identified by a few editors who found them on Google Maps - although none of them was a city, they all were small villages (pop. 1,000 at most), and some were tens of kilometers away from where the articles claimed to be (with degree-min-sec precision, too!). This one, noone has been able to identify so far. Google Maps is pretty good at showing small villages, especially located along major roads (which, as experience has shown, are more likely to appear in GEONet database - they list some small villages if they happen to be road junctions), but there is definitely no Wangtang shown there at that location or anywhere that can be sensibly described as "NW of Guilin". There is the town of Wutong (五通) some 5 km to the west of the purported location (on Hwy G321), so if anything, the article can be renamed that way. -- Vmenkov (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I copied the above from my comment on the deletion review a while back. As to why GeoNET is not an entirely reliable source, at least as far as small places in China are concerned: I personally believe that this is the case based on what I saw when comparing what GeoNET had for another several Wangtang villages and what more precise sources (such as Google Maps and printed maps by provincial publishers) had for them. Certainly GeoNET's claim (if it is what they claim) for their ability to give correct coordinates with precise minutes (let along seconds!) of long/lat, or for calling small villages at road junctions "cities", is preposterous. -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:00, 20 June 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. postdlf (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a wimpy kid covers[edit]

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

Article duplicates other content. every book listed in this article already has an independent article that actually has a picture of the cover of the book. no need for a separate article describing the cover of each book in the series. Warfieldian (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here worth saving. Rnb (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Rnb. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Absolutely not needed. Nate • (chatter) 21:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is redundant as stated by the nominator. Guoguo12 (Talk) 23:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and everyone else.-Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicative. Nothing in the article indicates it has any special notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Set Programming[edit]

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

Appears to be yet another article by WP:SPAs promoting J. Zhou's research. No reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability of Zhou's "Set Programming" as required by WP:GNG.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per other three AfD's. —Ruud 10:38, 20 June 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. I've merged some album info (which seems to be much of the relevant content) to the discography section, and will redirect the album articles. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by Argument[edit]

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

Also

Dance Like No-One's Watching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sex Lines Are Expensive Comedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Sega Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Drive-by Argument (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This band appear to have minor notability and don't really need to have a Wikipedia article. A Google search doesn't retrieve much results, infact there are no results from reliable music media sites whatsoever. Of the nine references, seven of them are out of date links and weren't reliable sources anyway. There is no press coverage from music magazines or even any local newspapers. It seems as if the article is relying too much on trivia and not placing emphasis on the bands acheivements. The band released an album and three singles, which haven't garnered much attention, especially the singles. None of them charted on any official U.K. charts and just seemed to breeze away. The article seems to present the band as being a short lived successful project, when in reality, there's nothing to prove this without viable citations. I should note that there's a spin-off band of Drive-by Argument called The Mouse That Ate The Cat. Another band article with lacklustre citations and a trivia section, possibly created by the same person. A user has already nominated it for speedy deletion. The article was speedy deleted previously in August 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drive-by argument My wee one (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I seem to remember hearing of these guys from a few years back, so decided to have a dig around. First up, there are links already provided in the Drive-by Argument (album) article to non-trivial independent reviews in reliable sources at The Skinny and musicOMH. In addition to those, Drowned in Sound has reviews of both "Sex Lines Are Expensive Comedy" and a live show, while there is a short band biography provided by MTV UK. I'd say that just about scrapes over the bar set at WP:BAND, so I'm going for a Keep of the band article. The articles for other releases bundled into this AfD ahould really be merged into the band article and those individual articles should be subsequently deleted. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 06:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above comment from sparkl_!sm i would probably support a merging of the album and singles into the article. I was unaware of a Drowned in Sound bio and reviews, nothing showed up on google.My wee one (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep band article. Merge and redirect all album articles to their discography section. The Steve 05:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The nominator was blocked as a sock of The abominable Wiki troll.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:02, 10 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, Black Kite (t) (c) 15:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close under WP:SK ground #3: nominator banned. Sockpuppets shouldn't get their way on Wikipedia. No prejudice against a separate and subsequent AfD for the band articles per Sparklism, but those should be unbundled and separate.—S Marshall T/C 18:17, 18 June 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) 00:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas B. Ingebretsen[edit]

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

Possible autobiographical article, definitely promotional, about a student filmmaker. Contested PROD. Claims of awards, but I can find no reliable sourcing either for the awards given, or for the awards competitions themselves. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This 20 year old may have a great future, but a search for coverage in reliable sources shows he's not yet notable. Cullen328 (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed potential promotional-links, added more content to back up the facts. - food4thoughtx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Food4thoughtx (talk • contribs) 06:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Food4thoughtx is a single purpose account whose only contributions involve this article. I ask that this user declare any conflicts of interest regarding this topic. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable student. The article says that he is "best known for winning a Amandus award". Well, searches indicate that he is not known at all for that, so if he is "best known" for that then he is not known. Not only is there nothing I can find anywhere about his winning an "Amandus award", but there is virtually nothing to be found about the "Amandus award" itself: in fact the best I have managed to find is a forum post from another student film maker saying that a student film he had made had been nominated for it. I have found nothing about Jonas B. Ingebretsen on reliable independent sources, but plenty of self-promotion on numerous blogs, forums, and other non-reliable sources. It looks very much as though the Wikipedia article is part of that pattern of self-promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:42, 19 June 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mantas Lėkis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. The first nomination ended in no consensus due to the absence of clear sourcing on the pro status of the A Lyga at the time. The A Lyga is now listed and sourced as not fully pro at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:04, 19 June 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) 00:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Kazlauskas[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. He has been under contract with AZAL PFC Baku in the fully pro Azerbaijan Premier League, but he never actually played any matches for them. All the other clubs for which he played are not in fully pro leagues. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:03, 19 June 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Kallis[edit]

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

Non-notable junior footballer who does not meet the requirements of WP:NSPORTS nor WP:GNG The-Pope (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Footballer DOES meet the requirements of WP:NSPORTS having played in the Super League Greece and WP:GNG by having reliable sources in the reference list. DJFOOTBALL3(talk) 14:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have not supplied any references that prove that. Your references only prove that he's played in a local Australian league - which isn't enough - and that someone on a forum (not reliable) thought that he's been signed to a Greek side, and that there is another local level player called Blake, who may or may not be his brother. One part of WP:GNG is significant coverage. That means more than a "he made his debut and came on in the 66th minute". Please read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. If he did play in Greece at senior level, then please supply a reference - it can be in Greek if need be, but the Kavala website has no mention of him. The-Pope (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Queensland State League is in fact a professional league http://www.qldsl.com.au/index.php?display=item&id=1

Kavala FC does not have a official website, only a fans website http://www.kavalafc.gr http://www.aokavalas.gr DJFOOTBALL3(talk) 01:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a fan website is going to be considered here N^oformation ^Talk 03:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at this moment--5 albert square (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn/Merged to Dinobots (non-admin close). Pontificalibus (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T-Wrecks[edit]

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

Contested prod, but no reason was given. Non-notable fictional character, no evidence of real-world significance, no reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, As the character is one of the Dinobots, it would make sense to merge him to the Dinobots#Beast Machines page rather than deleting him. This was done to some other minor Dinobots characters. See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airraptor and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slag_(Transformers). Mathewignash (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you go ahead and do that now, I'll withdraw this nomination? J Milburn (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Remove the nomination and T-Wrecks will be merged to Dinobots before the sun sets. I don't remove or blank the nomination myself, that's against the rules. Mathewignash (talk) 14:03, 18 June 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. Now, I know it's only been five and a half days instead of the usual seven. However, there's reason for an early close;

I believe community consensus is clear - policies such as WP:BLP1E exist for events such as this one. While Mr. Ball's death is tragic, there is no evidence that it will make him historically notable - there are very few usable sources on the matter.

That being said, my sympathies go out to the family and supporters.

This deletion does not mean that a minority viewpoint is being suppressed, as is being alleged by some. We are not censoring anybody. We're simply abiding by policy.

As others have said, the option does exist to re-create this article at a later date if it gains widespread attention and is support by policy. Unfortunately, we do not have a crystal ball, and do not have foresight of such a development, so the article will remain deleted unless some notability arises.

Thanks, m.o.p 20:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas James Ball[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT. There is no lasting or historical significance of this event. The coverage has been limited to local news, and there are few GHits. Singularity42 (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event passes WP:EVENT. Rebuttals:

(1) Historical significance: This is the ninth act of political self immolation in modern United States history. All other US political self immolations have wikipedia pages.

(2) No Censorship: This political self immolation was made in protest to perceived injustices both in written law and in the application of law. The laws and legal practices that the self immolation protests are actively promoted by a community with a large and influential wikipedia presence. To delete a minority opinion that challenges the prevailing point of view is contrary to the wikipedia no censorship policy WP:NOTCENSORED.

(3) Media coverage: Coverage of the event has been limited, consistent with histrical precedent when political activists defend unpolular/minority points of view. However, many such minority points of view (including feminism itself) eventually came to become influential and main stream.

(4) Importance to a minority: Multiple organizations which lobby for recognition of points of view which are contrary to the prevailing legal practices have voiced their support for Mr. Ball's actions.

In summary, although the event constitutes a protest against a majority point of view, there exists a significant and growing minority point of view that challenges the established dogma. In so far as the "self immolation" event is tied into the evolving national discussion about gender and equality under the law, it is both historically important and serves the purpose of recognizing the existence of alternatives to the prevailing points of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaresny (talk • contribs) 15:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I do not believe the points you raise address the criteria in WP:EVENT. Specifically:

All other US political self immolations have wikipedia pages. That's an unproveable assertion. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is notability. If the political self-immolation was not notable, it would not have an article. Nor is there a list anywhere of every person's suicide for political reasons, no matter how non-notable. Most of the articles I looked at had coverage from numberous signficant secondary sources. Finally, if there exists one or two articles that don't meet the criteria, that cannot be used to justify this article not meeting the criteria. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.
To delete a minority opinion that challenges the prevailing point of view is contrary to the wikipedia no censorship policy. That is not why this article is being deleted. I couldn't care less about family law issues in the U.S. I have no interest, no conflict of interest, and I am objective. My nomination is simply on the basis that there has been very little coverage of this incident, and a politically-motivated suicide it not inherently notable.
However, many such minority points of view (including feminism itself) eventually came to become influential and main stream. And if this gets significant coverage and becomes notable, then it might get an article. But Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political expression. See WP:NOT.
Multiple organizations which lobby for recognition of points of view which are contrary to the prevailing legal practices have voiced their support for Mr. Ball's actions. Has this been verified by third-party reliable sources? Otherwise, that doesn't help this discussion. Might not change whether this is notable, but the assertion cannot even be considered without it being properly verified.
An open letter has been sent to the president of the United States by an organization with a membership exceeding 10,000 individuals. Lots of organizaitons send letters to the President. That's not notable. This last reply was in response to a fifth point raised above which was subsequently removed after I wrote this. Singularity42 (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This event passes WP:EVENT. Reply:

A list of all political self immolations is available on wikipedia List of political self-immolations. The only political self immolation without a wikipedia page is Gregory Levey, and the event nonetheless has a wiki stub, implying that a full wiki page is desirable. A political self immolation is intrinsically very different from any other kind of suicide, because of the historcal perception that the act is so exceptionally difficult to endure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaresny (talk • contribs) 16:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not !vote multiple times. I have striked the second !vote. Singularity42 (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[[List of political self-immolations is not a list of all political self-immolations. As per the opening sentence, it is a list of notable political self-immolations. It is illogical to argue that there is a list of all political self-immolations - non-notable ones by definition are generally not noted. Singularity42 (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thomas Ball and his Self-Immolation has been reported by The International Business Times at http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/164827/20110617/thomas-ball-self-immolate-child-support.htm This means the event is both notable and non-local. It is head-lined as a protest against child-support, and the article goes into detail outlining the current legal treatment of so-called Deadbeat Dads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.73.236 (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC) — 210.54.73.236 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: The International Business Times article seems to be part of a project for users to create their own articles. It contains some spelling errors and an ungrammatical sentence. This suggests that it does not come from a professional journalist and has not undergone editorial oversight. There is an ad asking the reader to become one of the site's contributors, with a link to a page for doing so. Paul B (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There doesn't even appear to be a byline. Larry V (talk | email) 18:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ A classic cause of suicide is to be ignored marginalized Durkheim. It would be cruel to also ignore Ball's suicide itself. Kposowa reports a suicide rate of 14 times higher of men in child custody cases in US. So Ball is an example of a much wider phenomena. Men are about 80 percent of all suicides Gender and suicide. Ignoring the risks of suicide are generally considered a major contributing factor, even though the same prevention agencies generally de-emphasize male suicide. The US Army from which Ball retired, has recognized a high rate and reports some recent success ^[1]. The lack of news coverage (in three days it is limited to three states and IB Times) may be part of the marginalization pattern. Further there is a considerable political component to Ball's experience as well as the current discussion to eliminate his mention. According to US Census, "Residential patterns of Children," very few children have much of an relationship with their divorced father. I remember the California equal parenting bill, AB 1307, received 4,000 letters in support and a dozen from domestic violence organizations saying all fathers a violent. The bill did not pass. That same interest will want to squash this article. In fact according to Ball's letter^[2] this was not a fight with his wife in court, but rather actions forced by the domestic violence advocacy in the person of CPS and police. Euphobot (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — Euphobot (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

User has been blocked from editing, therefore, !vote is stricken. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. —Qrsdogg (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tom was very active in Father's Right's Movements and as much as I regret his action I feel that it is historically significant and a classic example of non-violent protest in support of a lost cause. What is the standard for inclusion? If he had killed ten, or twenty, people in addition to himself would it then warrant an entry? Let's be careful what incentives we set up here! ~ Mark H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.112.20 (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 173.48.112.20 has made no other edits.

KeepAs far as news coverage goes his suicide is gaining more interest. It was carried on Drudge for a short time and Instapundit and also on Lew Rockwell (cited now in article).As already mentioned the marginalization of the event by large regular news outlets is insufficient reason to delete. ----

KEEP The political self-immolation of the man in Tunisia that sparked the Jasmine Revolution (after being publicly slapped by the female official for questionning her power to deny him his livelihood and ability to support his children as a fruit seller) also did not receive press attention for several weeks following the event. Moreover, the US Supreme Court currently has before it a case (Turner v. Rogers) in which the High Court will determine whether unemployed fathers in the US may be jailed repeatedly, for up to one year on each occasion, without benefit of an attorney, just because they do not have the money to pay child support. That is precisely the situation Mr. Ball faced. This article should be cross-referenced with the Wikipedia article covering Turner v. Rogers and a Wikipedia article regarding the practice of jailing of indigent fathers in the US (see the Law Review article subtitled: The Quiet Return of Debtors' Prison), not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.111.32.130 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC) — 38.111.32.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: The very fact that someone put it up, someone wants it gone, and that we're now discussing if it should be deleted proves that it is notable. If it weren't notable, the entry would have already been deleted without any discussion. The motives of those who wanted gone are obvious; the very reason that Thomas James Ball burned himself to death. The marginalization of men, their pain being invisible to society, and some people being hell bent on keeping it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.56.231 (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC) — 82.168.56.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: I don't fully understand how these edit discussions work. I apologize in advance for my luddite tendencies. However, I cannot see how this article about Tom Ball could be deleted. It strikes me as neutral and involving very important content. Please do not delete it and let Tom Ball fall into anonymity. Whether you agree with his actions or not, he made a very powerful social statement that deserves to at least be witnessed before being individually judged. As a father going through divorce and who has been unfairly kept from his adored 6-year-old daughter (thankfully, in this incidence, the courts appear to understand my situation and are trying to grant me more time with my daughter), there is a very clear societal and systemic bias against fathers, often regardless of the facts. Many of us are simply guilty until proven innocent, and meanwhile, despite the fact that some of us are loving house dads, we are missing the most precious years of our children's lives. It's heartbreaking and tortuous. Believe me.

Before contributing to this discussion please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Wikipedia uses the term "notable" in a different way than it generally is used, and your contributions to this discussion won't be considered by the closing administrator unless you cite a reason based in Wikipedia policy. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- OK, Will do. Sorry if I've not done this well. The interface is a bit daunting to some of us.

Keep: Evidence of spreading social significance (Tom Ball's act discussed in respected and well-read blog of James Howard Kunstler) : http://kunstler.com/blog/2011/06/man-down.html

Update on google hits (by author, in support of keeping the page): Initial google hits were limited for "Thoamas James Ball". Currently, the number of google hits stands at 8,400,000. This is significant evidence that this event is highly relevant. By comparison, a google search for James Whitney Bulger results in 168,000 google hits. The event of the capture of Bulger is the front page news item at this moment on cnn.com, even though it has generated only a tiny fraction of the amount of interest that exists in the Thomas James Ball event. Absence of coverage by the main-stream media does not indicate absence of national significance. Note that James J. Bulger has a long wikipedia page, further evidence that the Thomas James Ball event should remain. The presence of interested/non-neutral pro-keep parties in this discussion (sometimes called sock/meat puppets) should not be used as a justification for removing the Thomas James Ball page. The only proposed argument for removal of the page (lack of significance of event) has been rebutted by (1) the exponential growth in the impact that this event continues to have in the blogosphere and in non-traditional media outlets, as well as by (2) the very large number of google hits (fixed in response to comment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaresny (talk • contribs) 14:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I get 95,500 hits for "Thomas James Ball" and 4,260,000 for "Alexander Hamilton". There is no such person as "James Whitney Bulger". It is James "Whitey" Bulger. Whitey is a nickname. His article has existed since 2004, so is not dependent on the news of his recent arrest. Paul B (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and forums do not meet the criteria for WP:Reliable Sources. Singularity42 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event passes WP:EVENT. Good heavens I can't even believe this is a discussion. I'm reading about him in California and came here specifically to read more. This is a national news event. He is part of a significant if small movement. Wikipedia even has a LIST of self immolation articles. What kind of nonsense is this? Is this really less critical than the Half-Life 2 article? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickjost (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Half-Life 2 article has nothing to do with this discussion. Larry V (talk | email) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Too WP:RECENT to provide for neutral coverage of topic. A sad situation, and a strong political statement, yes...but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. If the "men's rights" movement succeed in making him a significant 'martyr' for their cause then the page can be recreated once a suitable weight of notability is reached. Paul B (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Will this have long-lasting impact? It's too early to know for certain. But I'm seeing a fair number of Gnews hits and some that appear to be a bit more than local coverage [14]. Hobit (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Paul B has expressed concern about the reliability of that source. Larry V (talk | email) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Larry, I'd not seen that. Changing to Neutral for now but if this is kept it will need to renamed to an event per WP:BLP1E. Hobit (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alan the Roving Ambassador and Paul B. Wikipedia is not the forum to establish notability. If this were to receive more coverage and have a demonstrable impact, then perhaps this could be rewritten. As it stands, this is a news item and it's not Wikipedia's job to report the news, memorialize someone or promote a political cause. It's a sad story and he was obviously a troubled person but Wikipedia is not the place for this article. WP:CRYSTAL very much applies here. freshacconci talktalk 17:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Simply too soon to assess the significance of the event and the danger that Wikipedia is being used as a site for memorialization. Its an understandable impulse, but not the role of an encyclopedia.--SabreBD (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS applies here. I will say this however I agree with Freshacconci's comments above, this could be rewritten if it were to receive more, and lasting coverage, and also have some sort of imapct. Right now as it stands it doesn't. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator, agree with all comments above about there being no prejudice to rewrite and recreate in the future if appropriate. Singularity42 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the sources cited in the article are non-RS -- mostly opinionated blogs. From the few reliable sources, I conclude that this guy's life was pretty much of a mess and he committed suicide, choosing a highly visible method and leaving a long rambling note. That's all. The fact that men's rights bloggers have decided to reinvent him as a men's rights activist who died for their cause does not make it true, and it does not make the details of his biography notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, nor a memorial site, nor an online venue for promoting causes by turning deceased people into martyrs. --Orlady (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fully understand that a number of the !voters here (mostly on the keep side) are newbies, but I didn't expect to see something like this from an established editor. A) It doesn't matter if most of the sources aren't reliable, the question, with respect to WP:N at least, is if there are multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. There clearly are. A wall of non-reliable sources attached to 2 or 3 good ones doesn't reduce the good ones. B) "I conclude that this guy's life was pretty much of a mess and he committed suicide, choosing a highly visible method and leaving a long rambling note. That's all. " is no more a reason to delete the article then the really poor keep arguments here. The question at hand if this event is likely to have long-lasting impact. C) "The fact that men's rights bloggers have decided to reinvent him as a men's rights activist who died for their cause does not make it true, and it does not make the details of his biography notable." If it's true or not is entirely irrelevant. Of course this falls under BLP1E and so should be renamed or deleted. But the truth or fiction of the claim doesn't matter. Sorry for the rant. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTNEWS. Every day in many cities there are newspaper stories on topics like "local man kills self", "police officer shot and killed", and "convenience store clerk killed in robbery." The fact that those stories are published in reputable and reliable newspapers does not make the story topics into topics for encyclopedia articles. And Wikipedia doesn't base articles on what bloggers think. --Orlady (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO1E. 90% of the references are in context of people bloging about how horrible it is. Simply too soon to see how this is going to stick in the history. Not opposed when more verifyiable and reliable sources write about it. Hasteur (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EVENT. The vast majority of the refs provided fail WP:RS. Blogs can't be used to establish notability. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But the reliable sources, and there are plenty, can. It probably does fail WP:EVENT, but the non-RSes don't reduce the value of the reliable ones. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this event was under-covered in the news, and deserved wider attention, but it's simply not an appropriate encyclopedia subject. Peacock (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A pretty clear case of 1E. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS etc. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of 'men's rights', or for any other political cause - and doubly so when the apparent suicide of a disturbed person is being exploited for that cause. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a single event and WP:NOTNEWS. Mathsci (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of historical notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of actual notability; see WP:BIO1E, WP:COATRACK and (odd though it might seem) WP:UPANDCOMING for my reasoning - the latter to address the "it's getting more famous everyday among people who read the same websites I do" arguments from people coming here as a result of the outside canvassing effort. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 23 June 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woods Coffee[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Promotional article created by User:WoodsCoffee. Removal of promotional content yields not very much of note. WP:ORG states "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". We have only one of those, an article in Seattle Business Magazine. Is this enough to make this single-county coffee chain worthy of note in an encyclopaedia? I think not, firstly because that article is basically one big quote by Herman, the company's founder - it contains no critical analysis or insight, and therefore appears promotional in nature, and could quite easily be a paid PR piece. Secondly because WP:ORG states "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization" I tried to find other non-local sources but couldn't' find any significant in-depth coverage about this organisation. Pontificalibus (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 criteria. Company that makes no assertion of importance of significance.--v/r - T P 13:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A small local chain could be notable, but I think there should be some clear reason for notability. Even two independent sources should not be enough without that - after all, coffee shops are not unusual in themselves.--AJHingston (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found no sources in a Google book search, but news sources exist which mention the place, especially local news from The Bellingham Herald.
- "The Woods Coffee brews up RFID payment-loyalty program", Nation's Restaurant News
- "Woods Coffee moves onto the waterfront: rapidly growing company aims to become regional coffee giant.", Bellingham Business Journal
- "Best coffee: The Woods Coffee", December 8, 2008, The Bellingham Herald
- "Best coffee shop: The Woods Coffee", December 2, 2009, The Bellingham Herald
- " Woods Coffee holding contest to create downtown art landmark", January 25, 2011, The Bellingham Herald
- "The Woods Coffee opens store at Birch Bay Square", May 7, 2009, The Northern Light
- "Vandals hit Boulevard coffee shop", April 7, 2008, The Bellingham Herald
- "The Woods Coffee to support Kenya education program", January 2, 2009, The Bellingham Herald
- "Woods Coffee to open new site", February 14, 2008, The Bellingham Herald
- " Woods Coffee to open in former Tully's spot on Meridian", April 7, 2011, The Bellingham Herald
- "Opportunity Council, The Woods Coffee win chamber awards", October 16, 2008, The Bellingham Herald
  - These are mostly local news sources but they establish that the company is regionally known and highly regarded in its area. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to establish it is locally known, all being local sources from the same county. Attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. Are there any state or broader regional publications mentioning this company? The Nations Restaurant News article, like the Seattle Business Magazine one, appears to fall into the category of "works in which the company talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people".--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The readers or editors of the Bellingham Herald voted Woods Coffee the best in 2008 and 2009. The local chamber of commerce voted Woods Coffee the "Green Business of the Year" in 2008. Those items are not generated by Woods PR department. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they were. What we have is purely local coverage, with some minimal PR-related regional/national coverage. The local coverage is fine in itself, but isn't enough on its own to establish notability in the absence of genuine regional coverage.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is my understanding from the primary source www.woodscoffeeboycott.com is that there are allegations of the owner prohibiting certain periodicals from his establishment. Do any of these periodicals have content about Woods Coffee? Even if negative, they could be used to help pass this article's notability requirements. Phearson (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These periodicals are almost all local sources as is the primary source vendetta website. The anonymous complainer has made clear his/her intention to damage Woods Coffee. Deleting the article favors that position. Not cool. Dubyus (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ORG is quite clear that non-local sources are required. Certainly local media in Bellingham seem to like this place, but that fails of the relevant notability criteria. Would Binksternet care to cite what valid policy or guideline supports keeping this article? ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 10:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no problem at all with the requirements listed at WP:ORG, specifically at WP:CORPDEPTH. The guideline asks for notice from independent sources, and we have that from the local Chamber of Commerce, the readers or editors of the Bellingham Herald, and from the 40-year-old national publication Nation's Restaurant News. At CORPDEPTH we are told the company needs at least one regional or larger reliable source, which we have from Nation's Restaurant News. I continue to see that this article should be kept because it meets the requirements of notability established in WP's guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough; a bit of research does highlight NRN as a noted industry source, which does seem to satisfy the GNG in this case. Changing my vote to Keep in consequence. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 03:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ravenswing and Binksternet. Also, recent edits attributes WP:N with the sculpture controversy. Phearson (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Phearson (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the essay WP:local a good read in this case, nethertheless in light of the substantial secondary sources i lean to keep (for now......) Ottawa4ever (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Picking the article clean and then complaining that there's not enough information is laughable. 2 people have indicated that they are willing to redo the article within guidelines. According to a member of Woods Coffee management, Starbucks, Peet's_Coffee_&_Tea, and Tully's_Coffee (all comparable coffee shops in the area) were consulted by whoever constructed the original Woods_Coffee Wikipedia article. Dubyus (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless Dubyus, they did not consult wikipedia's policies, and that is why there were WP:COI issues being brought up on the talk page on not just woods coffee, but those pages as well, especially with the issue of the Starbuck's union. Phearson (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like there's a good case that they meet WP:ORG. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the inappropriate promotional material has been removed. The local sources aren't just the usual "new store X opening" fluff, but do have some in-depth coverage. In particular, the RFID story (Binksternet's first item) highlights an innovation in the marketplace, published in a nonlocal source. The article would definitely benefit from other and more-truly independent sources (I agree that even this RFID one is substantially parrotting self-sourced). I agree with Phearson, that being involved in a local controversy (especially if WP:RS comment on it) is valid content. It may even be one of the keys to this company being notable. Likewise with the public art situation (reliable source mentions some public negative response...looks like a balanced story with in-depth coverage related to company). Dubyus would do well to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NPOV if he thinks the previous content made this article viable and on par with the others and WP:COI if he thinks this store is on par with the others. DMacks (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find, bring it to the talk page/Article. Phearson (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The lesson here is that just because something in an article has a little blue number after it, it doesn't mean it's correct. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merhoff Post[edit]

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

WP:HOAX I believe this article, and the related website were created to legitimize the use of "The Merhoff Post" in a spate of Puerto Rico-related hoax and vandalism articles created by the sock farms of Plastic Beach and Horizontal Law. The "Merhoff Post" has often been used in citations to these hoax articles, and up until 17 June 2011 (see this edit) contained almost no content whatsoever. What content it contains now is a wild collection of random blog posts copied from other sites on the net. (Compare this page of the site to this article in The Village Voice, or this page to Thomas Pynchon's Against the Day (as quoted here)). Anyone can throw up a website these days. Clearly, this one is not a legitimate news source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. The website has only been in existence a short while, since the Wayback Machine has not yet started to archive it: it would show up if the site had been in existence since September 2010 as claimed. Also, not known to Google News, Scholar and Books. Just 64 hits on Google Web, characteristic of something created a day or two ago. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like it has all the signs of a hoax. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:39, 20 June 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 as an article created by a banned/blocked editor, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexBrownGarcia/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Family Farm[edit]

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

A family farm. Looks nice, but fails WP:GNG. (Not tagged for speedy deletion, since I have been told before that being in operation for over 100 years amounts to a credible claim of significance...) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It sounds like a great place. However I hardly think individual homesteads are the proper topic for encyclopedia articles. There must be hundreds of millions of family farms in the world. (Okay tens of millions. 7 billion people = 1 billion families, one family in 10 (worldwide) owns a farm, 100 million farms.)Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any claim to notability here, and even if there was one, the article is unsourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above arguments and: Google Books returns 49 hits on "Brown Family Farm", none appears to be about the article subject and it does not seem to be a Century Farm either. Beautiful location, maybe a nice farm, likely genuinely down to earth people judging from the article text so far, still - as it is now - absolutely unencyclopedic. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 21:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will be deleted shortly once it's official that this was created by a sockpuppet. Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 21 June 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polytechnic University of the Philippines organizations[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list of non-notable student organizations. Moray An Par (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. . Moray An Par (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At least a couple similar student group lists were deleted recently. Such lists are transient (it doesn't take much for a student group to come and go), full of nothing but nonnotable groups, and useful only to the students attending the school, which (unlike most AFDs in which this is claimed) makes it a WP:NOTDIR violation. postdlf (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the article list of PUP organizations looks like an online directory that is part spam, and vandalised to some extent. It is very much better suited for the Polytechnic University of the Philippines official website/wiki (no, that's not on Wikipedia, seriously.), or WikiPilipinas instead. Zollerriia63 (talk) 13:03, 19 June 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exerball[edit]

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

This is a sport allegedly founded four days ago, there is no hope of coverage in reliable sources. Note that "Exerball" is apparently a brand name for a type of exercise ball, and they are used in training for various sports it seems, so raw hit counts are particularly useless in this case. user:Evaders99 nominated this for speedy deletion with the rationale, "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day - WP:ONEDAY", but this is not a valid CSD criterion, and no actual criteria apply here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. Wikipedia is not for things you just invented and posted to YouTube. No reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not for things made up one day - WP:ONEDAY"- Completely understood, however, this is not something that was made up in one day. This is something that has been carefully thought out for years, although only executed a few days ago. If wikipedia was around when the game of baseball was invented, we would be having this same issue. So having a wikipedia page dedicated to a sport that is gaining global recognition can only solidify it's existence. I understand that "Exerball" happens to also be a brand name for a type of exercise ball, but does that mean that anytime a product is listed with a name, nothing else can share it's name. I understand copyright laws but this doesn't seem like it falls under anything illegal. If I go and buy an "apple," am I buying produce or technology? How about if I'm watching "fox racing." That's a valid sport but it's also a brand name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanKlitzner (talk • contribs) 18:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if Wikipedia were around when baseball was invented and an article was created about it after four days then, absent any coverage in reliable sources or other indications of notability, then I would nominate that article for deletion. My argument is not that Exerball will never be notable, just that it is not notable now. We do not speculate on whether something will be notable in future or not - see WP:CRYSTAL.

My comments about the name Exerball were solely with regards to things like Google hits. Your "apple" example is a good one - it gets lots of hits (1.86 billion on Google.co.uk just now), but most of them are not about Gwyneth Paltrow's daughter. This does not automatically mean that she is not notable, merely that saying "she gets billions of google hits" is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule-Team Delete: I strongly recommend that Mr. Klitzner review WP:PILLAR to gain a better understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In the meantime, this of course runs afoul of WP:NFT and WP:V. I rather liked the comment on the Youtube link that boasted about having pumped up the pageview count by a few hundred on his own. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 11:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ravenswing- First off, i apologize for not giving you a background blue with cyan font in your name as I think it is degrading to all people who are color blind. As far as your tone in your comment, it just seems that you are so sure you are right, that it should actually make people take a moment and think about the validity of Exerball. Your comment about a comment pumping up the page view count is made up. There is no such comment or I think you would have posted it here for evidence. In all seriousness, I think you should invest in a bunch of exercise balls and take on this new sport so you can see for yourself why the entire nation is going crazy for it. Also, every good sport has sponsorships, and Exerball is no different. The EBA (Exerball Association) has been contacted by several companies who manufacture these balls along with a handful of brands interested in sponsoring players including Nike, Gatorade, and Wheaties. All is verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanKlitzner (talk • contribs) 17:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Terrific; then verify them. Forward us the names of the people at Nike, Gatorade and Wheaties who've contacted you. Of course, you would have had to incorporate your "EBA" to receive any sponsorship contacts; in what state are you incorporated? What's the EBA website - surely those companies had to have some address by which to contact you? No doubt you've proof that this is "sweeping the nation" - could you provide the links to the news reports saying so? Ravenswing 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Since the sponsorships are currently being reviewed by lawyers, it is against the law to release the names of the people representing these brands, however, I can release the names of the people they are interested in sponsoring. One of those people is 14 time gold medalist Michael Phelps. Also, I think you misunderstood me when I was talking about the EBA. Unfortunately, it's not "my" EBA. I was contacted directly regarding the sponsorships. You said the EBA should be incorporated, but I don't think the EBA is what's in question here. It's the sport of exerball that is sweeping the nation. All the news reports that have backed this claim were live reports. ESPN just did a MAJOR story on this. Hopefully you can find it on their website. http://www.ESPN.com SeanKlitzner (talk 20:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, well, you're more than welcome to provide a link to any such story. It is also not against the law for any such release, incidentally, although that's a side issue, right along with you claiming that the "EBA" was directly contacted, and then changing your tune to you being the one who was contacted, two hours later. (Never mind the honker about Michael Phelps, who already is sponsored by Nike and PepsiCo, and whom Kellogg dropped after the pot incident.) Truth be told, this is starting to verge into WP:BULLSHIT country. Better luck with your next article, which I suggest be created conforming to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 01:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement: You seem to be bringing up a lot of side issues rather than talk about Exerball, the sport that is sweeping the nation. I will address your side issues once more as I think it is becoming juvenile of you. If you'd like, we can continue with the talk of side issues on the phone, or perhaps through text messaging. Side Issue Addressment: Once these brands contact the EBA, they were given my info and then contacted me directly. That's normal procedure. I never said the three brands were all interested in Phelps. Obviously he is already sponsored by Nike, however once Kellogg's dropped him, he was fair game to other cereal companies and General Mills became interested. Maybe you should contact the EBA directly instead of berating me personally. Your Tone Addressment: It just seems that your tone is incredibly degrading and truth be told, is starting to verge into WP:BULLY. Please stop harassing me. SeanKlitzner (talk 11:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: WP:Verifiability (a core Wikipedia content policy) is a big issue here. Per WP:V extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which is not present. Your claims of notability need to be backed up by reliable published sources. If everything about Exerball is under wraps, then Exerball is not ready for Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: i don't understand. Where are the extraordinary claims when it deals with Exerball? Wait a minute Genester, are you referring to the sponsorships or the EBA again? LOL! Let's focus on the legitimacy of Exerball, the sport that is sweeping the nation, first. SeanKlitzner (talk 08:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable at all. "the entire nation is going crazy for it" clearly isn't true -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sport is sweeping the town of Ellesmere Port in England and so is making an impact. User:deanlfc95 (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2011 (GMT)

Have you got a source for that statement? The only page that google knows about that contains both "exerball" and "Ellesmere Port" this this deletion discussion. Wikipedia is based on the principle of verifiability - if it isn't verifiable it doesn't belong. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 24 June 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lonely Little Men[edit]

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

Non-notable Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A gnews search brings up nothing. Non-notable. Thebrickwithouse 17:44 18 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was '. Speedy deleted twice by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) and Sphilbrick (talk · contribs). Procedural close. —Spaceman'Spiff 20:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P Sridhar Reddy[edit]

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

Non-notable person; the two groups that he chairs don't have a WP article about them. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 08:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some More links

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXOr8-0ayXQ - TV5 Naveen inteviewed ctrlS CMD Sridhe Reddy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=illy2LzIlrQ - CtrlS Datacenters' P.S. Reddy: Indian IT Services Firms Need to Move up the Value Chain http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/article.cfm?articleid=4531 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.2.62 (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Clearly not notable in accordance with WP:N and WP:BIO. There is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject whatsoever. Looks to me that this is very much a vanity article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, biospam. Hairhorn (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 15 reference over there. and there are also some 10+ articles everywhere. Is this because he is not a notable person you can find this much articles ?

can someone tell that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SureshBabu007 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check this also http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22P+Sridhar+Reddy%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SureshBabu007 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News - also take a look at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22P+Sridhar+Reddy%22

Scholar - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22P+Sridhar+Reddy%22

Images - http://www.google.com/search?q=p+sridhar+reddy&hl=en&pwst=1&site=webhp&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=_6j8Tf-mOYjZrQfqsIHdDw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CA4Q_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=709 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SureshBabu007 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've delinked the Pioneer Group as the link didn't go to one of the companies referred to. Looks like a man building a business, but no notability I can see. Volume of references isn't everything - there has to be something of note for the references to be necessary. At present, i can't see this. Peridon (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 18 June 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. postdlf (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon price policy ( Australia)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, so the article fails WP:ORIGINAL. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already covered at Carbon tax#Australia Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carbon tax#Australia Porturology (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Full of original research and already covered properly in the Carbon tax article. Not worth a redirect, as it is highly unlikely that someone is going to type "Carbon price policy ( Australia)" with the space between the bracket and Australia. Jenks24 (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory for legal papers.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Coalition Against Hunger (NYCCAH)[edit]

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

Some good refs there, but the only refs that cite the company itself aren't third party. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 06:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although it appears that the article was written by someone close to the organization and needs a cleanup, it seems that the organization itself is notable. It is widely referred to in the mainstream press and its publications/research have been cited in several journals, academic papers and books. The question is whether the coverage is trivial and, because much of it is only quotations from the organization or its employees, there is a risk that the notability definition is not strictly met. On balance, however, I would lean towards keeping the article and hoping someone can improve it. Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article does have a balanced POV. The style of writing could be improved (In my opinion). If it is not balanced please state examples where you believe the text denotes this imbalance.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's topic is significant and deserves its own article; the article simply needs work.Helios Entity 2 (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the previous arguments. The article's topic is notable enough to deserve its own page and the writing does not seem significantly bias to deserve deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyg2104 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - appears notable, and there's definitely independent sourcing, but the sourcing isn't quite as strong as I'd like to see.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs to be Wikified, and kept out of the hands of COI editors, but could make for a good topic.--BristolRobin (talk) 13:55, 23 June 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 Deleted A7 by Larry V (NAC). Mtking (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Achuthanand Ravi[edit]

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

An article about a young Indian cricketer. I can't find any reliable and independent sources supporting the claims in the article. [15] Possible autobiography. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Does not meet general notability criteria or the specific notability guidelines for cricket figures, in that this individual has not played at a senior enough level. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can a speedy deletion tag be placed twice on an article???? I had PRODed it under the impression once a speedy deletion tag is removed it can't be replaced, clearly this person thinks they're notable (how they've come to that conclusion I don't know). They've not played first-class, List A or Twenty20 cricket. They make note of having played for India Under-19s (itself is non-notable cricket) which is blatant nonsense. The entire article constitutes a hoax! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to replace a CSD tag. I nominated the article here, since the first CSD nom (A7) was declined with the following reasoning: "rm speedy: clearly asserts notability", and the second CSD nom ((db-g11)) was in my opinion inapplicable. I too think it is a hopeless page. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe this is the latest incarnation of Adrian Shankar! But no, common sense should prevail, this is obviously a blatant hoax. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy delete. Why is there a discussion? It should have been speedy deleted, because obviously the article is not notable. Intoronto1125Talk Contributions `
Delete Can not find any sources to back up the claims in the article. As for why it is not a speedy, it makes a claim to significance ("He has a batting average of over 60 in first-class cricket") and as I don't think that it is a Hoax can't see what other grounds it meets. Mtking (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Wikipedia guidelines. I agree that there shouldn't have been a discussion, not to mention I received 0 results on my online search when searching that name. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:59, 19 June 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 United States Constitution. This article constitutes WP:SYNTH as there is no indication that the topic as a whole is notable. However, since many individual errors do have reliable sources, we can merge any relevant content into the main article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in the United States Constitution[edit]

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

An unregistered user has been blanking a section of the article, and expressed an opinion on the talk page that the page should be deleted. That said, it IS poorly referenced. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You would think that something serious like the Constitution, there would be strong and reliable sources. I'm going have to say delete on this one. SwisterTwister (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the verifiable and noteworthy aspects of this topic into United States Constitution. The subject matter is clearly a subset of the US Constitution and it seems appropriate to include any discussion of typographical errors in its drafting in that article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge The BBC should be a reliable enough source. This is kind of a minor topic, but in fact much more interesting than many found here. It could be a section in United States Constitution or left where it is. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. Reliable sources exist. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are sources out there, but not in abundance. Protonk (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note The BBC article is not a reliable source. It is not published by the BBC but on a BBC-hosted self-publishing platform. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its notable. It is a rather notable topic. The current source is not strong but sources are available, I did a small search and found this [16] which shows the importance of the issue: "The Case of the Half-Million Dollar Typo: The Supreme Court Traps Property Owners in a Catch-22". This article needs more attention, not deleting. And to be noted that this consideration for deletion has started on the semi-vandalism of an anonymous source. Farmanesh (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The FindLaw article you refer to does not specify in what document this costly typo appears, but refers to it as "the fateful typo designating the San Remo as a 'residential' hotel". The Bill of Rights does not mention the San Remo, a hotel in San Francisco that was in fact only built much later, so it is not the document in question. Although the FindLaw article contains a paragraph explaining the Takings Clause, it does not refer in any way to typos or punctuation in relation to the Constitution, and does not support any of the material in the Wikipedia article under discussion here. --Lambiam 11:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are not reliable. The BBC may generally be reliable, but in this case the only apparently serious source is actually a somewhat tongue-in-cheek entry on h2g2, and, as the site states: "Anyone can write for the Guide". In spite of the grandiose title of this article, the fact is that when the Constitution was written there was no authoritative source for the orthography of English, nor an authoritative grammar or manual of style that could have mandated the use of punctuation. Thus, variations in spelling in documents of these days (e.g. musick vs. music) should not lightly be classified as "errors", and no inference can be drawn as to the restrictiveness or lack thereof of a clause from the presence or absence of commas. Even if you could, the absence or presence of an optional comma can not be called an "error". The h2g2 entry was undoubtedly inspired by the West Wing episode. Note further that the quotation of the h2g2 entry refers to "commas" in the plural. The full entry commits an unexplained switcheroo from singular "comma" to plural "commas", and then states, without specifying any source, "Some would say that there are two commas surrounding the words 'for public use'." But no other source even vaguely suggests there might be a comma in front of the words "for public use"; the claim that "some" would say that appears to be made up for dramatic purposes. We should not enshrine this specimen of unreliable original research on our reliable encyclopedia. If there are reliable sources concerning the comma issue, then the information on that belongs in our Takings clause article. --Lambiam 10:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would require better sources. Doubtful that spelling in the U.S. constitution could be seen as errors since spelling had not yet been standardized. TFD (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into existing Constitution article due to limited content jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - I have heard these argumentxs before and even if they aren't currently used on the article they do exist. Due to limited content though I would be ok with merging this with the US Constitution article as long as it doesn't adversely affect the assessment of the Constitution article. --Kumioko (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is WP:SYNTH, not a singular and meaningful topic and not notable. The question of whether there is a comma in the Takings Clause can, if reliable sources are found discussing the possible anomaly and its significance, be added to the article on the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As noted above, however, the supposed BBC article is not a reliable source because it is not authored nor edited by the BBC, but is instead merely hosted on their website; the disclaimer at the bottom of that page makes that clear.[17] Everything else in this article is just a WP:COATRACK added afterward (compare to original version) consisting only of unsourced and informal observations of historical shifts in the language, which has nothing to do with "errors" or typographical ambiguity. postdlf (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (in other words, "per Lambiam." postdlf (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete due to the complete lack of reliable sources discussing this concept. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 21:32, 24 June 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) 03:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Van Scoyoc Associates[edit]

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

This article has a number of references, but after ignoring those that are not considered reliable under RS are there sufficient remaining to establish notability? RJFJR (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 6 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) 01:13, 11 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Does not have RS to qualify notability. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:49, 18 June 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) 03:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott M. Seaman[edit]

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

Busy fellow, but ultimately not notable. —Chowbok ☠ 06:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Very busy fellow indeed. If we can find any reliable sources for his awards listed here I'd be tempted to vote keep, but right now I'm not seeing notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A vote here to not delete. This guy is not only busy, but has made major contributions to the advancement of insurance law and in the area of cancer as well. There seems to be a lot of reliable sources cited already. It is a keeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawscope (talk • contribs) 02:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above is the user's only contribution to the site.—Chowbok ☠ 03:23, 10 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) 01:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say raising millions for cancer research and adding substantially to public awareness and education on cancer is noteworthy in and of its self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onarollnow (talk • contribs) 22:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Hmm, yet another brand-new account voting on this issue. What a coincidence!—Chowbok ☠ 00:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A no vote for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CityofChicago1998 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish somebody who isn't Scott Seaman would vote on this...—Chowbok ☠ 02:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Chowbok has an ax to grind and cannot support the position he advanced in nominating this for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CityofChicago1998 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's against policy to create articles about yourself, as well as to use multiple accounts for voting. I'll let the admins decide if my argument has been adequately presented.—Chowbok ☠ 03:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not created an article about myself or voted under multiple names. What is against policy is to use this as a vehicle to make snide comments, attack others who are voting and commenting, and nominate articles for deletion based upon your own bias and personal agenda. It is disappointing that rather than conceding the lack of merit regarding your "not notable" ground or debating that issue on the merits you have decided to go this route. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CityofChicago1998 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh. So were somebody to, say, do a checkuser on CityofChicago1998, Onarollnow, and Lawscope, they wouldn't see that they were all at the same IP?—Chowbok ☠ 00:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody, say, read the article fairly and without bias, they would see that it is noteworthy and should not be deleted. If somebody, say, read your comments, they would conclude that you have failed to support your nomination for deletion and have gone way off course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CityofChicago1998 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seaman does not meet the notability requirements for inclusion in WP. To be notable he must have received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", which he has not. His work is cited, but only on a very limited basis. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really, really hate the fact that nominators are allowed to badger others who state their opinions on the inclusion-worthiness of a nomination. It is a form of aggressiveness akin to edit-warring, it is unseemly, and it has the distinct flavor of WP:OWNERSHIP. It should be a banned practice. Nominate, state your case, and get the hell out of the way. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite his commendable volunteer work, I am not seeing a claim to notability on behalf of the article subject. He is clearly a successful attorney. The page is detailed and sourced, albeit to sources which do not "count" in a notability challenge, in that they are not independent and do not deal substantially with the subject. I am unfortunately finding nothing in the way of third party sources that speaks to encyclopedia-worthiness Carrite (talk) 15:43, 18 June 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) 20:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slaves of Virgo[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. no way it meets this criteria. one gnews hit [18]. also nominating by same band:

Matriarch (album) LibStar (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 4 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) 00:58, 11 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that notability has not been established - no substantial coverage in third party sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:32, 21 June 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) 03:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything You Desire[edit]

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

Unreferenced and no assertion of notability. RJFJR (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:NBOOK. Could not find any significant coverage. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 6 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) 00:52, 11 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet the notability requirements for books. To do so, it must have been the subject of multiple non-trivial reviews (I can only find one), won a majory literary award (it hasn't), made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement (it hasn't), is the subject of instruction at multiple educational programs (it isn't) or the book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable (he isn't). Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:26, 18 June 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) 03:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one singles (Israel)[edit]

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

WP:NOTADVERTISING applies. Parent article on list was deleted long ago based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli Singles Chart (2nd nomination). The Israeli Singles Chart has been on WP:BADCHARTS for a similar length of time. It's a single-network voting playlist: essentially promotional for the network in question, with no relationship to actual sales or airplay. —Kww(talk) 18:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 6 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) 00:49, 11 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This notice was placed at WT:Record charts.—Kww(talk) 12:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If the parent article was deleted, then how can this stay up? Basically, if the chart fails to meet Wiki guidelines, then the list of #1 songs from said chart certainly fails as well. SKS (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Galgalatz is an unreliable chart and any list based on it is so too. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per SKS. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:29, 19 June 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) 03:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dele Okenla[edit]

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

Failed election candidate; a member of a new-ish Nigerian political party (not the leader or even a leader, as far as I can work out); second-tier officer of a university students' union; some sort of minor poet. Sorry, this seems just not to meet WP:GNG. PROD was deleted. Sitush (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Person who recommended this for deletion must have acted out of malice and questionable motives. A Vice-President of any institution can definitely not be called a second-tier officer. Failing to win an election or winning an election is not the yardstick for measuring notability. Mr Okenla is a leader of a political party and should be seen as such. Political parties are not sole businesses. Mr Okenla is a notable poet whose works are well-known and a popular Nigerian politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.20.130 (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Let's focus on whether this article is worthy of being kept on Wikipedia rather than on speculating about the nominator's motives. There is no reason to assume that malice or questionable motives were involved here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment. Unsuccessful candidates in elections is one indicator for failing notability, per the guidelines. The students' union election results appear to show vice-presidents (of which there are four) as a second tier. I requested a cite for the poetry in an edit summary but the result was merely a self-published blog. I have since requested an ISBN using the same method, which I accept is not the ideal way to address the point. I still contend that "a leader" (or "a frontline leader", as the article has it) is vague and I have been unable to narrow things down to him being, for example, "the leader". GSearch reveals not a lot other than blogs/SPS/ephemeral etc, or at least not until the point where I gave up. Perhaps I should have persisted. I also note that the political party is, by self-confession, new-ish. It could be transient, who knows? I would be quite happy for the article's subject to reappear here in the event that any of these issues, but in particular the politics ones, become something tangible. As things stand, it appears to fail several notability tests. Finally, I'm not too happy with the IP user's response above. I had never heard of this person before and, frankly, after doing some digging I am not a lot wiser now. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) comment. The category that Dele Okenla was listed appears to be Nigerian politicians and not world leaders. The fact that Sitush has never heard of him is immaterial here. If he is a notable Nigerian politician then he deserves a listing. Hilary Clinton also failed to win an election, that does not mean that she should be delisted. I think the entry/article should stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.51.253 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is unclear if EMNews is a reliable source. If we assume that it is, then it is still only one article written about him. And I'm not convinced that it is a reliable source. The subject does not meet general notability, nor does the subject meet the criteria for politicians. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 10 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) 00:48, 11 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no online evidence that Okenla has met the notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. He is a failed candidate and there is nothing of significance online to suggest he is a "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". Somewhat problematic, as Nigerian news is not as widely published online as, say, the US, but without evidence of notability we can't justify his inclusion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:33, 18 June 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 Athletics (disambiguation). Frankly, there is no consensus. However, I see no virtue in relisting because I see no likelihood of any better consensus developing. Looking at the content, it is based on the US interpretation of the term 'athletics', that is already covered at Athletics (U.S.) (which should actually be called Athletics (United States) but that is another matter :-)), and is not, in fact, an overview hence the title is misleading. One of the suggested targets Athletic sports has, as it happens, also been redirected to Athletics (U.S.) so it no longer exists as a target. What we have are two definitions of 'athletics'; one used in the US and one for the rest of the world. The narrower definition, I would add is not the exclusive province of Europe since it is also the IOC usage. Consequently, a redirect to sport would give unjustifiable primacy to the US interpretation. My inclination, initially, was simply to delete the article since the content is contained elsewhere. However, since the last commentator says that they have merged the content, outright deletion may have GFDL implications. Consequently, I think that my retargeting is both the best solution and one which will enable searchers on the title to find the information that they are seeking. The content is under the redirect for the benefit of any editor looking to carry out any further merge. TerriersFan (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics (overview)[edit]

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

Contested PROD: we already have articles athletics (sport) and athletic sports, another article is hardly needed. But despite it's title and lead it has little on athletics, but is mostly a list of criteria for what makes as good athlete. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athletic sports is a stub. Athletics (overview) is a new page, approved directly by the project manager, SillyFolkBoy. The new page is clearly much more developed and referenced than the extremely weak stub, and it links to many pertinent Wikipedia pages. JohnBlackburne's suggestion to delete the much stronger page seems to be worthy of ridicule, as Athletics (overview) was a much-needed page to elaborate on the general topic of athletics, whereas the existing WP pages all fall under the more general topic.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of Tesscass, I have also posted a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation to escalate the ambiguity of "Athletics" and "Athlete."TommyKirchhoff (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page deals with a notable topic, but it is one which we are struggling to find an appropriate disambiguation for. I had hoped to cover this (chiefly American) topic when I created athletic sports, but this title ignores the fact that athletics goes beyond just the sports and include the ideas of physical training, games and fitness. This problem is further complicated by the existence of the more narrowly defined European idea of "athletics", which can be found at athletics (sport). I do not think "Athletics (overview)" is the best title we could find – perhaps we should merge the ideas found here with those at athletic sports under a different title? SFB 13:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I exalt SillyFolkBoy for his ongoing efforts in this project, and apologize for any skinned knees I might have caused. Considering User:Earthlyreason's talk point below; and links I posted at the end of the Talk:Athletics (sport) page (i.e. Gaelic Athletic Association has football and coaching http://www.gaa.ie/); the fact that North America and Asia use the term "Athletics" in the same general way, I agree that Athletics (overview) is a clunky name, but believe the page should just be called Athletics with a tophat link to Athletics (disambiguation) and perhaps Athletics (sport) which is another ambiguous page name (I still believe "Athletics (games)" would be more clear). Based on Earthlyreason's citation from Collins, Sportsperson should also be called Athlete in an effort to reduce the ambiguity.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Earthlyreason posted this on the discussion page of Sportsperson:

As 'athlete' has a single major meaning, which this page aspires to describe, that should be the page name, with a separate disambiguation page for the other minor related terms, such as the band. 'Athlete' is much more common than the ugly and rare 'sportsperson' including in the UK (I speak as a Brit who defends British English against marginalisation.) As a start to improving this page, I've removed the inaccurate reference to AmE, and - in a first for this page - included a reference to back it up. Here it is in full (note that order of meanings implies importance):

Collins English Dictionary (Millennium Ed) - a British publication

athlete (1) a person trained to compete in sports or exercises involving physical strength, speed or endurance. (2) a person who has a natural aptitude for physical activities. (3) Chiefly Brit. a competitor in track and field events.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 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) 00:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to sport. Needless, duplicative article with too many flaws that are not worth fixing. Alex Middleton (talk) 23:53, 12 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move Following on from my comments above, the best solutions I have for this situation are (a) Move these ideas to athletics (activity) or athletic activity, (b) Merge this with athletic sports.

I think the first option is the best because, primarily, it acknowledges the broadness of the term beyond its application of just sport (i.e. inclusive of non-sporting activities/exercise etc). Furthermore, it maintains the word athletics as the first in its title, which is desirable because that is likely the word that most (American) people will be using to find information on this topic. Contrary to Alex, I don't think a redirect to sport is the best option because sport has so much more of a competitive slant and includes activities with cars, boats and animals. In comparison, athletics is an idea which more encompasses the systems of human physical activity. SFB 10:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/diversity+and+inclusion/gender+equity+and+title+ix/facts.html (Third paragraph, and down...)

The NCAA is probably the largest athletics association in the world, governing more than 400,000 athletes http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_college_athletes_are_there

Though similar, the sport page has much weaker references (mostly dictionary), is poorly-organized, and admits the IOC recognizes Chess as a sport.

The reason Athletic sports is still a stub lies in the fact that it perpetuates the existing ambiguity surrounding "athletics." Clearly, no one wants to edit this page.

Athletics (overview) has been needed for a long time. It has excellent potential to be a informational cornerstone of WP, and also dissolve much ambiguity. I believe that if the name were changed to simply Athletics with an immediate hatnote to Athletics (track & field & footracing), this will best allow users to quickly navigate to the information they seek. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is also important to recognize that Athletics (sport) (25 references) exists as a smaller, weaker duplicate of Track and field (120 references). The primary difference here is the European semantic inclusion of footracing i.e. walking and climbing stairs. "Track" as it is commonly known in N. America does not imply a circular path, but a "track or path," as in Cross country running.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are important points, but we should use this page to debate whether the article in question should be deleted or remain, not whether it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Athletics. I have responded to your comments at Talk:Athletics. SFB 17:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to sport per Alex Middleton. The page name isn't useful and the information generally seems to be redundant with what should be covered at sport. I would also like to see Athletic sports merged into sport, but that's another discussion. Location (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word "athletics" is used hundreds of times in this link: http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D111.pdf

The NCAA governs over 400,000 student-athletes. Perhaps this specific passage from the NCAA manual will clarify "athletics" in general usage and as a "useful page name:"

3.2.4.5 Application of Rules to All Recognized Varsity Sports.

To be recognized as a varsity sport, the following conditions must be met:

(b) The sport officially shall have been accorded varsity status by the institution’s president or chancellor or committee responsible for intercollegiate athletics; (Revised: 3/8/06)

(c) The sport is administered by the department of intercollegiate athletics;

(d) The eligibility of student-athletes participating in the sport shall be reviewed and certified by a staff member designated by the institution’s president or chancellor or committee responsible for intercollegiate athletics policy;

TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try this link: http://www.mgoblue.com/

Right under "tickets," it reads "give to athletics." Athletics is used as a broad term encompassing sports & games like golf & football. And please notice "NCAA Rules" right next to that. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I think it vitally important to recognize the traffic Athletics (overview) received in the month of June 2011. It exceeds 5000 visits. http://stats.grok.se/en/201106/athletics_%28overview%29 TommyKirchhoff (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant. A page that is currently the subject of both a deletion debate and a proposed move will see a spike in page views. It means nothing. older ≠ wiser 19:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I live in the U.S., I am fully aware of the American usage of "athletics". The term is virtually synonymous with "sports". Location (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sport includes Chess. Athletics does not. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mgoblue.com/ Right under tickets, it says, "GIVE TO ATHLETICS" The University of Michigan calls its teams "Wolverines," not "Athletics."

Hence the reason for Athletic sports which refers to the American English usage of "athletics". An article with "overview" used for disambiguation simply does not clarify matters. Location (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And clicking through it takes you e.g. here where it's clear they are using 'Athletics' as short for 'Michigan Athletics'. Such usage is hardly unusual or even unique to the US: there's a Premier League football team (here) in the UK called Wigan Athletic, popularly known as 'The Latics'. But it's irrelevant. There is an article on the broad definition of athletics, and one on the narrower definition, and a DAB page for those really unsure which they want. Another article is not needed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh)...and again, Athletic sports is a stub. I guess JohnBlackburne favors minimalist efforts on Wikipedia. Groovy John, but this is a non-profit information site. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created that article as an avenue where the broader ideas of athletic sports and the American meaning of athletics, also found at athletics (overview) now, could be discussed (hence the reason from the very first edit it began "Athletic sports, also known as... athletics (AmEng)"). The article was short, not as an intentional insult to the topic matter, but because I was a little tired from having spent two months of my free time reading for and writing about the athletics (sport) and track and field topics. The article is not final and remains open to additions. SFB 20:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest merging this article with Athletic sports as both articles seem to cover the exclusively US usage of the term athletics. I wonder if it might then be best to rename the page "Athletics (US)". Whatever is decided this page needs to be renamed as it is not an overview of athletics but rather an overview of the term as used in the US, and is therefore confusing for the non-American reader. Dahliarose (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the international adamance to distance the ubiquitous "athletic" from the ambiguous "athletics," I must support Dahliarose's suggestion here. We all agree that "athletics" is ambiguous, and as such, naming the broad topic "athletic sports" and the narrow topic "athletics (sport)" only intensifies the ambiguity. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (I've already done it anyway but) I suggest that this article be merged with athletic sports and placed at Athletics (U.S.), to denote the American meaning of the word. SFB 19:04, 26 June 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. Favonian (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Prietto[edit]

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

Doesn't even make claims that would pass notability. There is a claim that the guy is a professional skimboarder, but it doesn't appear that it is a carerr type thing. Main claim is that Prietto was a model on a reality show and was the second person eliminated. Not seeing a lot of significant third party coverage. GNews has 5 returns, 4 from Buddy TV and all 5 simply being episode recaps.Most Google returns were mainly mentions of him on the show. As a model, he fails WP:NMODEL and I can't see him passing WP:ATHLETE as a professional skimboarder. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nom says, doesn't have any significant coverage in independent reliable sources and therefore does not pass WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there isn't enough to make an encyclopedia article, I searched the name in both Google and Yahoo with no avail. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 23 June 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 Dinah Shore. "Keep" arguments are WP:EFFORT. If you would like to argue that Wikipedia should be more inclusive, then propose it on a project talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Sentimental Reasons (Dinah Shore/ASV album)[edit]

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

Prodded for lack of sources and notability. Deprodder added "sources" from Filmbug (doesn't look reliable) and CMT (reliable) that are literally no more than directory listings. A directory listing doesn't cut it. Precedent is that compilation albums have to assert individual notability, which these do not — there are literally no third party sources about either one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this kind of proposed deletion is one reason I feel like quitting Wikipedia editing entirely. The definition of "reliable source" as it is given strictly is satisfied by just about nothing on the Web; what would qualify as a reliable source for just about any album that would satisfy TPH, I can't imagine. And, notability, again, is something that is hard to assert. These two concepts, "reliable source" and "notability" are the death of the Wikipedia I used to love. Why not simply propose deletion for all albums? -- BRG (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would qualify as a reliable source is a review in Allmusic or some other reliable review site. I don't know why you think I want everything deleted. You're out of your freaking mind, and you're jumping to conclusions. I have no idea how you think that the "wikipedia you used to love" ever accepted articles on anything and everything. I've been here since December 2005 and it took me maybe a couple months to figure out that I can't cite an article to someone's personal site on Angelfire, nor should I make an article on an album if I know literally nothing about it save for the tracklist. All I hear from your argument is "bawwwwww, Hammer's a meanie, he tagged my awticwe for dewetion... bawwwww!" Grow up already, for crying out loud. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not "bawwwwww, Hammer's a meanie, he tagged my awticwe for dewetion... bawwwww!" It's simply THIS. In 2003, when first started editing on Wikipedia, NOBODY ever cared whether an article was sourced or not. And the criterion was not "notability" according to some formalistic definition, but whether someone would be likely to want to read the article. Sources got put in occasionally, but nobody would ever actually delete an article because it was not sourced; they'd find a source if they could. And certainly, reliability was never an issue -- in fact, 99% of the sources given even today, I am quite sure, would not technically qualify as "reliable" under the definition that is current now.

I have been editing on Wikipedia since 2003 -- thousands, probably tens of thousands of edits. It used to be fun. I have made hardly any edits in the past year because of challenges like this one. Which would you like to see, a Wikipedia that died because nobody wants to edit it any more or one which has a few articles on subjects you deem not sufficiently notable, with sources that don't qualify as reliable under the stupid restrictions that have been put in in recent years?

And my complaint is not just that my article is up for deletion; it is that anything that has value is put up for deletion. The genius of Wikipedia used to be that "anyone could edit," but if some sources are not deemed "reliable" Wikipedia is differentiating between sources in a way it does not differentiate between editors. If anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, anyone should be able to create a Website that can be cited -- the criterion for both being that they have knowledge about the subject or of where material can be found about it.

Notability, supposedly, has rules defining it, but these rules were never put before all the editors in a vote: only a few activists formulated them. To me, any subject is notable if more people than the creator and his/her personal friends might be interested in it.

Perhaps I can't win on this, but the big loser is Wikipedia, which has begun to die ever since these twin viruses of "notability" and "source reliability" have been introduced. -- BRG (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only found this article because of the AFD. Dinah in the 1940's was an amazingly popular singer, in crossover blues/jazz/pop, with many hit records. I will make it a point to buy this album. Somehow a compilation of hit songs by a major recording artist ought to be notable. If not, then perhaps the guideline needs tweaking. What exactly is the applicable guideline, and how does this album score on it? Edison (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUMS is the guideline you're looking for:

"All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting."

Per WP:OUTCOMES, though, compilations are far less likely to be notable unless they charted and/or were extensively reviewed; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Hits (Blue Öyster Cult album). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 6 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) 00:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per BRG. I agree that excessive deletion nominations are hugely damaging to wikipedia. As the board recently noted, the number of contributors is going down, and this is the projects worst problem, but it is only to be expected when well-meaning and harmless articles are destroyed. Alex Middleton (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can discover no substantive treatment of this album in reliable sources. Many, many Shore compilations have been released, and there's nothing to show that this one is notable. Deor (talk) 02:56, 13 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case my comment was not recorded as a vote to Keep, let me indicate it as such. There clearly is no big interest one way or the other — two people, Ten Pound Hammer and Deor, want to delete it; two, Alex Middleton and myself, want to keep it, and one, Edison, makes a comment which I would also consider as favorable to keeping it. But five comments in two weeks hardly evinces much interest in the disposition of this, and considering that the are only two of those five advocating deletion, I think this would indicate keeping it. What is necessary to take this proposal off the table? -- BRG (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you gave an actual policy-based reason for keeping it or were able to supply reliable sources to establish the notability of the compilation, your case would be stronger. You may want to read WP:DISCUSSAFD, which points out that these discussions are decided not by majority vote but by the relevancy of the arguments. "These two concepts, 'reliable source' and 'notability' are the death of the Wikipedia I used to love" isn't much of an argument. Deor (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the point has been better made by Alex Middleton:

[E]xcessive deletion nominations are hugely damaging to [W]ikipedia. As the board recently noted, the number of contributors is going down, and this is the projects worst problem, but it is only to be expected when well-meaning and harmless articles are destroyed.

The fact is, I believe I'm the kind of person Wikipedia wants as an editor; I've been on the project since 2003, with thousands of edits, but for the last year or so, I've made very few edits. Why? Because I've just gotten fed up with having to defend the notability of my subjects or the reliability of my sources. I can certainly speak for a lot of other editors who happily improved Wikipedia over the years, but are no longer very much involved.

You ask for "an actual policy-based reason"; my point is actually that the policy is the problem. People like you are killing Wikipedia, rather than helping it.-- BRG (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And your tl;dr filibustering is helping... how? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is 1 reference and the recording of For Sentimental Reasons is mentioned at (I Love You) For Sentimental Reasons. If any other of the recordings are well-known they can also be noted on the original song's page. I don't believe this album overall is notable enough for its own article.--EdwardZhao (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus was for deletion based on the lack of coverage in reliable sources. TerriersFan (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Sushi Day[edit]

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

Sources are facebook, facebook, facebook, a blog, another blog, a comment on a cooking site and a press release. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Not so much. This should be deleted, not featured on the Main Page. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with (perhaps) a passing mention in Sushi. This event has not, in my opinion, received the widespread coverage required of WP:EVENT. The few news articles are foodie blogs seemingly promoting restaurants and promotional/advertising-style press releases. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I personally don't believe it should be deleted! GottaGetDownOnFriday (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps mark this as requiring better sources rather than deleting -- A simple Google search shows that the publicity of the event reaches globally and is rooted much broader than a single company's marketing scheme. 10:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.22.180.17 (talk)

Delete - I've checked it against the tests at Wikipedia:Notability (events) and it seems to fall a long way short of notability. There's very little concrete in the current article, so it is OK to delete it now even if it might become notable at a later date. - Pointillist (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This event has received very little coverage in the news. It does not meet notability requirements.--EdwardZhao (talk) 02:39, 25 June 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) 03:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POP Station devices[edit]

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

Only claim to notability are reviews from a notable YouTube user. Looks like a steaming pile of WP:OR. Rainbow Dash 22:07, 4 June 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) 22:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source - Although I agree that they only have current relevence through the YouTube videos, I have seen these prominently in shops in my local area. I would suggest trying to find more sources before making a decision on the page. If we can't find any useful ones, then by all means delete it. Skullbird11 (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source - Whereas this is the main credible source, there are also other credible sources. These are also becoming incredibly popular in dollar stores. Some people also desire to do research on these, so this article is by all means useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.66.127 (talk) 18:13, 8 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) 00:44, 11 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As much as I love Ashens, one person's self-published comedy reviews are not sufficient to source an encyclopedic article. Marasmusine (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I too am a great fan of Dr. Ashens, but I think even he would agree that these pieces of dimestore tat are not notable. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:57, 18 June 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 Deleted G7 per creators request, no other substantial edits by other editors made except for reverts and placed tags. No current keep votes or keep votes prior to users request for G7 (blanked page/comment) Calmer Waters 05:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Little League[edit]

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

Contested PROD by the creator (who admits to a conflict of interest). The subject fails WP:ORG. The article cites no sources that discuss the group (only mention it briefly or list it), and other than being claimed to be the second oldest club, there is nothing significant about the group. The claim of being the second oldest club is also unsourced, as the reference for this claim is a dead link. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search doesn't reveal extensive coverage beyond local paper. 76.248.147.81 (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to throw this much of a fit about this, just delete it already. Another league member will create it again, don't you worry... JHawkins1128 (talk) 05:37, 18 June 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 02:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thevetat[edit]

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

This seems to be all that Helena Blavatsky wrote about this very minor character, which is why I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Dougweller (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons expressed by Dougweller. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Did a search for more than a trivial mention last night, but found none. Pim Rijkee (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Root race#The civilization of Atlantis, which is the main article on this set of beliefs. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 11:19, 18 June 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. postdlf (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Munn[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Although he has been signed to play for a professional team (who play in the fourth tier of domestic football: Premiership, Championship, League One and then League Two), he has not made a single appearance. As WP:NFOOTBALL says: "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable." — Fly by Night (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet football notability guideline having never played a match in Football League Two (although he got close, being named on the bench). In addition, a search of google news shows only a few passing mentions and nothing that could be considered close to the significant coverage that is required to meet the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having never played in a fully pro league, he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Zanoni (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Netlist Inc.[edit]

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

Spam for non-notable tech company. —Chowbok ☠ 02:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has coverage in The Register [19] [20] and Information Week [21] for its HyperCloud product. It seems to be a company specialized is super-computing or high density server products. Also WP:LISTED (publicly traded) with its own Reuters feed [22], which covered its lawsuits with Inphi and TI, as did EE Times [23] [24] [25]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per FuFoFuEd, it looks like they're clearly notable. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:59, 20 June 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 deleted by Anthony Bradbury under A10. However interested editors' attention is respectfully drawn to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delores Chamblin (Duncan) where the same topic is being debated.—S Marshall T/C 13:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Delores Chamblin[edit]

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

Calabe1992 (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Salt per suspicion of sole promotional reasons. Note: Creator has also made Delores Chamblin (Duncan), which also is being considered here for deletion. SwisterTwister (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With all due respect for the enthusiasm shown by SwisterTwister, this article is not a candidate for either speedy deletion or salting. This is an article about an African-American crochet artist with a long, documented career. Reasonable people may disagree whether or not this person is notable by Wikipedia standards. Fine. But this is not a case of a stubborn garage band or obscure promotional website trying to game our system. Let's assume good faith. Let's have a dignified one week debate rather than talking about "speedy" or "salt". Cullen328 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep as nominator gave no reason to speak of in regards to deletion; please add a reason because otherwise I see no reason for this sourced article to be removed. Nate • (chatter) 05:31, 18 June 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) 03:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Thomas O’Connor[edit]

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

Do the business accomplishments rise to the level of encyclopedic notability? Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 01:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No comments? Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 00:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 11 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) 00:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. O'Connor does not meet the notability requirements for inclusion in WP. To be notable he must have received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", which he has not. The very little coverage available is trivial in that they are articles quoting him, not about him. Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with above comment. Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 12:42, 18 June 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) 20:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Greenfield[edit]

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

I do not think what he presented here amounts to notability == minor performances only, DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 6 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) 01:12, 11 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) 00:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not demonstrated through substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. Top ghits and gnews hits seem to be about other people with the same name. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:37, 21 June 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) 03:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Chitty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnotable person.

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

Let's say that Lermontov and Simon are very roughly comparable -- both top-level artists in terms of both artistic quality and fame, just a bit below the very pinnacle but still very notable. (Simon writes mostly songs, so he puts out less quantity than Lermontov, and more importantly does not have the freedom to develop really detailed characterizations -- which I think is an important point, although not in and of itself a deal-breaker for Chitty.)

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

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

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

It's not enough. In addition, there is a BLP concern in that according to the article "Kathy was quite shy and wanted no part of the success and fame that awaited Simon" so one can assume that she'd not be happy to be here and if it's a marginal call we should decide in favor of Chitty's privacy.

(Incidentally and for another comparison, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echo Star Helstrom. And that's Bob Dylan and (possibly) the Girl From The North Country.) Herostratus (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 12 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) 00:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though I understand the reasons for retention set out in the earlier AfD debate, I am persuaded by Herostratus. Yes, she was an important part of Paul Simon's life for a period, but notability is not inherited. She is referred to, obliquely, in some of his songs. People have referred to her in biographies of Paul Simon, but she was not part of the making of his music so far as I can tell. There is no indication of what has happened in the rest of her life, so probably WP:EVENT. Not independently notable, part of the Paul Simon story, and she should not have her own biography in Wikipedia. --AJHingston (talk) 21:11, 18 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK Truck Simulator[edit]

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

Non-notable video game -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewed in at least 3 gaming magazines. Someone another 14:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 12 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) 00:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a reasonable assumption that the PC Gamer, PC Zone and PC Format reviews are significant coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 09:41, 18 June 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 02:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Phillip Walters[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be any more notable then any other police officer's death. Eeekster (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are multiple sources, including BBC News, the Evening Standard, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian. He seems to meet WP:VICTIM. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources that aren't yet in the article:
Mendick, Robert (2005-04-19). "'Howard the hypocrite'". Evening Standard. Retrieved 2011-06-17.
"Policeman's killer loses parole bid". Evening Standard. 2004-04-14. Retrieved 2011-06-17.
Dougherty, Hugh (2004-02-17). "Routine call-out ended with the killing of Pc". Evening Standard. Retrieved 2011-06-17.
Dougherty, Hugh (2004-02-17). "Yard: Don't free Pc killer". Evening Standard. Retrieved 2011-06-17.
"Lawyers receive death threats in PC killer cash row". The Guardian. 1998-08-01. Retrieved 2011-06-17.
"Dad's anger at killer's release bid". The Guardian. 2004-02-19. Retrieved 2011-06-17.
Hack, Claire (2004-02-19). "ILFORD: Police officer killed in line of duty to be remembered". The Guardian. Retrieved 2011-06-17.
"Officers remembered". The Guardian. 2002-09-11. Retrieved 2011-06-17.
"Cop killer's compensation". The Guardian. 1998-10-24. Retrieved 2011-06-17.
"Killer Wants Compensation". The Guardian. 1998-08-01. Retrieved 2011-06-17.
"Killer gets compensaton [sic] for damaged tooth". BBC News. 1998-10-10. Retrieved 2011-06-17.

Delete. Sad story, but does not meet the notability requirements of WP:EVENT. For an event to be notable, it must be a precedent for another action, having in depth press coverage that is not passing and/or have widespread geographical ramifactions. This event appears to be rather isolated, with press coverage just after the event itself and in relation to the subsequent trial of the criminals. The article is about an event, not a victim, so WP:VICTIM doesn't apply, but if it did, I believe there would still be a big question whether the victim is notable, given the passing nature of the media coverage.. Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly I would support the keeping of this article as I worked on creating it, but I would argue a few points: (1) He is the last police officer to be shot dead in London; a rare and highly-covered, notable event. (2) The case is somewhat notorious for the "pathetic" punishment handed out by the British justice system to the shooter (forensic and witness evidence supported a murder charge but the shooter was convicted only of manslaughter, and sentenced to only ten years for killing a police officer). (3) The case resulted in fierce debate over whether more, or all, police officers should be routinely armed, although the Home Secretary turned down the calls of the police commissioner and others. --TBM10 (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article doesn't say anything about the "fierce debate" about arming officres. We would need references supporting this claim. With regard to the "pathetic" punishment, I suspect that your POV. If there is ongoing media reference to the event (not just in its immediate aftermath), the first point would maybe indicate notability, but it seems that the coverage was rather time-limited. Incidently, if points 1-3 above make the article notable, they ought to mentioned in it. Wikipeterproject (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sourcing tells me Keep. Meets WP:VICTIM. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In accord with the principles that Wikipedia is not a news registry service and Wikipedia is not a memorial. The stories of 100% of police deaths in the line of duty will be reported in multiple newspapers. WP:NOTNEWS tells us to weigh whether the actual content of these reports is truly of lasting import or but another breathlessly reported news incident churned out as part of the commercial media's daily news cycle. This is, tragically, one death of an endless series, in no way more remarkable or socially significant than any other. My condolences to the family. Carrite (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. As Carrite correctly points out, such deaths will continue to occur. If this still gets significant coverage in 6 months we can revisit. LibStar (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This it not a current event, it happened 16 years ago. The sources in the article, and the ones I've listed at the top of this discussion, span that period of time and discuss the implications of this particular death. This isn't a series of routine announcements immediately following a death. --Gyrobo (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The time between page creation and nomination here is extremely short – just over an hour. Given that there do seem to be political ramifications on a number of fronts, not all of them currently discussed in the article or even on this page, I'd prefer to see how the article develops and would suggest that the AfD be put on ice for a while. Similar pages already exist, so I see no harm in giving this one some time. BlueThird (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOHARM. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNCIVIL. By so simplistically suggesting that I think the article should be kept indefinitely, just as it is, you're taking my arguments out of context. It potentially touches on a number of important areas in the wider world: the police response to domestic violence, to what extent the British police should be armed, immigration and sentencing policy, political hypocrisy, the effect the shooting had on an election campaign, and media reporting of all those. Obviously skilled and considered editing will be required to do justice to all of that, and in my opinion that's more likely if the article is given some time in front of a broad audience. BlueThird (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this article should be assessed on its merits not on the basis of other articles existing. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sure it will be. But as I pointed out and you ignored, it was nominated just over an hour after it was created. That's too soon. BlueThird (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable perspective and I generally agree with it. However, this isn't an issue of an article which is being run through the grinder due to inadequate sourcing — which may have been forthcoming if only the creator were given a reasonable length of time. This is pretty much a question of consensus regarding application of the principle of NOTNEWS to police deaths. Do multiple sources trump NOTNEWS in police deaths? That's the issue — yeah or nay? That's instantly debatable at the moment of article creation. Letting the article age for a week or a month or a year won't change that fundamental issue. Carrite (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think multiple high-quality sources, persisting over 15 years and discussing the impact of this particular death, make this a notable subject per WP:VICTIM. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:17, 24 June 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 Umpire (cricket). v/r - T P 02:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket umpire lever counter[edit]

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

I don't believe the counter is inherently notable as a stand alone article, and details of it should therefore be merged with the Umpire (cricket) article where appropriate. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and merge it. Doesn't need an AfD for this. Lugnuts (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Johnlp (talk) 20:23, 12 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) 00:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and merge it. Doesn't need an AfD for this. Lugnuts (talk) 09:28, 18 June 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 It's Better If You Don't Understand. v/r - T P 02:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Side (Bruno Mars song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Hasn't charted nor won any awards, plus, it wasn't performed anywhere. Not enough content to have its own article. Sauloviegas (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The article was originally created as a redirect to It's Better If You Don't Understand, and I see nothing in its content to justify it being a standalone article instead. Looks like all the information in the article was just copied from It's Better If You Don't Understand.--Martin IIIa (talk) 11:03, 17 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, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Deletion seems harsh and perhaps premature as Bruno is starting to catch his stride and frankly it's a good song that "should" have charted. - 24.150.195.156 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Don't see any reason that deletion would be preferable to redirection. Rlendog (talk) 15:07, 21 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before and After (song)[edit]

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

This single does not meet the WP:MUSIC singles criteria. It did place on a chart but not even in the top 10. As WP:MUSIC notes most singles do not meet notability criteria for their own article unless there are enough sources to have a significant article. In this case there is some trivia, some OR ("it's chart impact was muted[...]") and not much else. HominidMachinae (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:55, 12 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, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The song charted and has multiple covers, thus easily meeting WP:SONGS. I added references for each of these, and fixed the link to the allmusic article about the song, which can be used to expand the article as well. Indeed, the nomination itself "It did place on a chart..." acknowledges that the song meets the notability requirements for songs. Rlendog (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The song did chart and has multiple covers by notable artists, meeting the requirements for WP:SONGS. I added The Fleetwoods songs category to the page and cleaned it up a little. Housewatcher (talk) 01:28, 23 June 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.