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

The result was delete. soft deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOsa[edit]

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

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

Appears to lack significant independent coverage. Tagged for lack of notability for over a year. Given the name, it's possible that someone more familiar with this may be able to turn up something, so I've not WP:PRODed it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbulluk[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD on an article on a gamer whose only sources are to his YouTube and Xbox Live accounts, in which I could not find any other reliable independent sources that can establish notability (which does not count mentions in other forums or boilerplate mentions on other sites). –MuZemike 23:30, 26 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) –MuZemike 23:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notability-demonstrating sources in article, none in evidence via reference check. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The claim for a 1.6 million view youtube video is enough to get past a speedy, but the complete lack of any coverage about him in reliable sources means he does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above.Reichsfürst (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't find significant coverage in reliable sources, none given. Hekerui (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List_of_Star_Trek_characters_(A–F) . Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arex[edit]

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

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

This Star Trek character has no sources. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "has no sources" is not a valid deletion rationale. Did you look for sources, per WP:BEFORE? Please describe your research. Also, please discuss potential merge or redirection targets for this, given that it's related to a well-established multimedia franchise. If you can't address these issues, I suggest this be closed as speedy keep and any problems with this article can be dealt with through normal editing. postdlf (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge abbreviated summary to List_of_Star_Trek_characters_(A–F) (he's not covered at all); redirect to AREX and add a hatnote to AREX pointing toward the list-of for ST character. --EEMIV (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds like the best solution. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete @Postdlf: No out-of-universe context or notability. "Has no sources may not be the strongest argument, but then, if there are sources, why don't you add them to the article? --Crusio (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has no sources" isn't a deletion argument at all, let alone a strong one, because whether or not an article is currently sourced has nothing to do with whether it can be sourced. "I've looked for sources per WP:BEFORE and can't find any" is a deletion argument. But there's still the need to consider, at a minimum, whether this is a useful search term given that it's a character from a notable TV series and franchise, and EEMIV has suggested a proper merge and/or redirect target. postdlf (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume that when the nominator writes "has no sources", that it is meant that no sources turn up after a Google search either. If the nominator is wrong about that, then show us... --Crusio (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already communicated to Jj98's talk page my issues with his WP:VAGUEWAVE deletion rationales, failure to follow WP:BEFORE, and failure to consider alternatives to deletion in many recent AFDs (none of which has anything to do with assuming good faith), so I didn't want to bring that up again here.

        One more thing I forgot to point out re: your first comment: at least half of the sentences in the article are out-of-universe, in that they list the works in which the character appeared ("Arex is a Starfleet officer" = in-universe; "Arex appeared in Star Trek: The Animated Series and was voiced by James Doohan" = out-of-universe). Such works are, further, primary sources, so "no sources" is incorrect. The lack of secondary source coverage (if that is the case) is at least part of a good argument for not maintaining this as a standalone article, but not sufficient for outright deletion given that this can be merged into a preexisting list and it's a reasonable search term. You never did address those non-deletion alternatives: this is a character who appeared in multiple works, in multiple media, in a highly notable franchise, so it should be covered somewhere, even if only minimally. Which is a matter for normal editing to resolve, or at minimum attempted first before resorting to an AFD. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP, LEARN TO GOOGLE There's an entire article on this character in Feb. 2, 1974 St. Joseph News-Press [1] so the nominator's idea that "This Star Trek character has no sources" is totally wrong. It's also covered in the Nov 30, 1986 Chicago Sun-Times story "The Vulcan mind probe": "In the animated version of "Star Trek," the bridge crew gained a new navigator named Mr. Arex, a native of the planet "Edoa." Besides having a deep hue of ..." It's also covered in "Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry": "Fortunately, the animated Star Trek was generally a well-produced product, but the quality was principally in its writing ... With that freedom, two new crew characters were created: Lieutenant Arex, with three legs and three arms, ..." It's also covered in the book "Saturday morning fever": "Two crew members were therefore added to the regular mix, Lieutenants Arex and M 'ress .." Also the book "Sci-Fi Baby Names": "Brick-colored tripodal alien from the planet Edos who serves as navigator of the starship Enterprise on Star Trek: The Animated Series. Known for his lightning-quick reflexes, Arex leads a solitary existence when away from ..." So, yeah, plenty of sources for this character. Nominator needs to work on their Google search skills before saying a topic "has no sources." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• LEARN TO BE CIVIL AND DON'T SHOUT. The "article" in St. Joseph is decidedly minor (and without any out-of-universe context) and the Chicago Sun-Tilmes "story" is, as far as I can see (it's mostly behind a pay wall), a trivia quiz. The cites from the books given seem to be in-passing mentions. Now how does this establish notability for this particular character and the needed out-of-universe context? --Crusio (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, actually when sourced analysis from a newspaper talks to a real-world person like Gene Roddenberry about the real-world context of how a real-world animated series allows real-world writers and real-world illustrators to create more alien characters like Arex because of the relative ease of drawing aliens vs. live actors in special effects make-up, that is the exact opposite of an WP:INUNIVERSE perspective. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess we just don't live in the same real world... --Crusio (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Good finds! See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrappy-Doo, in which the same nom (and same "delete" !voter) incorrectly insist that no sources exist. I've already brought my complaints to the nom's attention here; I hope he'll take note and learn from these. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sharksaredangerous, or merge per EEMIV. As long as the content is preserved either way, and eventually it will be expanded with the sources Sharksaredangerous found. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is no evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline and I do not see anything to suggest the any article about him can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work. A search engine test does not show reliable third-party sources that address the fictional character in detail to presume that he deserves a stand-alone article. No reliable secondary source gives reception or significance for the fictional character, so I do not see a valid presumption to keep the article. Since the article has no verifiability due to the complete lack of references, all content is original research by synthesis at best, so I believe that a merge is not justified. Jfgslo (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note This AfD was closed by a non-admin (without marking it as a non-admin closure). Non-admins are only supposed to close AfDs with a clear outcome (and I think it is obvious that we have good policy-based keep and delete !votes here). In addition, the closing editor seemed to be unclear about several aspects of AfD closing (see User talk:Sprinting faster for discussions about multiple closings by this editor). I have therefore reverted this so it can be closed properly by an admin. --Crusio (talk) 13:58, 26 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) 23:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources. Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This appears to be a minor character in the Star Trek universe. The first reference of this article is not about the Arex character [2]. It is about the original series and its reception in Great Britain in 1969. The Arex character is mentioned in one half of a sentence as is the movies and the animated series that followed. This does not demonstrate signifigance of this character.

The second reference (St. Josephs) just rehashes what is available on in-universe web sites, and has no real world context pertaining to this fictional character. The third reference to the Chicago Sun times is a trivia quiz. This is not a really a reliable source, nor is there signifigant coverage of the character named "Arex".

An abstract of the fourth reference [3] appears to indicate this about "Star Trek - The Movie". There is no indication that this is about the charcter named "Arex", nor any real world context pertaining to this character. Also this article was published in 2007, which is 33 years after the animated series first aired. Based on what I have seen so far, how could this source have any relevance to a minor animated character?

If there are reliable sources for such a minor fictional figure I don't see them in this article. Also I don't see anything outside of an in-universe perspective with Google searches. The real world should be the primary frame of reference, and real world sources are certainly lacking. Also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:INFO. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To say the St. Josephs article is "rehashing what is available on in-universe web sites" is curious, given that it was published in 1974. That a newspaper went out of its way to describe a cartoon character is not meaningless.

Re: the "fourth reference", the Gazette article, it is citing a statement in the WP article that the character was featured in a comic book series that is "a continuation of the original series' five year mission"; the title of the article is "Comic fills gap in 'Star Trek' chronology"; and the abstract says that there is a chronology gap in between the events of the original Star Trek series and the events of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. So clearly that article is about maple syrup extraction. postdlf (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looks like it has received coverage in reliable 3rd party sources, much to my surprise. It appears to me that this meets Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Qrsdogg (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: seems appropriate for some kind of list. Pretty minor character with not a lot of coverage. But there is coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Mentions in articles don't equate with significant coverage. This minor fictional character can go into the list. Hekerui (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or merge per Postdlf,s argument. I read the St Joseph's article and the while the coverage of this character is not super significant, neither is it trivial. I haven't evaluated the other sources (and yes I know multiple supersources are required) but it's obvious to me that Arex shouldn't be a red link. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm afraid that the delete !voters made the stronger argument here. The subject doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Neff[edit]

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

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

Non-notable political candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not only does she fail our notability guideline for politicians, but the offfice for which she is a candidate is not high enough that she would be presumed notable even if she wins. Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable corporate executive and candidate for office with significant press coverage such as this one in addition to those in references from a (very) quick search. Obviously, the nominator didn't do much looking for coverage. Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More coverage can be found here from the local daily. Also, articles[4] about debate performance. On her announcement: [5] [6] [7] Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment Please note that the editor Letsgocrazytogether is the main author of this article and is a new single purpose account whose only contributions are related to this article and the closely related Christopher J. Dumler. Cullen328 (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My first edit was on July 17, 2011. This article has been there since July 6, 2009. Is it a problem that I updated and improved the article? Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I said main author not original author. The article was created by Cynthia Neff as an autobiography Christopher J. Dumler in connection with an unsuccessful earlier political campaign. You have edited the article heavily in recent days for the apparent purpose of promoting her current political campaign, such as adding the unsourced puffery that she is a "philanthropist". You are now the primary author of the article, but Neff herself is the original author. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where do you see Neff listed as the author? Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I apologize as I was wrong. I saw a familiar name as the original article was actually written by Christopher J. Dumler, whose related biography you wrote. Conflict of interest, anyone? Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep Yes, she's certainly local and doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN, but I feel there's enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. In addition, since she has been involved in multiple elections it does not run afoul of WP:BLP1e. However the elections are fairly local and not routinely covered by WP, which is why I'm qualifying my view with "weak." Sailsbystars (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What matters here is that there are multiple reliable sources covering this person for multiple events. I think that indicates her notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, being used as a campaign vehicle. 69.181.248.16 (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cullen328; fails WP:Politician. Also user:letsgocrazytogether has been BLOCKED as a sockpuppet [8]. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All sourced parts relate to the upcoming election and the articles don't constitute substantive coverage per WP:GNG imo. Being a candidate for local office and having no prior electoral history does not itself merit inclusion per WP:POLITICIAN either. Hekerui (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^{talk to me} 01:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. Dumler[edit]

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

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

Non-notable politicial candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as the references section shows, the subject has received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent from him which the aforementioned guideline states would assert notability. In addition to those, I found this article and [9] article about specific positions he has taken. The election is still months away, and he will likely continue receiving similar substantial coverage throughout the election. Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Our notability guideline for politicians is the product of consensus and is a useful tool for managing what would otherwise be a deluge of promotional articles to advance political campaigns. This article fails that guideline. If Letsgocrazytogether disagrees with the guideline, that editor is free to campaign to change the consensus. In the mean time, let's stick to our established notability guidelines. And applying that guideline tells us that this article should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline states that "such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." I believe that threshold has been met in this article through the numerous articles in the press (reliable and independent of him) regarding his candidacy that give it "significant" coverage. Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That language in the guideline in intended to deal with people like Ross Perot who was a notable businessman before he was an unsuccessful political candidate. It is not intended, in my opinion, to cover the routine type of local coverage that all newspapers give to every serious candidate for political office. That is routine, run-of-the-mill coverage that can be generated through press releases issued by any competent campaign manager, and this sort of coverage is insufficient, in my opinion, to establish notability. If it was, every single competent political candidate would be considered notable, and by that reasoning, Wikipedia should have an article on every single one. That is contrary to our established practice, and would be a logistical nightmare as we would have to check and edit every one for the neutral point of view. The vast majority would be written by supporters (usually paid) of those campaigns, and the problems of conflict of interest would be massive. It isn't workable in my opinion, which is based on my experience dealing with promotional articles about political candidates, and on our established practices. Cullen328 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What amount of coverage would you think would be enough coverage to merit an article? I would have thought over a dozen articles from mainstream, reputable publications would be enough to be considered "significant." Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something far more than the routine coverage given by local newspapers to every candidate for office who sends out a batch of press releases. Cullen328 (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you saying that significant coverage by local newspapers is insufficient? Why don't you get the guideline updated? Why does it matter "how" the article got published, I thought what matters is that there is substantial press coverage of the individual. Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't consider routine campaign coverage given to every candidate to be "substantial" coverage. It is run-of-the-mill. Cullen328 (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Under your argument, shouldn't articles on every candidate, including congressional candidates, be deleted since most of the coverage they receive is "routine campaign coverage given to every candidate?" For that matter, isn't most coverage of anyone "run-of-the-mill" to their position(s)? Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Our practice is to cover congressional candidates who have never before been elected to high office and are not otherwise notable in another field, in an article about the specific congressional race that gives balanced, neutral coverage to all the candidates, not just to one. Once a person has been elected to a high office, then they will have a dedicated biographical article on Wikipedia. However, every case is a battle in Articles for Deletion, and sometimes the consensus is that a widely publicized congressional candidate is notable, especially if the specific race has received in depth coverage nationally, and not just in the local district. Cullen328 (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is all the case, then why doesn't the guideline say so? I think most people would consider numerous articles in news sources dedicated specifically to the subject to be "significant" coverage. Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the entire guideline, rather than reading just the part that allows you to characterize run-of-the-mill coverage as "significant". Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And while your at it, please also read our policy statement Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment Please note that the editor Letsgocrazytogether is the main author of this article and is a new single purpose account whose only contributions are related to this article and the closely related Cynthia Neff. Cullen328 (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Fails WP:Politician and also runs afoul of WP:BLP1E as the candidate is not notable outside of this very local election. Furthermore, only the last three sources in the article should really be considered as RS for notability purposes and do not demonstrate any enduring notability. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cullen328; fails WP:Politician. Also user:letsgocrazytogether has been BLOCKED as a sockpuppet [10]. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete candidate fails WP:POLITICIAN. We can revisit should he prevail. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sailsbystars's argument and because the sources don't constitute substantial coverage of the subject. Hekerui (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of HOV lanes in the United States[edit]

List of HOV lanes in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Roadcruft. This list isn't maintainable, or useful. Rschen7754 22:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge information to respective articles and then delete. I think the information itself is useful, but not in this form. –Fredddie™ 23:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete— this is the sort of trivial cruft best suited for leaving in the specific articles rather than attempting to collate into a single list. High-occupancy vehicle lane could use a few selected, sourced, examples from this list, and the rest can be tossed out, or the information (not exact wording) merged to the appropriate articles if it isn't there already. Remember, Wikipedia is not a directory. Imzadi 1979 → 23:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor a list of indiscriminate information. --Rschen7754 23:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is quite simply an unmanageable, and utterly useless list. Dylan2448 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per other "delete" recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - HOV lanes are too common to warrant a list article. Dough4872 03:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE as excessive listing of statistics. Hekerui (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^{talk to me} 01:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Laser day[edit]

International Laser day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Something made up on a discussion forum. No significant coverage in reliable outside sources. Google search nets 12 "unique" results. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the prodder I agree, delete per WP:MADEUP. Further, it is implausible to think that an event made up today, June 26th, (as indicated in the article) has anything approaching the notability required to justify an article. Monty₈₄₅ 22:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete They sure are making it easier to delete articles on account of Wikipedia not being about things made up one day. I Jethrobot (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is a candidate for speedy deletion. I would suggest placing a speedy delete tag on the page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under what criteria? It's probably just easier to delete this one early because it doesn't stand a chance. I Jethrobot (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple CSD criteria that someone could try to shove this into, call it a hoax or a test page. I don't think it is a good fit for either, which is why I prodded it, but some people have looser interpretations of CSD policy. Monty₈₄₅ 00:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Don't think it's quite notable yet, since it was just made up yesterday. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not a notable "day", and probably not a good idea. But in any case, no coverage in reliable sources. I don't see that this fits under any speedy criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 30 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 Notepad2. joe decker^{talk to me} 01:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Balmer[edit]

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

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

Unreferenced BLP about the programmer who created Notepad2. I'm not convinced that this person is notable enough for a separate article. Furthermore, everything we need to know about him has already been mentioned in Notepad2. I'm not sure how this article survived its last AFD. Perhaps redirect to Notepad2? —Tommyjb (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. No evidence he passes WP:GNG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no coverage in reliable sources that I can find. Hekerui (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Vale Tudo Fighting[edit]

Universal Vale Tudo Fighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an unsourced article about a vale tudo promotion from the mid 90s. I found a lot of hits on Google, but I couldn't find good independent sources. I know this is a frequent problem on martial arts articles. I'm a vale tudo fan, but I also believe topics need to be notable and verifiable. Jakejr (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are no independent sources that show this article is anything but routine sports coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the previous comments. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect and lock. Early closure per WP:SNOW. Marasmusine (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classes in World of Warcraft[edit]

Classes in World of Warcraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This seems a perfect example of an article that violates wp:GAMEGUIDE. This information belongs on the official website and is in fact mostly copied from there. Yoenit (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed there are multiple AFDs for this page and the last one was closed as delete, although the article was actually redirected by the closer. This is thus a G4 candidate. Yoenit (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as Blake suggests below is even better than deletion, but the link should be protected to avoid recreation without DRV. Yoenit (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gameplay of World of Warcraft#Characters as a possible search term. Protect the redirect if you feel necessary. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I want to just say that while I am saying this article doesn't deserve to exist, I believe that with a thorough search for sources, and a complete rewrite, it could be a good article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:14, 26 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) 02:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow redirect -- I might be a little early in calling for snow, but that's all this is going to come to, if not a flat out delete. Blake's suggestion is a good candidate. No opinion on protecting the redirect. --Izno (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per User:Blake, the target already provides links that should perfectly facilitate the reader. --Taelus (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow redirect and lock - per multiple past AfDs if we're going to keep it we need to lock it from editing. --Teancum (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect per Blake. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:15, 28 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 Tug of war. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rope jousting[edit]

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

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

I came across this article as an unsourced martial arts article that was tagged for lack of notability. Someone has since added a source, but it's a single page from a middle school phys. ed. book. I don't believe this article satisfies the notability criteria.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to be a variant form of tug of war, in which there are one-man teams rather than the usual eight. We might merge into that article but, per our editing policy, there's no case for deletion. Warden (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--as written this article is worth a line in the "Notes" section of Tug of war, but not a separate article. Jakejr (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I have flagged the article for rescue. I agree that we lack sufficient sources at this time, but perhaps with more eyes on the problem, we can find additional sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its found in books, as well as in some news events proving it exists, and various groups do play this game. Dream Focus 13:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've seen this game plenty of places, under plenty of names, but it's hard to find any info on where it started. "Rope Jousting" is the best name I've seen, and to merge it with tug-of-war is silly-it's a very different game. -Jack from Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.195.51 (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to tug of war or another appropriate target. In theory this would be a suitable topic for a page, if it was actually as historically involved as an article with a name like "Learning the way from squire to knight" might lead one to believe. However the mentions do not seem to extend far beyond "this was a game played at a school game day", and, as mentioned earlier, a page about how to play a game in a middle school phys ed book certainly is not significant coverage from multiple reliable sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Tug of war This article has 1 weak source. I'd say it's worth a one line mention in the tug of war article, at best. Papaursa (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepFrom looking at the article's sources and searching, it seems that rope jousting is a legitimate game. However there is a lot of information yet to be backed up by trustworthy sources, especially reguarding the rules of the game. It definitely is not the same game as tug-of-war, it just has a similar outward appearance.--CHASEMOON (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, what sources? I haven't found any reliable sources that give the term more than passing mention. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing much in lexis nexis, the only reliable source I see is Maximum Middle School Physical Education, and that's a passing mention/instructions, and not what I would call significant coverage. I think the most we can justify is a line or two in tug of war. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge I agree with Nuujinn's comment. Astudent0 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge: little indication of "significant coverage" (most cites are mere mention) either in article or Google News/Books. WP:ITEXISTS does not demonstrate that a topic is notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Kjartan Bjerketvedt[edit]

Dag Kjartan Bjerketvedt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Also, do not believe this academic meets PROF. J04n(talk page) 21:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to meet WP:Prof#C6 if the institution is good enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment It probably needs someone with a clear understanding of the Norwegian academic system to confirm, but the page on Telemark University College doesn't indicate that it is a "major academic institution" in that country. AllyD (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC) See also the article describing the University college (Scandinavia) sector. AllyD (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete on the basis that the individual's jobs do not meet WP:PROF; his period on the board of [Forskerforbundet] might be an alternative but that organisation has no article on the English Wikipedia. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love and Sex in L.A.[edit]

Love and Sex in L.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable, never released Kilmer-san (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No coverage in reliable sources. No indication the film has ever even been screened. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although the Internet Movie Database lists this as a 2010 film, no release date is provided there, and I can't find any evidence that this film has gone on general release. The article can be re-created if the film becomes more clearly notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Oh... it's "released"... the "self-help documentary" "how to please your woman" DVD, has been available for sale on the filmmaker's website and ebay but has not had theatrical release, nor coverage in independent sources. It fails WP:NF. I might have recommended a redirect to the Brenda Venus article, but that one looks quite ripe for deletion itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:36, 28 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Shale[edit]

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

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

Non-notable local political activist, who is receiving basic coverage due to the somewhat unusual circumstances of his death (WP:1E) and his acquaintance with the British Prime Minister (WP:NOTINHERITED). GiantSnowman 20:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's less than 24 hours since he died and he has already received serious media coverage, it was the first item on Channel 4 news. Let's see how this pans out. PatGallacher (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CRYSTAL - oh, and he hasn't received "serious media coverage", his death has. Major difference. GiantSnowman 21:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep*- His connection to David Cameron and political defection makes him notable enough V. Joe (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTINHERITED. GiantSnowman 21:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete chairman of the West Oxfordshire constituency association and political aide fails WP:GNG and all the additional coverage is related to the death circumstances, but we don't include people notable only for one event or lacking substantial coverage. Hekerui (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely we should redirect this to a page about The death of Christopher Shale or similar? esperant 21:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the moment. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, that violates WP:CRYSTAL. GiantSnowman 21:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per others, particularly because of his connection to Cameron. If we are unhappy with this as a standalone article, let's have one for West Oxfordshire Conservative Association, which does deserve one, again because of its link to Cameron. We could then redirect Shale's article to that. And we do have other Conservative Association articles before anyone asks. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm voting meh. He is almost certainly not notable as a local party chairman, nor for the circumstances of his death (which do not appear to be certain at this point anyway). He might, though, be notable as a businessman: he set up a very successful public relations company, which was at one point one of the biggest in Britain, and later became managing director then Chief Executive of a management consultancy company. He also has some involvement in politics as a business supporter of the Conservative Party. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There is an obituary in this morning's Times, generally a marker for notability. May be some other papers as well (although the Telegraph obituaries have gone down in value since Hugh Massingberd died). Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not significant as a politician, has not become notable through his death. (Contrast, say, Stephen Milligan, who was an MP when he died and therefore notable besides the event of his death.) Yes, this story may become important enough to deserve an article if it turns out there's more to it, but at it hasn't yet: at the moment it's just 'minor politician dies'. Robofish (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  As an aside, if it is kept, it should be renamed to 'Death of Christopher Shale' and rewritten accordingly, along the lines of Death of Gareth Williams. Robofish (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Or as an afterthought, an alternate solution: merge to Glastonbury Festival 2011. A person dying at Glastonbury is certainly unusual, and quite possibly worthy of a mention in that page. Robofish (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  People die at music festivals every year - two at last year's Glastonbury. Nothing special about this other than the fact it was a 50-year-old man in the VIP area toilets as opposed to some 20-year-old kid ODing. GiantSnowman 22:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I stand corrected, and have struck part of my comment above. Deletion remains my first preference here, merging to the Glastonbury article would be my second. Robofish (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Snowman, just a heads up, but you've no need to rebuff everyone's comments. Take a look at this essay for some advice and guidelines. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the link, I realised that after I'd replied to a couple, hence why I've toned it down a bit! Cheers, GiantSnowman 23:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries, it's an easy trap to fall into sometimes. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Glastonbury Festival 2011 as per Robofish's suggestion - Not notable outside of his death, which appears natural and not notable as an event in its own right. If it turns out the death is suspicious, it may quality for its own page; otherwise WP:CRYSTAL clearly applies. Nigholith (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy to whomever created the stub. This article is not notable at this time, and so shouldn't be included as yet. But it is possible that it will become notable, and in that case it can back into the main article space as 'Death of Christopher Shale" or the like. Userfying will give the creator an opportunity to use the content already there should this death become notable. If it does not become notable but gets moved anyway, we can revisit its deletion at that time. Wabbott9 (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Only claims to notability are that he was an associate of someone famous, which doesn't make him notable in his own right and that he died at a music festival, which is not sufficient for an article either. Such coverage that exists so far is covered by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT as there is no evidence of lasting notability. All this is best covered by a line in the Glastonbury festival article. Change to Keep Guardian profile and obituaries in the Independent and Times establish notability per WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Not notable in his own right. His death, sad as it is, does not appear to be a notable event (natural causes and no apparent significant political consequences) and fails WP:NOTNEWS. It may be worth a sentence in the Glastonbury 2011 article and perhaps the David Cameron article (although I suspect in the context of those articles the event may not seem particularly notable). Probably no need to keep this as a redirect to one of those articles. At this time it seems unlikely to be a common search.--SabreBD (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - because if it's deleted from Wikipedia it'll cause conspiracy theories as there were over David Kelly. Important because of his comments to a national party newspaper about Conservative Party membership shortly before he died and close links to Prime Minister. Chair of a local Conservative association is not a politician so WP:POLITICIAN doesn't apply, just an office-holder within a political party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.111.82 (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporary Keep, simply because it's not worth an edit war over this one at the moment. If this story sinks without trace, we can always consider a merge to Glastonbury 2011 or something similar. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Glastonbury Festival 2011. This article may not meet the standards but it is still some pretty useful information. The Toxic Mite ^{t | c} 10:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly notable now.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as nominator, I would accept a merge with Glastonbury Festival 2011. GiantSnowman 14:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It doesn't look like 1E to me, he received coverage as a businessman back in the 90s, as well. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certainly not notable in his political capacity, and nor as a businessman as far as I can tell. Could be mentioned in the Glastonbury Page, but I wouldn't demand that either. EJBH (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP The sad circumstances of Shale's death has generated significant media coverage (google news lists over 1200 articles), coupled with the issue of the leaked 'strategy document' which was released days before he passed away. Whether he would have warranted an article had he not died is questionable, but it seems very clear to me that the circumstances of his death are clearly notable, especially considering no formal cause of death has been listed. If the Giant Snowman is concerned that the person himself is not notable, it could perhaps be moved to a page called Death of Christopher Shale, but I would imagine that this page would have to become a redirect anyway. He may have only been a local politician, but influential and notable due to his links to Cameron. If his strategy report was notable enough to cause a stir in the Mail on Sunday before his death was ever made public, surely this means the whole (WP:1E) charge is slightly absurd. Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obituary in The Independent and a Guardian profile suggest sufficient notability for an article. Philip Cross (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The UK Prime Minister called him a 'rock'. His death coinciding with the leak to the Mail on Sunday is mysterious enough to be of interest, even if it is just a coincidence, so at the very least move to Death of Christopher Shale. Wavehunter (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The late Mr Shale was a local Conservative Association friend of the current British Prime Minister. In retrospect and in the context of future biographical details about David Cameron, Mr Shales' role may turn out to be more strategically or biographically important than current available information describes. I would argue that it is premature to delete the article on this basis.Calibanu (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)User Calibanu[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) 01:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science Research and Educational Institute of Texas[edit]

Science Research and Educational Institute of Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disputed PROD. Does not meet the criteria for WP:NONPROFIT. Singularity42 (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete charity which appears to have generated no significant third party coverage, except by spammer copies of a charities register. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 30 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. Keep arguments are assertions or suggestions to find some sources. Neither is policy based. Delete argument cite strong policy based reasons. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy of scripts derived from Proto-Sinaitic[edit]

Genealogy of scripts derived from Proto-Sinaitic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is unreferenced original research. A genealogy of a language group is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia as it presumes that the genetic relationship between languages is fixed and known, and accepted by most or all linguists. In fact genetic relationships between languages are often very controversial, and there may be many different competing theories. An article like this cannot accomodate all theories, and is inherently biased to one particular theory. BabelStone (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - This is useful and encyclopedic information. It's exactly the sort of information one would wish to learn from an encyclopedia. The article has proved popular in several other language editions as well. The information mostly isn't all that controversial, and where it is, the controversies are noted (or easily can be, if not already). It isn't really original research, either - all of this info can be sourced, reflects scholarly consensus, and note that we have an abbreviated form of the same chart on one of our templates. I would rather see the sources and notes improved, than have this information simply done away with. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep it is not about languages it is about scripts. It is a very useful appendix to History_of_the_alphabet. All that is needed is some time for improvement with references.149.254.61.162 (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have myself criticized the article on its Talk page because of a totally spurious suggestion that Cherokee and Vai have a genetic relationship to Proto-Sinaitic. This article pretty much stinks of Original Research, and without external references, can't be checked or even discussed. This is just a list. I agree with Babelstone, this needs to be deleted. -- Evertype·✆ 22:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Amateur linguistics and original research at it's worst. The giveaways are the paragraph Much of the information here was compiled from the "Ancient Scripts" and "Omniglot" websites, which do not always agree. and the complete lack of references to original peer-review sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nothing in the article seems to be in blatant, large-scale contradiction to established scientific consensus, though of course better sources could be used and some details may need correcting. I don't understand the nominator's rationale at all, as (1) in fact the genetic relationships between languages is pretty well fixed and accepted by most linguists, and (2) this article says nothing whatever about the genetic relationships between languages anyway. This article is about the genetic relationships between writing systems, which is a completely different matter. —Angr (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The "article" has no sources at all. It appears to be OR, devised by people who made the infobox for language classification. -- Evertype·✆ 08:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which "infobox for language classification" would that be? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alphabet -- Evertype·✆ 15:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The concept of genealogy applied to scripts is ambiguous in some cases. The presentation of the genealogy itself make it difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish "normal genetic evolution" (phoenician > greek > latin) from more distant links (Cherokee for some letter shapes, Hangul.) The definition of "a writing system" itself is inconsitent across the tree (New Korean Orthography distinct from Hangul, Abkhaz alphabet distinct from Cyrillic). Furthermore, the tree is difficult to read and is essentially unsourced. It might be possible to make a good article out of this one, but in its current shape, it is an invitation for badly sourced OR, with an unclear purpose. Frédéric Grosshans (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The reason given for the AfD is spurious: the list has nothing to do with "genetic relationship between languages". It's about scripts, as should be obvious from the title.
  That said, there are problems with the article, esp. with inadequate notification of controversial or provisional classifications. However, IMO that should be addressed by fixing the problem, or at least tagging them; ((cn)) tags will fit on individual bullet points. Consistency can be addressed on the talk page; that's what we have talk pages for. — kwami (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I am sure that Babelstone meant "genetic relationships between scripts" which is what I understood this AfD to be about. This article is a poor one, and is nothing but OR. Look at its footnotes. It's editors making stuff up themselves. -- Evertype·✆ 14:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On each of the individual script articles, we also list that script's "parent scripts" in an infobox, as far as possible - with the same information. Not many are controversial, but none were made up or invented by editors here - they can all be sourced to reflect scholarly consensus, and usually explained in the body of the respective articles. The article under question may be unreferenced, but that's not the same as what we mean by "original research". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and rewrite The idea of a "genealogy" is central to the problems here, with the focus on a uniform tree representation forcing an over-simplification of the relationships. A topic "Scripts derived from Proto-Sinaitic" could be developed into an encyclopedic article, which might contains diagrams or trees as supporting illustrations but not as the core subject. Kanguole 23:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rewrite It is well known that scripts are "descended" from each other and have a genealogy. The problem here seems to be a lack of references, which could be easily rectified by contacting members of relevant wikiprojects to confirm that the information is valid. I do believe that the information should be presented in a different format and scripts with uncertain ancestry should be marked as such.Hermione is a dude (talk) 10:55, 30 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aiko Ikuta[edit]

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

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Also, does not appear to meet MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 19:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of reliable sources. I didn't find anything on both Yahoo and Google except music download websites. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was unable to find reliable, secondary sources either. --joe decker^{talk to me} 01:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rizzo[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. The article does not explain the notability of the subject, other than that he has written papers, although what these papers are about or why they are notable is not explained. The only sources used are websites of the institutions for which he works and his web page. (Note that there was an earlier article about a person with the same name, which was deleted.) TFD (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As noted by the nominator, this person does not meet any of the nine elements of the prof test. He's an assistant professor (non-tenured position on the tenure track below associate professor and professor). He teaches classes. He writes articles. He's a fellow at an institute/think tank started a few years ago that has yet to be deemed notable. He doesn't seem any more or less notable than any other assistant professor at a U.S. university. It should be noted that the article starter has posted a comment on the Talk page: "Being a prominent academic at one of the top universities of the nation suffices for the notability requirement. See Rudolf Kingslake, Celia Applegate, Barbara Jordan (poet) for similar pages." That's not an accurate statement of WP:PROF, which isn't nearly so broad. In addition, those individuals aren't comparable. For instance, Applegate's article states she is president of the German Studies Association (prong #6 of WP:PROF) and Jordan won the Barnard Women Poets Prize (prong #2). --JamesAM (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and comment above. I express my interest - I nominated the article for speedy delete for non-notability at its inception but this was declined on the grounds that anyone titled "Professor" automatically jumps the first notability hurdle at new pages. I can find nothing that shows that anything the assistant professor has (co) written has been independently peer-reviewed, or has been reported in independent serious sources. The inline cites to his university in the lede: number 2 doesn't mention him, and number 1 goes to his university page, where his own apparent web site [11] is mentioned, and then used as inline cite 3. The two inline jumps under "Publications" are to his co-written works - where these works appear in searches I can find no review (independent or otherwise) of the works, only a repeat of the titles and abstracts, for downloading or sale. Acabashi (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quoted in reliable sources on the economy. "If there is a bit of a dark cloud, the impact on the real economy is bigger than it was in 2001," said Michael Rizzo, economics professor at the University of Rochester. "Whether justified or not, expectations matter. It puts a brake on the economy." [12]. [13] shows a paper for which he is a co-author, with 60 cites. Thus he is a cited academic author. (lots of other ones, but this one is cited in the WP article as being the "right Michael J. Rizzo") Last I checked, being cited for multiple academic papers does confer notability. In fact, it is specifically listed as conferring notability. Nobel Prizes are not required to meet WP notability standards, really. He is quoted in magazines, and cited for academic writings. That is all WP requires. Collect (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. On GS I find cites of 705, 210, 58, 53, 36, 28.... This would seem to suffice for WP:Prof#C1. Can the nominator comment? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • I count 238 Google Scholar hits,[14] most of which are for different people with the same name. Of those which are for this subject, they all appear to refer to articles where he assisted a full professor (i.e., he does not get top billing). I can find no example of any other academic referring to his work. I do not see that his "research has made significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." In any case we would need a reliable source to explain what that significant impact was. TFD (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please distinguish between cites and hits and note that he publishes in economics under the name M J Rizzo. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You are confusing him with "Mario Rizzo", also an economist, who writes as M.J. Rizzo. There is also a medical writer. The only hits for your MJ Rizzo are his own writings, which adds up to about zero cites. TFD (talk) 014:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you correct your claim that M J Rizzo ihas absolutely zero cites. [15] 24 cites, and listed as "MJ Rizzo". [16] ditto. [17] ditto. [18] ditto as sole author. [19] ditto as sole author. And is not, repeat not, "Mario J. Rizzo." Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided a link to cites, but could you please explain what Makes Rizzo notable. What theories of his are cited and why are they notable? What was the nature of his collaboration with the other writer who received top willing in much of his work? TFD (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You made an arrantly false claim - which anyone loking at the cites I give can easily verify. Why not simply admit you erred? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFD: I will assume good faith here and assume that this nomination is not your latest attempt at personal vendetta against me, and that you are honestly confident that this article should be deleted. Can you then tell us if you have any knowledge of how the academic publishing process works and what citations mean? I ask this because you asked "What theories of his are cited and why are they notable?" and I doubt a person with any experience in publishing process will ask a question like this. And if you indeed have no prior experience in this subject, why are you so convinced that this article must be deleted? Prochron (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — TFD (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in view of the difficulty of identifying his publications. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure if having the same last name as another academic is a valid reason for deletion. In any case, User:Collect has managed to find out his publications and their number of citations. Prochron (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. According to his own list of publications, he has only seven real "academic publications", most of them in collaboration with Ehrenberg. The Google scholar citation counts for these are 60, 60, 24, 16, 14, and 4, with one ("A Panel Data Analysis of State Preferences for Funding Higher Education") not even found in Google scholar. That's not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, especially when his frequent collaborator Ehrenberg has much higher numbers (so that what impact these papers have may be due to Ehrenberg's coat-tails rather than Rizzo's contribution). If there is to be a case for keeping this article, I think it is not by WP:ACADEMIC but maybe for his popular press activity. But among the many newspaper articles mentioning someone by his name, I didn't find enough that covered him nontrivially rather than merely quoting him briefly to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am the creator of this article, and I must admit that I hesitated before doing so. I am not absolutely sure that he meets the notability guideline as vaguely stated in the WP:ACADEMIC policy. However, based on the number of citations to his papers (mentioned above by other users), and that it is significantly higher than many other academics currently on Wikipedia (check the University of Rochester faculty category, for example), I believe this demonstrates sufficient notability. I must also note that the person who nominated this article for deletion currently has a content dispute with me and that this is apparently how he managed to track down the only article I created and then nominate it for deletion, without notifying me. This is after he made a blatantly false sockpuppetry accusation against me. I will not suggest that this should in any way disqualify the nomination process, but it is something to keep in mind when taken into consideration his opinion. Prochron (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to add that the previously deleted Michael Rizzo was not about the same person, contrary to what the nominator implied. Prochron (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does having a handful of trivial cites, mostly for articles in which Rizzo was not the main author, establish that his "research has made significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline... as demonstrated by independent reliable sources? BTW I did not "imply" that the previous article was about "the same person", but wrote that it was "about a person with the same name". TFD (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About 200 citations is not "a handful of trivial cites". Should I be glad that you are now willing to admit he has a handful of cites rather than "zero"? What is it that makes you willing to repeat such blatant lies just to get this article deleted? And what do you think is a good criterion for notability?

I would also add that Rizzo appears to be a senior fellow at AHI, which is somewhat notable per criterion 6. Prochron (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria six is holding "a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society", not a senior fellow at the Alexander Hamilton Institute. And the cites are trivial, because none of the papers that cite Rizzo rely on him to any great degree. If I am wrong then find one that is non-trivial. Also, the overwhelming number of cites are to papers where the main writer was Professor Ronald G. Ehrenberg. Can you tell us anything about what Rizzo's main theories are and what writers have been influenced by him? Can you provide one article written about him or his work? TFD (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of wasting more time with you in this pointless conversation. Since you insist on carrying out this personal vendetta to the extent that you are willing to state numerous lies and invent Wikipedia policy in the process, I will hereby disengage myself from this nomination and retract my comments.

• Delete, because TFD will not stop harassing me until this is over. Prochron (talk) 21:07, 30 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 Nomination withdrawn, in essence. Moved article to more accurate title. Non-admin closure. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Technical Education (India)[edit]

Department of Technical Education (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

naveenpf (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What is the rationale for deletion? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I suggest that the nominator would be wise to withdraw this AfD. Greglocock (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - important organization that administers education institutes. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep notable enough. Needs improvement not deletion. Nom has not specified his argument for deletion. — Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speady keep: per above. Dewritech (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete There is no department like that .Department of Higher Education is divided into eight Bureaux. in that one is Technical Education[20]

--naveenpf (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Note that the above comment is from the original nominator. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for Nom Is your concern that the article topic is more accurately referred to as the Bureau of Technical Education? Would moving the article to that name and revising the copy address your concerns? I've tried to read a bit more about this organization and, frankly, I can't quite tell if it truly exists as an organization (meaning I'm not sure if it's an actual organization or just a named umbrella sitting on top of a set of organizations), so I just want to clarify what your concern is before voicing my own opinion on this. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the title confused me, that is why requested for AfD. Moving the article is more that enough. Sorry guys for the trouble. Meantime I welcome you all to budding project WP:INEI --naveenpf (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble at all; your efforts will result in this article having a more accurate name, so that's a net positive, eh? I'm going to move the article to the new name and non-admin close this AfD given this point of clarity. Thanks for clarifying! Best, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:30, 28 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 State University of New York at New Paltz#Parker Theater. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Theatre[edit]

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

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

Stub article consisting of two sentences about a single building on a university campus that is not inherently notable in any way. The building is already mentioned in considerably more detail in the State University of New York at New Paltz article, which is the appropriate location for this information; there's nothing here to merge to that page. It looks extremely unlikely that this article can be expanded sufficiently with reliable sources to grant it notability and relevance. Certainly it hasn't happened in the last year or so, since the previous AfD discussion. It seems like this article primarily exists as a photo gallery; WP:NOTGALLERY applies. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unnecessary content fork of State University of New York at New Paltz. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to State University of New York at New Paltz. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to State University of New York at New Paltz#Parker Theater. TerriersFan (talk) 15:25, 27 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. Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark John Young[edit]

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

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

Previously prodded and restored per WP:REFUND. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as only a candidate. No substantial 3rd party coverage that would pass the WP:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and pretty much every long-standing precedent in Wikipedia. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN at all. Dewritech (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks substantial 3rd party coverage that would pass the WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Anyone can run for election, that doesn't make them notable. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:59, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Tillemann-Dick[edit]

Annette Tillemann-Dick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete as non-notable. Would not even have an article if her father had not been Tom Lantos or if her daughter were not soprano Charity Tillemann-Dick, IMO. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't usually rely on Google but I find it alarming when a contemporary person scores zero hits on Google news. There are plenty of sources listed, though, but at least some are not good (such as the one that appears to be an opinion post). Finally, whether or not this article is deleted, it needs an overhaul because I think this has a fairly promotional tone. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • She doesn't have any Google News hits over the last month. For older articles, one has to look her up in the Google News Archives. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...which contain nothing remotely indicating notability, it should be pointed out. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 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 State University of New York at New Paltz. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SUNY New Paltz Music Department[edit]

SUNY New Paltz Music Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Department of SUNY New Paltz not notable in and of itself. Most references are to school yearbooks, and often fail verification of the facts claimed. If not for the lack of adequate references, I would have proposed merger to State University of New York at New Paltz, but I don't think enough of the article is well-sourced and notable enough to merit inclusion there. Per WP:NONPROFIT, "divisions, departments... of notable organizations are only rarely notable enoughto warrant a seperate article". // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to State University of New York at New Paltz. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to State University of New York at New Paltz as an unnecessary fork. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to State University of New York at New Paltz.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with State University of New York at New Paltz. I think there's some interesting material in the article which can be salvaged. It shouldn't go to waste. DavidHobby (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I've saved a copy of the current page at User:Gyrobo/SUNY New Paltz Music Department. If you want to preserve the page's history, please merge it with my user page, or delete my page and move the original. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:47, 27 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. Mkativerata (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher L. Daniels[edit]

Christopher L. Daniels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article doesn't make claims that meet any of the 9 criteria of WP:PROF. In fact, doesn't make any claims about his professorial work aside from the fact that he teaches two particular courses. JamesAM (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A 2010 PhD, too recent to have made significant academic impact. Little of relevance in GoogleBooks/GoogleScholar or anything else to indicate passing WP:PROF or WP:BIO. The current article text appears to be a copyvio of [21]. Nsk92 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No impact apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete No notability apparent. Ray^Talk 09:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find Me (Sophia Montecarlo song)[edit]

Find Me (Sophia Montecarlo song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable song. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 13:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What part of WP:NSONGS doesn't it fail? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:31, 29 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 speedily deleted by User:Tnxman307. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOR THE MOON BY NIGHT(2013) film[edit]

NOR THE MOON BY NIGHT(2013) film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Future film with no verifiable references for its existence. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 11:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has since been deleted as spam. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 13:07, 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. postdlf (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss USA, Miss Teen USA and Miss America titleholders who have appeared on reality television[edit]

List of Miss USA, Miss Teen USA and Miss America titleholders who have appeared on reality television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete - indiscriminate arbitrary list and a trivia farm. Not every intersection of every person's career path needs to be documented in a standalone list. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete - per nom, there is no indication why these three competitions in particular are noteworthy with regard to reality television. Quasihuman | Talk 20:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 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, Courcelles 07:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

This was closed as a delete, however, the nominator is now known to be a sockpuppet of a banned editor. Courcelles 07:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While interesting, an encyclopedia is for basic info on topics -- not for databases on the intersection of two different topics. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy that says: "WP is not a database"? Steve Dufour (talk) 12:09, 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 keep. All questions of process and proedural listings aside, there's no actual deletion argument here. Courcelles 09:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albatross (Monty Python sketch)[edit]

Albatross (Monty Python sketch) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This was previously discussed 4 years ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albatross (Monty Python), and was since renominated for G4 by a sockpuppet of the original banned nominator and deleted. Since other Python sketches have been recently kept, it seems like consensus very likely may have changed. Administrative nomination only--I will probably try to find sources and see if it's keepable. Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Per WP:SK: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion". There is no such thing as an administrative nomination because it is our policy that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". Warden (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, your insistence that all administrative nominations should fail because of WP:SK is, in my opinion, hurting the AFD process. Sometimes an editor needs to forward a deletion that was malformed, the subject of a DRV that decided to relist it, and so on. These do not qualify for WP:SK. We say we are not a bureaucracy, but we do have processes and procedures that should not be thrown out simply because we are not bureaucratic. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Bringing an article to AFD when you don't actually want it deleted and don't provide an reason why it should be deleted is so absurd that it could be a Monty Python sketch itself. A Fish Licence or shrubbery is not needed to recreate an article. If someone thinks that there's a problem requiring deletion then let them state what it is. Warden (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How about "So that G4 won't apply to this in the future?" Seems like a perfectly good reason to bring it to AfD for me, even if I don't want it deleted. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Now you're sounding like another sketch, "What's like a murder only begins with a B?" "Birmingham?, Burnley?" "That's right. There's been a Burnley!". Warden (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Right, stop this. It's silly. What would Guido do? Seriously, if there is reasonable expectation that notable sources can be found for this sketch (not to mention the fact it's the inspiration for the Albatross framework on Python), then it should be tagged as requiring those, not deleted. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment looking for scholarly references I found A. Pallesen. Roimata Toroa (Tears of the Albatross): A Historical Review of the Albatross in Folklore, and a Critical Examination of the Environmental Law Protections (PDF). Graduate Certificate in Antarctic Studies Literature Review. which I felt appropriate to the whole tone of the debate somehow. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not subject to deletion, merely pining for the fjords. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "It's the finest request at WP:AfD" "Why do you say that?" "It's so clean!" "It's certainly uncontaminated by reasons to delete." Keep and sell to the spectators. Wabbott9 (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wolfowitz. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• why dont we get rid of this junk? Just to clarify, that means DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My Dog makes love to my Cat (talk • contribs) 01:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your insight. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you give a reason to delete? Good one, bad one, even "Saying 'keep' causes me to put a paper bag over my head'" would be more of an argument than I've seen so far. If I were an admin, I'd be looking to close this as Keep, no community interest in deleting at this time. Oh, and someone should notify WP:BJAODN. Wabbott9 Tell me about it.... 17:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the article should be deleted because it is dumb — Preceding unsigned comment added by My Dog makes love to my Cat (talk • contribs) 05:53, 30 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. Courcelles 09:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Student Government Program[edit]

Student Government Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No significant independent third-party coverage that may suggest notability. Nothing about it can be found outside Department of Education sites. I also propose the deletion of ((Student Government in the Philippines)), a template dependent on the page. Moray An Par (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This and related articles (Bryan Eric Cerebo, NFSSG Elections, and dependent templates) seem to be vanity articles of very limited or no notability. Article reads like a training manual or a catalogue. Might also be a possible copyvio. If it is, should be speedied instead.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the Student Government Program article and template - The article and template are both unencyclopedic. The persons listed on the article lack notability. I'm scared that there will be vandalizers and/or hoaxers coming. Zollerriia63 (talk) 08:52, 27 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. Courcelles 09:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFSSG Elections[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable event by a non-notable organization. No significant independent third-party coverage that may establish notability and content. I also propose the deletion of ((National Federation of Supreme Student Governments Elections)), a dependent template. Moray An Par (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - This and related articles (Bryan Eric Cerebo, Student Government Program, and dependent templates) seem to be vanity articles of very limited or no notability. Article reads like a training manual or a catalogue.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Student Government Program article and template AfD. Zollerriia63 (talk) 09:02, 27 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. Courcelles 09:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Eric Cerebo[edit]

Bryan Eric Cerebo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. His position as president of Sangguniang Kabataan Federation (Youth Board Federation) in New Lucena, Iloilo has minimal local influence. He has no significant coverage outside his office that may suggest his notability. Only independent source found is a passing mention of his name in a Manila Standard Article. If this passes as a keep, then it would mean that every SKF and SKF presidents in every single town and city (more than 10,000; I think) in the Philippines must have their own articles. Of course, that scenario is completely stupid. Moray An Par (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Sangguniang Kabataan elected officials are by their very nature extremely local and temporary. They can not be notable by virtue of being in SKF alone.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Student-level politician who is at the local level (rather than a national level) doesn't seem notable. --JamesAM (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I didn't get any reliable hits on both Yahoo and Google. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 30 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FamilySoft[edit]

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

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

No notability evidence produced for this video game company. Shaad lko (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning it has to prove that it exists? Check its external links. If that's not enough, then do MobyGames or IGN help? Parrothead1983 (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is questioning whether or not it exists. The problem is that there are no reliable sources to confirm that it meets the notability requirements. meshach (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I took a look in Google and no sources or notability is forthcoming. Does not satisfy WP:V. meshach (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, type "ファミリーソフト" or both "FamilySoft game" and "Family Soft game". Parrothead1983 (talk) 21:36, 27 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) 01:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete　Google News search for "ファミリーソフト" or "FamilySoft" brings up zero relevant hits on google news. I did some searches on Japanese web pages, but most hits are vendors to buy their products. --I Jethrobot (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - They're not exactly a well-known game developer, but at least they're a professionally-published company and not just random doujin group. Since when did "notability" became synonymous with "popularity"? There are many articles of obscure films and bands in Wikipedia. At the very least, their Asuka 120% series have something of a small following. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a popularity but notability calls for multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject but so far it is only sourced to the hompage of the company (not idependant) and Mobygames a source that has been deemed to be situational. Finally, if there are films or bands that do not meet the notability guidelines the more logical response would be to try to delete those not keep this because they exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.180.175 (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also to add if the Asuka 120% series is fairly well known a redirect to that article may be another possibility.--76.66.180.175 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 09:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Ogureshnikov[edit]

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

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

BLP article does not show any notability. Shaad lko (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject has participated in the highest level of their sport, thus meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines for athletes. Edward321 (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has verifiably played at the World Championships and therefore meets criterion 6 of WP:NHOCKEY. 14:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: References verify that he has played in the World Championships. Oonissie (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that Fellure is notable despite strong arguments that WP:POLITICIAN is met. As WP:POLITICIAN is not black-letter law, it is open for that consensus to be formed. Mkativerata (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Fellure[edit]

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

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

Non-notable person. The Prohibition Party may itself be notable, but this unelected candidate, who does not enjoy the significant coverage in reliable sources which would enable him to pass WP:BIO and who fits none of the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN, is not notable. A previous AfD for an article on a Prohibition Party candidate resulted in a redirect to the article on the party; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leroy Pletten. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Leroy Pletten was a VP nominee of the Prohibition Party. Fellure is the current presidential nominee of the party. He satisfies criterion #1 of WP:POLITICIAN for winning the election at the National Prohibition Party convention. I wish the nominator would have discussed this at greater length on the talk page than having this knee jerk reaction.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No speedy keep criteria apply here, and I cannot fathom which "criterion #1 of WP:POLITICIAN" you believe you are quoting. Candidates are not even referred to in that criterion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National office refers to a position.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Candidate" is not a position. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominee is a position.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of argument, let's be generous and allow your claim that "nominee" is a position. It is still not, however, "office," national or otherwise. There is no possible way that you can argue that #1 supports the notability of this person, who has never been elected dog-catcher, let alone president. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the wiktionary definition of office: "3. A position of responsibility of some authority within an organisation". Presidential nominee of a national party is a political office. Because that office is national, the nominee satisfies criterion #1.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lots of sources discuss Fellure as a joke candidate or simply as a third party candidate. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name some of them? I see a lot of trivial mentions. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a lot of mentions in passing; so many that it makes a good case for IAR and a decision to keep the bio. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any rules need to be ignored since he passes criterion #1 of WP:POLITICIAN.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete or Merge into United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012#Prohibition_Party. Ah, the things you learn on AfD. The coverage by third-party sources in definitely in question here for both 2012 and 1992. Fellure may not be an electable Republican candidate, but he did receive two sources of independent coverage during the initial 1992 Republican primaries in New Hampshire. However, The Williamson Daily News piece is fairly local and so the Baltimore Sun piece is the only significant coverage for the 1992 primaries, and it covers several third-party candidates. He also was not a nominee at this time. He has not received enough coverage as a 2012 candidate (yet). Mentions of his election to the Prohibition Party in what looks like two are insufficient, because they do not constitute "significant coverage" as per WP:POLITICIAN. I also disagree that a nominee for a party constitutes a political office. A political office assumes some level of political authority, and a nominee does not hold such authority yet. We could consider moving some of his background and values into the article I suggested. I Jethrobot (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Office was defined above. I see no evidence for the statement: "A political office assumes some level of political authority, and a nominee does not hold such authority yet." Such an individual certainly holds authority over the message of the national party. If the article is deleted or "merged" the information would not be moved to the article you suggest since he would not reach the page's notability requirement.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree that candidates hold authority over the party message, but I'll challenge your definition of "office" from WP:POLITICIAN with this one from the very same page: A bureau, an administrative unit of government. Though candidates in a political party may vie for election to an administrative unit of government, candidates are not elected to them yet. As for the merging, I've noted your comment. Thanks. --I Jethrobot (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Could we get biographic information into United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Prohibition_Party instead? I think some the info could be useful, I'm just not convinced that Fellure needs a page of his own. The WP:POLITICIAN states the following, with a footnote:

Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.

Footnote: Deleting a biography in these cases instead of merely redirecting it makes recovering useful information from the page history difficult, and should be done only when there are relevant reasons other than lack of notability for removing the article from the mainspace. --I Jethrobot (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are so many candidates for the presidential election, the ones who do not meet wikipedia's notability requirement are removed. After the election there will be a list like the one used in 2008: List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008, which will show all the candidates that attained ballot access, however, there will be no prose on the individual candidates. Unfortunately, the WP:POLITICIAN section does not determine which definition of "office" is being used. Therefore, all that fit should apply. I don't think there's any dispute that the Prohibition Party is a national political (non-activist) organization. Thus, when someone is elected to such a position of notable responsibility (as the foremost party representative as presidential nominee) in such a national political (non-activist) organization, they meet the first criterion of WP:POLITICIAN. Even if you reject the office definition, you must see that it meets the spirit of the first criterion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think we should keep this one. I just don't think this is an obvious non notable and I just don't think we need the space on the servers bad enough at this point to chop him out. --Kumioko (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This seems like a clear case of keep - a nominee of a noteworthy party where all previous nominees have Wikipedia articles as well. At any rate, as WP:OUTCOMES#Politicians points out, leaders of political parties at the national or major sub-national level are considered notable, regardless of electoral success, which would certainly include Fellure. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per William S. Saturn & Philosopher. Certianly his presidential nomination makes him a leader of a registered party at the national level.--JayJasper (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the nominee for a fairly major third party. No reason to delete, since all other previous nominees for this party have articles. SOXROX (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Keep. Difluoroethene (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have the greatest respect for Roscelese, the nominator, and I disagree with William S. Saturn's argument that this article meets WP:POLITICIAN. However, I believe that the official presidential nominee of an historically notable U.S. political party can also be presumed to be notable. I favor broad and inclusive coverage of fringe political parties of both the left and the right, and their presidential (or top ranked) candidates. I reach this conclusion despite the fact that I personally violate the tenets of this particular political party frequently. This is the presidential candidate of a a party behind a movement that passed the only constitutional amendment that was later repealed. Though this candidate may be obscure, this encyclopedia is not printed on paper, and it has the room to cover fringe third party presidential candidates for a country as important as the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 09:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Klarmax technology[edit]

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

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

Disputed PROD. No evidence this exists. Singularity42 (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable. Peter E. James (talk) 07:21, 27 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. We've got a mess here, where there's no way to pull a consensus from this, as we have articles with wildly different levels of notability, mashed into the same debate. Anything other than a no consensus close here for the lot would really require me to pull something out of thin air. Anyone is free to bring these back here as soon as they desire, no need to wait any longer than it takes me to get the tags off them. Courcelles 08:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tulāsana[edit]

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

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

I've looked at the asana articles listed by ((asana)). They are mostly little more than stubs and unsourced medical advice and it is difficult to establish notability outside the use of yoga, and most of these poses are not notable. Some of them are tagged for merging, some of them into list of yoga postures.

I propose deletion of these pages or merging into list of yoga postures, asana, hatha yoga, or Yoga as exercise or alternative medicine.

cf Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Asana_ArticlesCurb Chain (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it will be easier and more expeditious to decide on the fate of these almost identical articles together than deliberating them one by one:

Vriksasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Virasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vajrasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Utthita Trikonasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Uttanapadasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Uttanasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Uttana Shishosana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Utkatasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ustrasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Urdhva Dhanurasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Urdhva Hastasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trikonasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tadasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Supta Virasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sukhasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sirsasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Simhasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Siddhasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Savasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sarvangasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Salabhasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pavanamuktasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pashasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Paschimottanasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Parivrtta trikonasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Paripūrṇa nāvāsana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Padmasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Padahastasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Natarajasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mayurasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Matsyasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Malasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Makarasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Makarasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kurmasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kukkuṭāsana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kapotasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kakasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Janusirsasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hasta Uttanasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hanumanasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Halasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gomukhasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Garudasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Garbhasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dhanurasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dandasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chaturanga Dandasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bhujangasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Balasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bakasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Baddha Konasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ardha Navasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ardha Matsyendrasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ardha Candrasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anantasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Adho Mukha Svanasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Merge into list of yoga postures AND a subset into asana. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and some of these pages provide detailed instructions for performing the positions (e.g.1, 2, 3. The benefits of the positions are sometimes sourced and sometimes are not. However, I think the asana article would benefit from a few concrete example positions with benefits that are reliably sourced. I Jethrobot (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that these are not all yoga postures. Some of these are also postures used in Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, etc. To combine some of these into a combined "asana" page for yoga would be inappropriate in these cases. Specifically, lotus position is very notable for Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism, and there is a significant amount of material available just on this one position. In these cases, its role and function are not at all the same as an asana in yoga. Tengu800 11:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some of these, I think. Agreed, the Tulasana page is so brief as to be useless, but at least 1 other page is much better. I haven't done a search to determine which asana pages are useful and which aren't, but I happened to be asking myself: Is Wheel pose (Chakrasana) the same thing as Upward Bow (Urdhvadhanurasana)? That is, are the names synonymous? The list page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hatha_yoga_postures has a lot of good info, but doesn't answer my question. I followed the links, which answered my question (yes, they are synonyms). Oddly, both have the same title (Chakrasana) but 2 different URLs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakrasana (with box about proposed deletion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urdhva_Dhanurasana (without the box) These look like different versions of the same page; I prefer the version that comes via the latter link.

An alternate approach would be to upgrade the "list" page so that it answers questions like mine. But that would be a lot of work. (I'm a newbie at such discussions.) Oaklandguy (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution is greatly appreciated. I do agree definitely that some pages are better or "beefier" than others; it may be a great/good idea to merge them into list of yoga postures.Curb Chain (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History and New Energy[edit]

Great to see some new energy here, and working towards an open-minded constructive consensus. I stopped contributing a while back because of my perception of lack of support from other editors and will to negotiate open-mindedly. I will summarise what I think should be taken into account.

1. all names of positions ought *at least* to remain as redirects to a page that adequately describes them, or at least lists them as a known yoga asana, if no other *encyclopaedic* material on them exists here. This in no way encumbers or compromises Wikipedia.
2. uncited "how to" and "claims of benefits" material should at least be reduced to a general description. I did a lot of this pruning but it had a way of reappearing (mainly from India).
3. the tabulated "list" format of the suggested merge-to page, is in itself ***not*** an ideal format. I would advocate a list of all actual names, limited to a single line of text, cross-referencing synonyms, that links to a short prose paragraph on each minor asana, and/or to pages where an asana has enough important material to justify its notability.
4. I was working towards a particular implementation of my suggestion, above, using the software generated "contants" box as being the actual list, as it is default, is fairly compact and is linked. Below the contents box appears a short paragraph and a *very small* thumbnail image of the asana. This arrangement is compact, inclusive, syntactically appropriate (a table is not) and spatially and visually appropriate and relaxed (a table with random sized images and spaces is not).
5. I'm prepared to help, continue ignoring or work alongside anyone who'd like to work *open-mindedly* on these articles. But I am v. busy outside WP at the moment.
6. There's a lash up on in my personal space working towards the above, but it used transcluded material, which was intended to be short lived, and may now be somewhat randomised by editing across, or removing, the transclude tags. [[22]]. All the non-textual info appearing *within* the sections has occured as a result of this kind of editing, making it ridiculously long. Previous to this, it was little bigger than the existing asanas list page.

Thanks to those who emailed me to let me know this debate was live again. Trev M  ~  08:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely at a loss of what you are saying:

(3.) What is this software generated "contants" box. Did you mean "contents"? In this point, you are discusing the layout of the article and I am guessing that you don't feel the table format is best for the current contents of these articles? This seems a little off topic with our issue at hand, because we are assessing weather or not this material should be included on Wikipedia per WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

(5.) Can you explain this point?Curb Chain (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all as per our Editing policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."

To this end I will for the main article nominated, Tulasana, contribute with a draft for improvement shortly, and I invite anyone who wish to collaborate positively to join in.

I notice that this nomination does not include arguments to recommend deletion relating to the three cardinal content policies "unverifiable" (violates WP:V), "original research" (violates WP:NOR), or "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV).

I also notice that
- no content expanding improvements have been made to the articles prior to nomination
- no relevant tags have been added to the articles to note problems prior to nomination
- the existing but dried out merging discussion has not been revived prior to nomination
- neither the relevant Wiki Project nor any article creators or key contributors have been notified.

The following four rationales are given for nomination and I will add my comments:

1. "mostly little more than stubs" Comment: Stub status is not a reason for deletion.
2. "unsourced medical advice" Comment: "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." Blatant over-the-hill claims for cure or amelioration as e.g. in Uttanasana and Sarvangasana that are unlikely to be verifiable with reliable sources should have been deleted on sight prior to nomination, but the inclusion of unsourced material, that has not yet been questioned and attributed to reliable sources, within an article, is not per se a reason for deletion.
3. "difficult to establish notability outside the use of yoga" Comment: Several of the asanas have notability outside yoga, Padmasana (Lotus posture) as mentioned by Tengu800 above being one example, Siddhasana, Sirsasana, and Sukhasana being three more, and should not have been bundled, but no policy demands notability in more than one category. Without necessarily assuming inherited notability it can in addition be mentioned that yoga as physical exercise according to a survey released in December 2008 by the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine was found to be practiced by 6.1 percent of the population (some 18 million) in the United States alone.
4. "most of these poses are not notable" Comment: This unsupported rationale is an opinion rather than a fact, and is a variation over WP:JNN which should be avoided. The poses listed comprises for the vast majority if not all, classical poses described in the literature, c.f. e.g. 84 Classic Yoga Asanas, and the majority of the articles are already verified with reliable sources that stands uncontested.

Looking ahead
A handfull or so of the articles listed are in a state similar to Tulasana and will be rescue tagged including but not limited to Pādahastāsana, Siddhasana and Supta Virasana. I will try to lead the way and find time within the next week to heave them out of their current misery, and other editors are very welcome to join in with citations, sections, images etc.
None of the articles can't be fixed and all of the articles have room for improvement. I see this as a fine opportunity to work together and kick some life in the Yoga Project, and I second Trev M's suggestion of working alongside anyone who'd like to work *open-mindedly* on these articles.
I have limited time in July and August but will be able to allocate more time for these articles come September.

Notification
I will post Adw notifications for selected users and can suggest others do likewise. As this is done very late and as it is now summer vacation time for a lot of people in the northern hemisphere I ask the closing admin to kindly consider giving the discussion a couple of extra days on the old page.

Om shanti, MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 07:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No valid reasons for deletion have been listed, being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. "Notability outside the use of X" is not a valid reason for deletion either. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS only goes so far in an AfD discussion, but an example: It is difficult to establish the notability of List of Spider-Man enemies outside of Spider-Man. The same can be said for hundreds, if not thousands of articles. - SudoGhost™ 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE SOME, MAINTAIN A LIST OF MAIN POSTURES ONLY: The classical text (that deals with the physical aspects of yoga ), the 15th century Hatha Yoga Pradipika devotes only one of its four chapters to asana, the now popular physical "yoga exercises", and only describes FOURTEEN such postures, the majority being postures suitable for sitting meditation. Yoga Mat (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep full articles on notable poses. The claim that all assanas are not notable is wrong. I suggest merge templates be added on the less notbale ones, and proceed from there. Lentower (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG Keep This bulk deletion request should be rejected. These articles have been around for years in many cases and are in different states of repair. Most would satisfy notability requirements. Most that I have looked ate stubby and basically suck. But that is not different than thousands of other WP articles. Each COULD be brought up to reasonably high standards. So: I'll be happy to consider and approve deletion of some these articles, but I strongly believe a bulk delete request like this is a very bad idea. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG delete+redirect "These articles have been around for years"? That's exactly the problem. We have been far too lenient with this sort of thing. People dump some random text off the top of their head and we preserve it for years and years, afraid to get rid of it lest it could potentially have some unidentified factual or encyclopedic kernel. That's not how it works at all. Either fix the article now, or delete it. It can always be recreated iff proper references ar given and WP:NOTE is met. WP:OTHERCRAP doesn't cut it. The burden of establishing notability lies entirely with whoever wishes to keep a given article. The default solution is redirection or deletion. In the case of this asana cruft, this means: if the term can be substantiated as the name of an asana and nothing more, delete it and create a redirect it to List of yoga postures. Proving that a term exists falls very short of establishing that we need a standalone article about it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ANy time you wish to bring such an article to "reasonable standard", you are certainly welcome to go ahead. As long as nobody does, Wikipedia will be better off with this stuff gone and clean redirects to a list of asanas. --dab (𒁳) 16:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutralish: some of these articles are notable enough to stand alone (Downward-facing dog). I don't know about the rest though, but would leave them be. Many of these poses are very notable, less so in English speaking places though. A comparison I think would be on the Indian Wikipedia there being a deletion discussion to delete many English exercises that are not really done over there.AerobicFox (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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