< 2 June 4 June >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 Azem Hajdari. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant talk 18:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besim Çera[edit]

Besim Çera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sub-stub on a non-notable murder victim. A bodyguard who happened to be killed together with the politician he was guarding, in a politican assassination. No further biographical detail about the guard, no personal grounds for notability, beyond that of the politician. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Zisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zenel Neza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
-- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 May 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, Baseball Watcher 23:16, 3 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 Dragon Gate USA. This is inadequately sourced so the outcome is a clear Delete but the proposal to redirect after deletion is sound. Spartaz Humbug! 07:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGUSA United We Stand[edit]

DGUSA United We Stand (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 can't find reliable sources which are independent to demonstrate that this is a notable event for Wikipedia to include. As I nominate this article, there are four references: one from 411mania.com (I can find no evidence that the writer of that article is anything other than a wrestling fan who has written on a few blogs); one from prowrestlinghistory.com (no evidence that this is anything other than a fan site of wrestling); one from pwtorch.com (this might be a better source, but again no evidence that it meets the WP:RS criteria); one from onlineworldofwrestling.com (which says here 'The Online World of Wrestling Website is happy (and proud) to be a website for wrestling fans and by wrestling fans. Sure we get imput from the workers themselves but really everything on the site is for you, the average mark'). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You don't actually know for sure as you said you think. So unless you know for sure, we can't go off what you think in this instance. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:57, 10 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. CBD 00:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Cort[edit]

Hugh Cort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cort fails criteria of notability for biographies. These are the claims to notability: losing with 6.21% in an Alabama State House election, coming in last with 3 delegate votes in a Texas straw poll, and gaining 1,200 votes in the 2008 presidential primaries (and zero in in the Republican Iowa caucus); as for GNG, mere mentions and a local news profile that discuss him as someone's great-great grandson don't constitute substantial coverage. Hekerui (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:43, 3 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 speedy keep. Wrong venue. This needs to be listed at WP:MFD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Lettuce[edit]

Portal:Lettuce (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Lettuce|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:P1. "Inspiration" appears to have come straight from a once-broken link on this popular tumblr blog. There appear to also be a few subpages by the same user. --Volleyren (talk) 21:49, 3 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 Userfy. Clearly not ready/suitable for mainspace but if the writer is still interested once they got their grade then userfication and fixing sound better then outright deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 07:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POLENG[edit]

POLENG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of Notability of company (not even a hit on Google) and the article is written as an advertisement. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the article author ought to translate and create the Translatica article and we should speedy delete the POLENG article. Ajh1492 (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your sincerely, M.

I suggest you create an article on Translatica software package itself. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your sincerely, M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myszeida (talk • contribs) 19:09, 6 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. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Blue (Oxford University)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Out of the Blue (Oxford University) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current contestants on the show Britain's Got Talent. There are 35 refs in the article but not a single one is reliable demonstrates notability (I checked them all), they are either local newspaper articles, dead links, webzines, or reviews from the fringe. Tagged as COI, written like an advert and more refs required. Szzuk (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Oxford Mail link looks OK to me; BBC link is OK; agree that Telegraph is dead, but is now here. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is also OK. And I repeat, local newspapers are in general reliable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Checked them all. They're trivial - one sentence mentions that mention they played somewhere. None of those establish notability. Szzuk (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a perfectly reasonable assessment, but it is different to what you said before ("not a single one is reliable"). You might like to consider revising the nomination, striking through anything you want to change. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair comment, have amended the nomination. Szzuk (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a keep or delete opinion? The Keeps below haven't added anything much to the discussion. Szzuk (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're arguing for deletion on the grounds of non-notability then as well as the general notability guidelines you also want to consider whether the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (music). Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm from the UK. In that case suggest tongue in cheek - we delete the article until they've moved to the US. Szzuk (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular Wikipedia consumer, the page looks ok to me...so can't honestly see what all the fuss is about, surely deletion is a little extreme?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.196.57 (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently you didn't read any of the references. Which ones demonstrate notability? Szzuk (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well i was very interested to read about out of the blue and I am sure others will as will so leave well slone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.109.208 (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Collins[edit]

David W. Collins (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? There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. He has some credits as a voice actor and as a video game sound designer but I am insufficiently knowledgeable about them to determine whether these get him past specific notability guidelines for performers or creative personnel. I tend to be leery anyway about articles for people that are based on activities alone and have no reliable outside sources. Brought here for community consensus. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:15, 27 May 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) 00:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 19:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 3 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! 07:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cassell[edit]

Tom Cassell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Barely sourced BLP of a seemingly non-notable singer. I challenged an A7 on it as it asserts notability, but the single cited source isn't enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO and I couldn't find anything else by searching. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 19:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 3 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. treated as a prod given low participation in AFD Spartaz Humbug! 07:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Brian Bedford Band[edit]

The Brian Bedford Band (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 and insufficient assertion of notability to expect to find references. (2160 googles but spot check of first few did not show anything obviously relevant.) RJFJR (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 19:56, 3 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! 07:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monajat (software)[edit]

Monajat (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A computer application which "popups Islamic prayers (azkar) every predetermind time" that does does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (software). I am unable to find any reliable, third-party sources or reviews that discuss the application and would indicate importance. France3470 (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zakat Calc (software) France3470 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 4 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 Southern Border region. Spartaz Humbug! 07:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego–Imperial (California)[edit]

San Diego–Imperial (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The two counties seem to only be used in conjunction with each other for simple geographic uses and the term San Diego-Imperial maintains little to no significance or common use amongst officials or the general populace except for the a fore mentioned reasons. An analogy would be that even though California and Nevada are adjacent to one another and maintain a similar geography, there is no "California-Nevada" article. Thus it would seem sufficient that a sub-section on San Diego-Imperial county relations could simply be added to the prose of each. 08OceanBeachS.D. 18:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only concern I have is that the article that you propose the merger to occur to is that it is also a redirect of the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MSA, of which Imperial County is not a part of. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, that's correct. Delete. Neutralitytalk 06:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum Somebody just created Southern Border region - basically a recreation of the original article Southern Border that got moved to Southern Border (California) and eventually became this one. I was about to nominate the new article for speedy deletion, but to my surprise it is a well developed article that almost persuades me that the region is real. At least, the state of California has continued to use it for economic analysis, and the new article makes it clear that is what it's about. I wouldn't object to keeping the content of the new article and redirecting this article to it. --MelanieN (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good heavens - still harping on that issue from months ago? "Argued to no avail" is correct; the closing administrator didn't buy your argument either, as I recall. --MelanieN (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do think your new article Southern Border region is better written and much more defensible than the one under discussion here. However, if that content is kept, I think the name needs to be changed in some way to indicate that it means the southern border region of California. --MelanieN (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the article Unscintillating. Again I'm surprised by the appearance of reliable references. Regardless, the discussion regarding it's naming should take place at that articles talk page - not here. This is for the afd of San Diego-Imperial, which in my eyes doesn't relate to the Southern Border region. San Diego-Imperials focus seemed to be on geography and not economics. So I would say, in response to your comment, its history is not needed because it seems irrelevant. 08OceanBeachS.D. 20:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I see discussion is already taking place at the talk page of Southern Border region. 08OceanBeachS.D. 20:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly this article could and possibly should be redirected to preserve its convoluted editing history. But not to Category:San Diego–Imperial, California. In the first place, redirecting an article to a category makes little sense, and in the second place, I have nominated that category for deletion as serving no purpose that is not already served by Category:San Diego County, California and Category:Imperial County, California. I would suggest a redirect to the new article Southern Border region or whatever it ends up being called. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 11 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 speedy delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social Networking Websites Blocker[edit]

Social Networking Websites Blocker (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 software, no Google or Google News hits except here and at its development site (SourceForge). TransporterMan (TALK) 18:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(And also delete the redirect from Socialnetblock).

Yeah it definitely doesn't meet the notability guidelines. --SuperEditor (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator has requested deletion — See this diff. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:27, 3 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 Speedy close (WP:NAC). JJ98 (Talk) 18:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends (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 has 31 sources and contains a lot of red links, not enough to have a separate article. JJ98 (Talk) 17:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 17:57, 3 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 Wedding_Peach#Characters. Spartaz Humbug! 07:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Lily[edit]

Angel Lily (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 has no references WP:V, and appears to be just all WP:PLOT Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 6 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 Wedding_Peach#Characters. Spartaz Humbug! 07:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding Peach (character)[edit]

Wedding Peach (character) (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 has no references WP:V, and appears to be just all WP:PLOT Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 6 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! 07:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced, this article has no third party or real world coverage to provide it. JJ98 (Talk) 17:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 17:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 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! 07:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Deer Stags Baseball Club[edit]

Red Deer Stags Baseball Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly non-notable local amateur team. Only sources online are a few local ones, nothing far-reaching. While a couple things noted on the article might show notability, I could not find a source for any of them. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:37, 3 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! 07:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Williams[edit]

Jade Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLPPROD derailed by author inserting Unreliable sources and IMDB link as justification. Notability of actress as is questionable is questionable (as per WP:NACTOR) Hasteur (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:36, 3 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. joe deckertalk to me 19:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Bhandari[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rahul Bhandari (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 Biography that has carefully dodged attempts to delete this article. Previous AfD nomination was Speedy Closed prior to closure of the AfD discussion. Article was restored and Userfied so that an interested editor could work on it. 3 hours later the editor moves the article back to the mainspace (with no substantial improvements). This article needs to be deleted and stay deleted. Hasteur (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to pass the General Notability Guidelines. Sad to say, this stub is an improvement over what was originally speedied; that does not however indicate notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note The original AfD would have closed today had it not been speedied and that's how I discovered it. Hasteur (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The WP:REFUND is supposed to be used so you can improve the article prior to moving back to mainspace.
  2. Because most of the BLP violating items have been removed the claim to notability for this BLP is not enough for Wikipedia standards.
  3. All BLPs must have a cited assertion that comes from a reliable source in which the subject is a significant portion of the source and not a passing mention.
  4. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why comparing to other articles is anappropriate.
For these reasons, the article is not in conformity with the standards you quoted above and therefor should be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of un-bolding your !vote and striking it as editors are not allowed 2 votes at this discussion. A corporate biography of the subject from their own company does not qualify as an Independent Reliable source. Your edits to add this link and a significant portion of Accenture's business info (which the subject works for) does not solve the basic BLP Ref Problem. Like I (and others have said before), the problem is that with all the BLP violations and improper links removed this stub article does not demonstrate enough notability to qualify for a BLP inclusion. Hasteur (talk) 13:41, 5 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! 07:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 Black Dudes & an Open Mic[edit]

2 Black Dudes & an Open Mic (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 about a comedy show in Chicago contains no sources whatsoever, and a quick Google search only reveals some blog posts about the group; I couldn't find any outside, reliable coverage, which leads me to believe that this comedy show is not notable per WP:GNG. Logan Talk Contributions 15:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 15:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 15:18, 3 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! 07:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Raleigh DeGeer Amyx Collection[edit]

The Raleigh DeGeer Amyx Collection (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 private collection lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Unable to establish independent, verifiable, secondary reliable sources for the article. Fails to establish WP:N. ttonyb (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Please note that "real-world" notability differs from Wikipedia based notability. Wikipedia based notability is established by meeting the criteria in WP:N or an associated notability article. The article currently lacks independent, verifiable, secondary reliable sources and it appears there are no such references available. If you are aware of the existence such references, please provide them. You comment that expansion of the individual's bio will verify the article is not valid – the individual might be notable, but notability is not inherited. ttonyb (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I'm not seeing a consensus to delete and I'm plumping for keep because there is no disagreement that an article is sitting here somewhere. To me it seems before to refer this back to the article talk page for an editorial agreement on how to handle this subject. Spartaz Humbug! 07:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tsinghua University Cultural Revolution records:The memoir of a Red Guards leader[edit]

Tsinghua University Cultural Revolution records:The memoir of a Red Guards leader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Re-nominated due to malformed previous listing. I am neutral as nominator. Previous reasoning by 60.242.159.224: I wish to nominate Tsinghua University Cultural Revolution records:The memoir of a Red Guards leader for deletion, because I think it fails the notability requirements of Wikipedia. A Google search result failed to find any results for the book, and all of the sources on the page links to Chinese webpages. The page's creator said on the talk page that the book's Google search has to be done in its Chinese name, but I don't think this is in accordance with policies on a English language Wikipedia. doomgaze (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book is the memoir of a Tsinghua University Red Guard leader, recording detail armed fighting between rival students group. The book is published in Chinese, the title of this article is a direct translation of the original name, that is why a Google search in English would show a zero result. Arilang talk 13:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ten thousand students fought for one hundred days in a campus using guns, hand grenades and other weapons. That sounds interesting, but I unfortunately do not know Chinese. Do we have an article about the event rather than about the book? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not, as there aren't many bilingual editors who are interested in Cultural revolution. Arilang talk 03:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my point: the event is more notable and important than a book about event. If you make an article about the event, describe the event and refer to several sources (including this book), no one will delete it (you may even use the picture of the book). As a reader I would like to learn why exactly did they fight and what had actually happened. I do not think that creating articles about sources and lists of sources was a good idea, although an article about a really notable book would be fine. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many events happen during CR is still a taboo in China, and the western so called "Sinologist" just have no idea what really happened then. It is not a good idea to write anything about CR, simply because there are too many Maoist jargons:List of Maoist China rhetoric and political slogans for any westerner to see through the mist. It is just too difficult, but potentially university degree thesis material. Another reason this book is more important than the event itself, writer needs a fair bit of courage to fence off the government's censorship. Since not many Chinese do have the courage, and as time past many CR Red Guards would get old and die, this part of the history will be lost forever. Arilang talk 05:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You give some reasons why you think the book is more important, but the article doesn't talk about the importance of the book. If you had sources that you could quote on why the book itself was so significant, then you might be able to write an article on the book. Cloveapple (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As expected, Arilang still have told why the book meets notability requirements. Nobody on an English Wikipedia is going to bother reading through hundreds of pages of Chinese text. And Wikipedia isn't a place to spread your noble cause.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the notability of the book has problem, we can always change the name, like Tsinghua University Red Guards factions or similar names. I really do not see the reason to delete it, it is part of the important CR history. Arilang talk 06:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Benlisquare, please use my talkpage for other discussion. Arilang talk 05:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
............... -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of peer reviews:

Arilang talk 23:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All those links above are about peer reviews of the book, I am not sure if there is English reviews at all. However, looking at Hua-Yi distinction and it's AfD rebate, there should be some Chinese English bi-lingual editors who are interested in this topic. That said, it is perfectly Ok with me if this article is to be renamed. Arilang talk 05:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This book is highly regarded by Chinese historians doing research on Cultural Revolution, take Hua-Yi distinction as an example again, that topic is unknown to the western world, but a very important historical and social concept of China. Arilang talk 14:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw this on the AfD log and even though I don't have the time to become involved in the debate (at least until I finish marking these papers), I can offer assistance briefly on the sources.
From a quick skim:
  • 清华四一四串联会成立的时机选择..（北京）朗钧: This source comes from a monthly publication known as 北京之春, Beijing Spring, named in reference to the period of loosening in the 1970s. According to their about page, they are based in New York and their purpose is to advance human rights and democracy in China. There is version in (good) English here (the PDF and the HTML below it are identical, the former in traditional characters and the latter in simplified characters)
  • 清华园里的百日武斗: This is a link to a site called "China Review", associated with the Unirule Economics Research Institute, however, scrolling to the bottom one sees "本文原载：豆瓣网", which indicates that the article was originally published in the Douban website, which it is my understanding is a community website.
  • 漫话沈如槐和蒯大富的文革回忆录: This is a Party site. The "theory" / "理论" is Marxist theory, and the review has a distinct negative bias; at certain points it seems to be mocking the book and its authors with varying degrees of overtness.
  • 来源：社会科学论坛 作者：唐少杰: This is a dead link (The page says: "The page you attempted to visit does not exist"). However ifeng is a mainstream and reliable source. It is not state run and reports on issues state television normally overlooks.
Intelligentsium 00:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another good link from ifeng:“文革”群众权力争逐：签订和解协议立即被撕毁 社会科学论坛 作者：唐少杰

On Chinese wiki:清华大学百日大武斗.

Arilang talk 03:17, 4 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 per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Leese[edit]

Jonathan Leese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of person who does not meet WP notability requirements ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:32, 3 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. Listed for 3 weeks with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2005 US Open – Men's Qualifying Singles[edit]

2005 US Open – Men's Qualifying Singles (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 brought me the attention of how much encyclopedic it is, it consists of a tournament graphic about the men whom qualified to for the men's single main draw, it infringes a lot of policies and was even under investigation for claims of copyright violation which its outcome I am declined to accept, and since this investigation the article was left incomplete, its context is not clear, you clearly cannot see what the article is all about, but there are more problems, it is a content fork which wikipedia is somewhat against (but not when the article and its navigation become either long or confusing because of its size what is not the case), the article's notability is also another thing to discuss, it is debatable to a minimum and if not is a case of inherit. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a content fork of that article. There's a difference between a content fork and a sub-article. Hut 8.5 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So? The fact they're not always present doesn't imply they never should be. Hut 8.5 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact? No, but they are all not notable, if I know how to mass nominee I'd nominee them all. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's appropriate to strike the comment because the user was a sockpuppet, but it is definitely not appropriate to strike comments simply because you don't agree with them. Hut 8.5 14:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't strike the comment because I didn't agree with it, usually when a sockpuppet post a comment in an afd, it is regarded as void. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 05:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You said you struck it partly because "it doesn't make any sense at all" [5]. That is not a valid reason to strike a comment. Hut 8.5 08:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stroke it because it doesn't make sense (not because I didn't agree with it as you stated above) and it is a vote by a sockpuppet and you removed my comment, that is sorta weird. Why doesn't it make any sense? Which mini challenger tour is notable in Wikipedia? Several articles about cups and tournaments feature the qualified teams or athletes within the main article, and when they have it apart the article is either a mess or it is huge, but in a way or in other the sub article does not provide enough context, can't you see that this is a content fork? Eduemoni↑talk↓ 14:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have never removed any of your comments. You are arguing that the rationale of 400's comment above - that mini challenger tour events are notable - is flawed, which means you don't agree with it. As far as I can see the tennis rankings give as much weight to qualifying for the Grand Slam tournaments (such as this one) as to getting to the later stages of a tournament in the ATP Challenger Tour, the individual tournaments of which commonly have their own articles. It is standard practice to move content to a sub-article when the main article gets too long (see Wikipedia:Content forking#Acceptable types of forking). Moving the content of this article would make it unacceptably long, so including it in a sub-article is perfectly acceptable and is not content forking. The article provides more than enough context for the reader to see what it is talking about, and even if it doesn't that's not a problem that merits deletion of the article. Hut 8.5 16:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:05, 25 May 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To remain in cohesion with the rest of Wikipedia, the article should be moved to 2005 US Open – Men's Singles Qualifying. SellymeTalk 10:25, 9 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grace & Charm[edit]

Grace & Charm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like articles of other Kelly Chen's albums, Stylish Index's notability is absent. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons above:

The Big Day (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gh87 (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love (Kelly Chen album). Leaving The Big Day (album) open for discussion. — kwami (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it. I've tried a dozen times; the servers are too overloaded to respond. I see no reason for the next admin not to delete, though. — kwami (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still having a tech problem deleting this particular article, but not others. Seems it doesn't want to go. — kwami (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Arcangel is correct about the sources, but Billboard is only an American chart, and Kelly Chen's success has been in Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia, as stated in her article. If there is evidence that this album charted outside of the US, that would be a factor in this deletion discussion. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:46, 24 May 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, Deryck C. 20:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting admin's comment: I suspect those in this discussion have been searching for sources from the wrong places. The article concerns a Cantonese album in Hong Kong, but the deletion discussion revolves around evidence found from American (and other English-language) charts and sources. Therefore, I don't think the discussion has arrived at a valid consensus, and I'm relisting this discussion and cross-posting at WikiProject Hong Kong. Deryck C. 20:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Deryck C. 20:47, 25 May 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and/or Keep. There is a clear consensus that the content of these pages should be retained in some form. However, pages that have very little content and which are not likely to expand significantly should be merged (with a redirect from the current song page to the song's section on the new page) into the articles on the albums where they appear or some other appropriate page. Due to the mass nomination there was no separate consensus on which specific pages should be merged and this issue should therefor be further discussed for any pages where a merge may be appropriate. CBD 11:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts (Ladytron song)[edit]

Ghosts (Ladytron 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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 23:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSONGS? ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:50, 29 May 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"White Elephant" is the first single from the album Gravity the Seducer by the electronic music band Ladytron.[1]

Track listing
  1. "White Elephant" – 4:15
References

to the album? This is WP:UNDUE. Most articles are based on: "Song is a single from the Album by band Ladytron.[1] Then a tracklisting including the CD single release and its remixes (if it had)", and that's all.

  1. ^ Reliable source/Discogs (unreliable source)

Keeping unnotable crap that fails a policy and a guideline won't help in anything to this project. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 06:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between merge and delete is a fairly minor one (in this case), but the main reason to merge is that the article is NOT deleted but redirected, and so will never get recreated. This should actually *reduce* the stuff that gets sent to AFD. If someone actually finds enough information and citations to break one of these songs from the album, great! But normally there's enough room on the album page. The redirect also aids search results. If you want to know about that particular song, a search of the song title only will get you quickly to the album page. Cheers,  The Steve  10:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the correct word is redirect. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 16:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A merge is normally added because if there is any relevant info not in the main article, it should be added. However, it is up to those editing the main article, so we voters don't even have to look at the article to be redirected (but we probably should). For instance, some (but not all) of those Ladytron singles charted, and that info should be kept.  The Steve  08:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

t DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 13 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 both Spaced Out Cat and Hi, Robot to List of Tom and Jerry Tales episodes per WP:GNG and WP:EPISODE. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spaced Out Cat[edit]

Spaced Out Cat (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 tried redirecting this to List of Tom and Jerry Tales episodes several times (per this discussion), as it's an unremarkable episode (unnotable on its own, fails WP:GNG) of an animated series, but another editor constantly restores it. Deletion requested. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Omkar1234 has now started edit-warring on another episode article that was also part of the previous discussion establishing the redirects, I've added it to the discussion as well:
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can, but why should we? This episode (and in fact, all of them) fails the general notability guideline - which is why the previous discussion (which you've ignored the directives of) redirected them all to List of Tom and Jerry Tales episodes. You've failed to provide even one reason why this episode notable on its own. Also, your status as autoconfirmed or not does not matter to this discussion, as it has no bearing at all on the article itself. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I had not been registered during the request of deletion of list of Tom and Jerry Tales Episodes Omkar1234 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And this is relevant to the discussion about the lack of individual notability of these episodes how, exactly? MikeWazowski (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate vote struck through - you don't get to vote on this multiple times, Omkar1234 - and you've still failed to address the critical issue of (or more specifically, the lack of) notability for these individual episodes. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 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! 07:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Truck Destruction[edit]

Monster Truck Destruction (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 can find no indication at reliable sites which are independent that this unreleased game meets the general notability guidelines or the advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#What is appropriate?, which states (amongst other things) Articles on video games should give an encyclopedic overview of a game and its importance to the industry - as well as giving alternative places where such an article might be more appropriate than on Wikipedia. All the coverage I could find was at social sites or forums. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:39, 3 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! 07:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Male Lead Singers[edit]

List of American Male Lead Singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of several lists generated by a single editor. A PROD was contested without giving a reason. Concern is: Redundant list, Category:American male singers lists them all. A split into lead and non-lead singers is superfluous as chorus singers usually don't meet the criterias for WP:MUSICBIO. Ben Ben (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:30, 3 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! 07:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of American female solo singers[edit]

List of American female solo singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of several lists generated by a single editor. A PROD was contested without giving a reason. Concern is: Redundant list, Category:American female singers lists them all. A split into solo and non-solo singers is superfluous as chorus singers usually don't meet the criterias for WP:MUSICBIO. Ben Ben (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:30, 3 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! 07:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of American female lead singers[edit]

List of American female lead singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of several lists generated by a single editor. A PROD was contested without giving a reason. Concern is: Redundant list, Category:American female singers lists them all. A split into lead and non-lead singers is superfluous as background singers usually don't meet the criterias for wp:MUSICBIO. Ben Ben (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all redundant lists, better served by a category:

List of American female solo singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of American Male Lead Singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Ben Ben (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:30, 3 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! 07:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DocPath[edit]

DocPath (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. No indication of significance or importance. Notability has not been established in accordance with the general notability guidelines. Unable to locate sources to support content. Cind.amuse 12:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 6 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! 07:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syncope (software)[edit]

Syncope (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability has not been established under the software criteria. PROD was removed without explanation. It would be great if this AfD did result in notability being proven but it is not my area of expertise. Sitush (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - article creator has now explained that it is a new product, little coverage will exist. - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
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! 07:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LanX[edit]

LanX (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. Notability is not met for this organization in accordance with the general notability guidelines. No indication of importance outside of being a finalist in a grant making foundation's contest. None of the sources present the organization in any significant manner. Four sources are not independent, while the NYT article only mentions the organization when sourcing a quote. An individual was responding to the issue of small businesses needing funding and the commentary stated that he was an F&M professor that recently completed a feasibility study for LanX. CSD was removed, but I have no idea what significance or importance the editor considered. The article was written as a promotional effort by a representative of the organization, as indicated on the talk page. When all is said and done, the article doesn't offer us anything other than existence, while the sources lack independence or indication of significant coverage to support notability. Cind.amuse 09:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found one passing reference from a web site unconnected with the subject's home page, a passing reference in a paragraph-- not substantial coverage. To quote that page, " there are hundreds of thousands of like-minded social innovators pursuing new ways to solve enduring challenges." And this is cited as an example of one of those many. Concur with Cindamuse's analysis and conclusions above. Willing to keep an open mind should new information surface. (There are other LanX's out there. This one goes by the name Lancaster Stock Exchange.)

Breakdown of references on page at the time of this writing:
ref 1-- irrelevant
ref 2 supports sentence, but is not substantial enough to establish notability
ref 3 is part of subject's home page
ref 4supports sentence. Does not mention subject
ref 5 is a proflie page written by someone connected to the subject. Dlohcierekim 13:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 6 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. Several editors in the discussion suggested salt, noting threats of recreation and a history of past recreations. Salt will therefore be applied. joe deckertalk to me 19:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Taylor (composer)[edit]

Justin Taylor (composer) (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 has apparently been deleted for non-notability three times before, the last time was a speedy deletion, and non-notability is the reason I'm nominating it again. As mentioned on its discussion page, the only significant citations are either unverifiable or do not actually reference the subject, and, further, there is a suggestion that there is an intentional attempt here to deceive or at least to mislead editors. The article appears to be essentially the work of one editor, other editors either serving to check claims or else attending to matters of form rather than of substance (how the article says what it says, rather than what it says). TheScotch (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See references before making skeptical claims and deleting citations. Buy the books. The information is there. See my previous note on the other page for details about references, and mysteriously deleted citations (Jerome Kohl? The Scotch? You two seem heavily involved in an attempt to delete this article)—Music 416 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"Music 416" is the "one editor" I spoke of above who has essentially written the article single-handedly. I have deleted no citations from the article (nor have I edited the article in any way, other than nominating it for deletion,--I've merely commented on its discussion page), and obviously Wikipedia keeps a history of editing anyone can view, so all deletions can be attributed to a Wikipedia moniker or an IP address. Nothing is "mysteriously deleted". I checked the references as well as I could without actually buying the books, which I'm not going to do, and which I think it would be unreasonable of "Music 416" to expect or to require any editor to do. My conclusion is that this "Justin Taylor" is not notable. Of course, I'm "heavily involved in an attempt to delete the article": I'm the one who nominated it for deletion, which is as plain as day to anyone who comes here. (For the record, I was not at all involved in any way in any of the previous three article deletion processes.)TheScotch (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion? Do some research on the subject before you assume things. I doubt Justin Taylor has time to sit here and write articles about himself. See my note on the talk page about specifics. Music416 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.144.202 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to scan the relevant pages of the books involved and post them where they can be seen. My own "personal knowledge" tells me that many of the claims here are inflated or outright fantasy. Hairhorn (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you signed your name mysterious one. Music416 (talk

Left an extra tilde by mistake, nothing mysterious. Hairhorn (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq, the Gullion book is also a reliable source. Check Amazon for it. His name is listed right there!! I can scan in the two concert programs if that's helpful. The reference books are at my library, so I unfortunately don't have them at the moment. I used them when specifically looking for information on this composer along with the Gullion book. There is more information out there i'm sure, but unfortunately no one can contribute it because know-it-all editors keep deleting this article before even checking sources. If deleted, this article will return again and again, because the information is there and Taylor is important and notable enough.Music416 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.144.202 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "InsideHalton is the website for a group of community newspapers. As such this represents a reliable source, but is strictly local coverage".
The notice itself is unattributed (no reporter, no byline) and reads very much as if it were written and placed by the subject. TheScotch (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Whpq, the Gullion book is also a reliable source. Check Amazon for it. His name is listed right there!!"
Yep, "right there" next to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart in "a book designed to teach children the basics of some of the world's greatest composers of classical music". Even if Justin Taylor were notable, he would have to be of fairly minor reputation to escape the notice of all the editors here with graduate degrees in music, which would still make the leap from Bach to Justin Taylor quite remarkable. As of Sunday night, however, Lulu vanity publishing was clearly attributing authorship of the "Gullion" book to one "Justin Taylor". There is a precedent, by the way, for Justin Taylor apparently self-publishing books (and not just scores). He also has a short, glib, ungrammatical bio of Wilhelm Friedemann Bach at Amazon (which lets you read its introduction, hence my assessment). TheScotch (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're crazy The Scotch. You have no proof! What are your motives here? To prove you can delete an article? Quit making up stories and get a life. The paper article is real, the Gullion book is real, the concert programmes are real and the reference books are real. The only things that aren't real are your claims against the subject of this article, who none of us know personally by the way. Your assesments are just that-yours. In my opinion, your assesments mean nothing. They're garbage. As a fan of Justin Taylor, I believe he is a breath of fresh air in the modern world of classical music. Your attitude proves my assesment. Open up your damn ears and eyes and quit ignoring the facts.

The fact that Taylor publishes his own music discounts him from being in Wikipedia? I guess that gets rid of 99.9% of rock musicians. In the end you can twist and turn the facts all you like. Like I mentioned before I am willing to upload scans of the concert programmes if they will help keep this article from not being deleted. Also mentioned before but ignored by you, is the fact that Lulu sells all kinds of books including major publishers, so your argument with that has no validity. I guess Justin Taylor hasn't escaped your notice now huh? Maybe Gullion knows Taylor? Maybe he's an advocate of his music and wanted to give him a break? Modern music is rarely mentioned in any classical books, so one should be happy people are continuing to cover it. There could be a million different reasons...

Whpq would know about the paper as I believe he lives around the area.Music416 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.144.202 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq a couple things. Techniques and Materials I already discussed with you last year. We came to the conclusion that the page count was wrong on one of the websites.

Taylor's storefront could be stocking the Gullion book (although it doesnt appear to be in stock anymore-google cached) since he is named in the book. Like you mentioned the publisher is Patch, not a publisher Taylor has previously been associated with. Nobody knows for certain unless someone gets ahold of Taylor or Gullion himself and gets the inside story.

As far as the complete idiot's guide music dictionary, you sure you have the right edition? There are a couple different books by that name from different authors. I held the book in my hand last year and page 324 was very much there.Music416 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.144.202 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two busybody librarians contributing to OCLC WorldCat also held the book in their hands last year (2010), and counted exactly 321 pages. The ISBN-13 of their book was 9781592579976 (pbk) and 9781615649976 (cloth). What is the ISBN of your copy? It appears, however, to be copyright 2010 instead of 2009, as cited in the article. In fact, if you believe WorldCat, there is no 2009 edition of a book of this exact title by Stanford Felix, or by any other author.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Music416 still wants to keep up his charade of sources. As Jerome Kohl points out, there is no 2009 edition of the book, unless you believe it is missing out the Worldcat catalog, and Google Books missed indexing it, and Amazon.com who will sell anything with an ISBN has chosen to ignore it. I usually assume good faith, but in this case -- bullshit! -- Whpq (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And oh yeah, you're right; the page count was wrong on one of the sites. Amazon has corrected it from the misstated 400 to 320. -- Whpq (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq, that is your opinion yet again. I held the book in my hands last year, so I definately know how many pages were in it and if it exists. As regards to the self-promotion comments, I am not the subject nor affiliated with the subject, so that would not be a fair or accurate assessment in this case, seeing as i did research this article.Music416 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.144.202 (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to Deskford's suggestion that this may be a candidate for SALT, I should call attention to Music416's threat, "Someone else will just repost this article if deleted", found on the article's talk page here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He also threatens above (on this AfD page), "If deleted, this article will return again and again." TheScotch (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for me to make a suggestion. Rather than complete delete this entry, which is valid as a person, but perhaps some of the verbiage is in dispute, could we keep this entry but add to it by making it generic about the name. Instead list all the Justin Taylor's, such as the author and this composer and people like myself. My name just happens to be Justin Taylor (http://justintaylor.tel). This is just a thought on how it could be modified and made usable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speakingbadger (talk • contribs) 21:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are describing what is called a "disambiguation page" and, as a concept, this is certainly not controversial. The question of keeping or deleting an article on grounds of notability (I think this must be what you mean by "valid as a person") is a separate issue.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page is a navigation aid to distinguish articles that share a name. The key point here is that it is a navigation aid, and not a content page. Either Justin Taylor the composer is notable, in which case he would have an article, or he is not notable, and he would not have a page to navigate to, and therefore would not appear as an entry on the disambiguation page. -- Whpq (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It happens, actually, that there is already a Wikipedia article about a fictional television character called "Justin Taylor". I haven't read that article and have no opinion about it, but if we assume for the sake of argument that this fictional character is notable, then it may be wise in certain contexts for you to differentiate yourself with your middle name, as I see you've done in your e-mail account (or whatever this is). I don't know if television writers generally bother to give their characters middle names except in special cases (well, there's "Maynard G. Krebs", where the G. stands for Walter). Running into real persons who share one's characters's names must be a hazard of the profession. TheScotch (talk) 23:38, 9 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! 07:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S M Gothoskar[edit]

S M Gothoskar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established. PROD removed without any attempt to resolve this issue. Sitush (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask, what is the URL of the page? Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 07:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is one source, cited twice. It is in a Indian language newspaper here. No translation, so WP:NOENG might kick in, but in any event a single source does not mean a lot. This person has been active for > 50 years according to the article. - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 6 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! 07:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Live 1[edit]

MMA Live 1 (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 event for a small mixed martial arts promotion/management company. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're making a big assumption--that the company will grow to be one of the biggest in the world. You might want to look at WP:CRYSTAL. Papaursa (talk) 21:03, 3 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! 07:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFC 1[edit]

AFC 1 (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 event for a small, regional mixed martial arts promotion that featured UFC cast-offs as top billing. It is currently the only event held by this promotion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 6 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 speedy delete (G11) by DGG. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next What's In[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Next What's In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like an advert, refs unreliable and don't denote notability. Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 08:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 15:25, 3 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 speedy delete. Chat like comments. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling like you do not fit in[edit]

Feeling like you do not fit in (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an advice column. WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTESSAY....need I go on?? CTJF83 07:49, 3 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. , with leave to renomiate after the event has actually occurred if no coverage arises. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Capitol Punishment[edit]

AfDs for this article:
WWE Capitol Punishment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As the previous AfD, I do not think that there is "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" about this event. Following previous AfD, it was redirected [6]. After some discussion with the closer User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2011.05#WWE_Capitol_Punishment it was re-created, apparently because these two sources were enough to satisfy King of Hearts: [7] [8]. The first of those is some trivial coverage about a short advert for the event; the second is a transcript of the show during which the advert was shown. It's all advertising; there is simply no significant coverage, outside of that generated by the WWE who organize it - and it is unlikely there will be such coverage until the event occurs. The phrase currently included, that NBC Sports [..] cited this Wikipedia entry for the background of the event just shows; we're making this notable; it isn't notable yet.  Chzz  ►  07:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in what way does it meet notability guidelines now?  Chzz  ►  08:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great (if they're reliable sources) - will you be adding them to the article, or telling us what they are?  Chzz  ►  09:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 15:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A match has just been announced by WWE this conversation is over.--Voices in my Head WWE 01:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting that the WWE website, ticketmaster, or the area website are unreliable, I am sure they are entirely correct. Nobody is saying the event will not take place. Mere existence is not grounds for an article. For example, I exist, and there is no article about me. The issue is they are not independent of the PPV, which is the foundation of the general notability guidelines. From WP:GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Significant coverage, yes, reliable, yes, independent, no.--kelapstick(bainuu) 14:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me how ticketmaster.com (which has absolutely NO affiliation with WWE or any sport in any shape or form) isn't considered a reliable source? WWE.com I get, VerizonCenter.com I sort of get, but how is Ticketmaster.com NOT considered reliable?--Voices in my Head WWE 14:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me. I said ticketmaster was not independent of the PPV. From WP:GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. I assume ticketmaster is selling tickets to the event, thus they are affiliated, and not independent of the event.--kelapstick(bainuu) 14:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is pretty much over. The KEEP(s) outnumber the Delete(s) by one-thirds. And one of the dissents is an editor who many of us are certain has a personal vendetta to delete all wrestling related articles on Wikipedia.--Voices in my Head WWE 20:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly second this assumption/perception. (Hmm, I wonder whether all of the NASCAR articles are actually notable.) Blocpark (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying, basically, is: "I remind self-promoting editors that they have always been acting like dictators and are expected to maintain this attitude." Also, your call for independent sources perfectly matches my earlier assessment that source credibility is often used as false pretenses for denying any wrestling-related articles a right to exist, since even reliable non-primary sources are regularly shot down. Hey, I suggest a new group on Wiki: "Association of Wikipedians Who Like Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Articles, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particular Articles, and That Does Indeed Mean They Are Deletionists". Blocpark (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.....Oh snap....--UnquestionableTruth-- 22:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any comments pertaining to this article, rather than me?  Chzz  ►  03:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A match has been announced and we've got moflippin third party source for it. This discussion is over you overzealous deletionist.--Voices in my Head WWE 03:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:CIVIL. Discuss the article and its notability. Discussions of nominators or other editors will not be tolerated. This includes using the term deletionist. Further, this is a discussion, not a vote, the actual arguements and opinions put forward by Keeps and Deletes are more important than the quantity of Keeps and Deletes. The359 (Talk) 18:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existance of other WWE PPV articles does not automatically make this article notable. Nor does it necessarily mean that those past articles are notable either. And once again, this is not a vote nor is this about "one-uping" others based on the results of an AFD. If you wish to have your opinions valued in an AFD discussion, I suggest not making them while hiding behind an anonymous IP to slander another user. The359 (Talk) 07:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with Userfy. However, I like to think that notability lies in the eye of the beholder, i.e. what is not notable to one, may be perfectly notable to the other. For instance, I don't know anything about NASCAR, hence articles on the matter are not at all notable to me. But still I wouldn't nominate articles on NASCAR for deletion, for I can imagine that they are quite notable to others more involved in the subject matter. I think it is about time that this tolerance may be allowed to supporters of professional wrestling, too. Some editors clearly do not have this tolerance. 'Ein jeder ist für Toleranz, nur wenn's drauf ankommt nicht so ganz!' Blocpark (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While notability may lie in the eyes of the beholder in the real world, Wikipedia is not the real world. On Wikipedia, a notable subject is something that has received significant coverage, in reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the instruction. But that is exactly the point I am trying to make: even sources which are non-primary and reliable are regularly dismissed as non-reliable and/or affiliated. Against such a backdrop, of course, no reasonable evaluation of sources at hand can be possible. Blocpark (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll accept that WWE - the channel - has a vested interest in promoting the event; thus, their website cannot be used to establish notability.

Ticketmaster makes money selling tickets for the event. Thus, they also have a vested interest, and are not independent of the subject (the event).

Ditto the arena.

Ditto iTunes.

The article has two references which are independent; "Wrestling News" [9] and "NBC Sports" [10].

The piece in "Wrestling News" is very short, and all it tells us about the event is that the event exists, and that a person called "Truth" might or might not appear in it.

The "NBC Sports" link is about the poster. All it tells us about the event is, that it's planned for June 19 at the Verizon Center.

That's it. That is all the facts we've been able to gather. Thus, we do not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the source" - and each of the terms in that phrase are clearly defined in WP:GNG.

It doesn't matter whether the article is about a wrestling event, or a person, or a company, or a museum, or a computer game, or a website...etc. It is nothing to do with anyone's opinion as to whether something is, or is not, "notable" to them - it's a question of trying to give the readers good information about the topic. We can't find enough reliably-sourced information to support this article at this time.  Chzz  ►  15:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU Agent Vodello. I'm gonna say this right now (and forgive me for my language) but if you have such a DAMN problem with every article Chzz why don't you fix it for a change? You don't seem to have a life if you can put up every one of these articles up for deletion. Talkers Talk people I don't spend all my time like you on talk pages I'm always on articles creating them only to see people who don't know the difference between the edit button and CSD take them down. You know what's wrong with the article Chzz? SOFIXIT!!! again sorry for the language and Chzz you don't need to leave me another WP:CIVIL message on my talk page.--Voices in my Head WWE 00:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use caps and bold to try and make your point; and please do not claim that I don't "have a life" - that's not very nice.
If I could find reliable sources, I would fix it. I cannot.  Chzz  ►  00:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SOFIXIT!!! Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Have y'all forgotten that? That's what this whole website was made for. That's what the CORE CONCEPT is!--Voices in my Head WWE 01:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not forgotten that, but you can't add reliable sources that don't exist. Wikipedia was founded on several other core policies, which you may wish to read. Alpha Quadrant talk 01:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone tried to 'fix it' [11] - that didn't work [12]. Another tried [13] and you, Nascarking, reverted [14]. Twice [15] [16]. So I tried to 'sofixit' through AfD - and did [17]. Again, it reappeared, without meeting requirements [18]. The basic point remains; WP:V. At risk of repeating myself: Where's the "significant coverage"?  Chzz  ►  01:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well unless anyone here is an admin we can't do anything with the article because some editors started an edit war over the one Wrestling News Source. I'm sitting on the sideline after the page is unlocked. I'm tired of doing the work and having FOX News over here tell me this page doesn't have any reliable sources. I've been looking at the history tab and I haven't seen you guys doing any work to make it better. Especially you Chzz, all I've seen you do is put things up for deletion. You could at least go to Google and help us with this instead of telling us it doesn't have enough sources every single effin day. WE KNOW ALREADY--Voices in my Head WWE 01:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so - you understand that there are no independent reliable sources? Or at least, not enough to show notability? I've looked for them too - and I cannot find any. If you've found some though - just mention them here. I'm sure an admin will be quite happy to add them for us.  Chzz  ►  01:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New sources do not necessarily have to be added to the article to change the position of participants at an AfD. I would gladly change my position if I were shown significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, either here, or on the article talk page. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sky Sports --Truco 503 02:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Unfortunately, the phrase, "which you can see live and exclusive on Sky Box Office" leads me to think that Sky is not independent - ie, they also have a vested interest in promoting the event. But at least we're heading in the right direction. Anything else?  Chzz  ►  02:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its difficult to find independent sources that are reliable since the ones that have news about wrestling are considered "dirt sheet" websites. IDK how much this FUSE.tv link helps--Truco 503 02:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it helps much; I'm sorry. And I do sympathize re. the lack of reliable sources. However, Wikipedia is an Encyc, and as such, we want to add info that is verifiable. If it's not reported in reliable sources, then it's not the sort of thing that should be in an encyclopaedia. And by "reliable sources", I mean, something with a "reputation for fact-checking" and "editorial control" (WP:RS). If we could present information supported by good sources, I'd be very happy to keep the article. But - honestly? Right now, I don't think we can. So, it's perhaps suitable for other websites (right now), but not an encyclopaedia.  Chzz  ►  02:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But under that basis, that would mean every PPV article that is on Wikipedia must go through AfD. Including those maybe even that are GA's and FA's. --Truco 503 02:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just end this discussion for the next 2 hours until the page is unlocked again. Unless anyone here is an admin we can't do anything so deleting it while the page was Locked for 3 Wikipedia days would be WTF. If anything let's pick this conversation back up in 3 Wikipedia days days since we lost editing time on the article because it was locked.--Voices in my Head WWE 00:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would that be "WTF"? It's not like we are coming up with a bunch of sources in the AFD... —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that was my stupid Auto Correct I meant to Put What The Hell but shortened. As in if you're really gonna delete the article even though it's been locked for three days then what the hell.--Voices in my Head WWE 01:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found a better third party source than the one on the article for the match already [19] and for one yet to be announced that will be announced Friday on SmackDown [20].--Voices in my Head WWE 03:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs can't be used as a source.--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh??? That's it I'm using WWE.com for sourcing this is too difficult.--Voices in my Head WWE 04:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info on the blog doesn't work as a RS. —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You used a blog for one, and WWE.com for the other, I removed the blog, and left WWE.com.--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source Independent of the subject? Significant about the subject Reliable Source?
1 No
2 No
3 No
4 No
5 No
6 Yes No
7 No
8 Yes Not exactly, more about the poster and contains Wikipedia source
9 No
10 No
11 Yes No
12 No
I second TP's call for a more comprehensive discussion of notability in the professional wrestling context. — Dale Arnett (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PEOPLE! Can we please Stay on Topic?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascarking (talk • contribs) 01:07, 11 June 2011

Absolutely. Topic: I do not think that there is "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" about this event. - nobody here had provided the slightest evidence to contradict that quite simple assertion; per WP:GNG, WP:V.  Chzz  ►  02:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did two wiki days ago but apparently according to kelpastick Dirtsheets can't be used as sources.Voices in my Head WWE 03:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I said blogs can not be used as sources, the source I removed was had a blogspot.com url, which could not be used as a source, and would typically have been removed automatically by XLinkBot anyway. I would not have said anything about dirt sheets, because up until I read Glossary of professional wrestling terms, which was about three minutes ago, I had no idea what a dirt sheet was.--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guys say I can't use blogs as sources. Half the articles on Wikipedia (non wrestling) use blogs as sources. Examples include 2011 24 Hours of Le Mans, You're Getting Older and many more. And you say I can't use a blog as a source while probably every single other article on this website does.--Voices in my Head WWE 14:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because another article is using a blog as a source does not mean that it is correct to do so, and you are free to fix articles that have improper sourcing.--kelapstick(bainuu) 15:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Clearly you have no clue what a blog is, or what the policy on blogs is. There are two sources that one could possibly confuse as inappropriate blogs:
  • Autoblog UK which is an automotive news site and passes the criteria as it is not ismply an editorial site or a site which repeats other people's news, and is well established and has a variety of authors. Hell, if you had bothered to even look at the article, you'd see it says it was written by David Hobbs, who certain passes the criteria for a notable news source for a motorsport article. The359 (Talk) 17:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endurance-Info is also a sports car news site, although more limited in its number of authors, it is still a news site of equivilance to Autosport.com. The359 (Talk) 17:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI The article has been locked yet again for edit waring till next Saturday.--Voices in my Head WWE 21:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several attempts have been made to find suitable sources to establish notability. They come up with nothing. I just checked again. I just attempted again, and there is nothing new.--kelapstick(bainuu) 01:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldnt the site Bleachers Report count as notability? Im still confused why WWE's actual site doesnt count as notable infomation considering this is the site which premiers most of the infomation surrounding the event. Jamesbuc (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bleacher Report, based on what I read on its Wikipedia article, can't be used as a reliable source. WWE, while reliable, is not an independant source, and therefore cannot be used for establishing notability.--kelapstick(bainuu) 02:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think thats certainly where a problem lies here, until the event has actually happened, the amount of 'pre-press' release will be mostly sites reporting what has been given to them by the WWE and even then, most of the infomation is hidden away given that while WWE wrestling is indeed popular, it isnt classed as a national sport. In fact the real meat of the article will be after the event, at which point 'notable' reviews as well as venue ticket sales and PPV sale figures will start appearing. The question is though if the article is worth keeping up until that moment.Jamesbuc (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to remind everyone that we can't do anything with this article because it's locked till Saturday.--Voices in my Head WWE 03:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you request full protection? Most issues were with IPs, it could have easily gotten by with semi-protection.--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usability break[edit]

Delete (and not just this article) I've long believed that WP:GNG needs to be made a lot more restrictive, because stuff like this may end up meeting it just due to the vast, immeasurable quantity of printed word on the internet. WP:GNG would be great if it referred just to print sources, or even the web equivalents of print sources, but I've not usually seen it interpreted that way. Anyway. This is sort of like the individual TV episodes for me. I just do not see the lasting encyclopedic significance, not in such a way that all are as a rule considered notable. Survivor Series (1997) is probably notable (although there's a separate article for the reason why). Same for WrestleMania (1985), Over the Edge (1999), I could probably find maybe half a dozen others. These events had real-world significance, not just significance for characters on a television show. Yes, in a way this is a "wrestling isn't covered by the NY Times" argument, because publications like the NY Times would cover the Montreal Screwjob, would cover (at least retroactively) the beginning of a major annual institution, would cover the untimely death of a performer. They would not cover "John Cena's defending the title against R-Truth." And the reason why has precious little to do with anyone's perception of pro wrestling. It's about significant events in the real world. The reason you're not going to find a NY Times article about, I dunno, Backlash (2002) is not because "LOL wrestling!" it's because no one outside of a very vocal yet ultimately relatively small fandom gives a flying rip that Hulk Hogan defended the title against Triple H. The real-world significance of that event? Both men showed up, performed as they were expected, collected their paychecks and went on to the next city. That's not newsworthy, outside of the sort of sources that are dedicated to covering it to the exclusion of other sorts of events. That's not encyclopedically significant. So I would delete just about all of these individual-PPV articles. If there is a pro wrestling wiki to which they could be sent, I think that would be a fantastic idea, because I'm sure for the fandom they are excellent articles. I do not believe that they belong in a general-interest encyclopedia. Going back to the analogy about TV episodes, One for the Road (Cheers) is certainly notable, just as Goodbye, Farewell and Amen or The Puppy Episode. Their notability would not make every episode of any series, or even of those series, automatically notable (though try telling that to WP:LOST). We absolutely can have articles like WrestleMania, Survivor Series, and even the rather unremarkable Cyber Sunday or New Year's Revolution in a general-interest encyclopedia, just as we have articles about the TV series themselves. But the individual editions, unless notable for real-world reasons, are stepping over the line into fan cruft. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying we should delete every wrestling article that's on wikipedia, nice real nice and wikipedia wonders why editors are leaving in a mass exodus.--SteamIron 08:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you would have gotten that notion. Maybe you should reread my statement. It's a bit far afield of this particular discussion, but I think a discussion a bit far afield of this one should be had. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 00:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, she is saying that we should delete wrestling articles that do not meet the inclusion criteria for stand alone articles as per Wikipedia policy and guidelines, the same way we do with articles about any other subject. --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I think somewhere along the line the wrestling wiki-project got the idea that all pay-per-view shows are automatically notable, and I would seriously question that notion. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 00:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And somewhere down the line not that long ago, members of WP:PW just stopped giving a damn about notability and just lowered the project's standards severely. That's what happened.--Voices in my Head WWE 00:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Bulletproof, I agree the presence of users such as Nascar has taken its toll on WP:PW, but there are many veteran editors still active on WP:PW. I'll make a short list for you so you can see:


These are all editors, still active today, who have been around for 3 or more years. People like The Chronic, The Hybrid, Naha|, Davnel03 and Mshake3 aren't around on Wikipedia anymore, while guys like Darrenhusted have moved on to editing elsewhere, but we're all still around and can help maintain the project to the top tier status it had during its boom period. I personally don't spent as much time on WP:PW as I used to (due to something called the real world) and I know a lot of the people on this list don't either, but maybe if we help people like Nascar, we can eventually get WP:PW up and running to its former glory. Feedback ☎ 05:44, 13 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McAndrews Estate[edit]

McAndrews Estate (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. An article about a former estate on the grounds of a New York park with no obvious claim to notability. It appears to fail the GNG; the references and links listed consist of a town history published by the town council, a city council document that mentions it in a list of 59 "MPC places of importance", a New York Times article that does not mention the physical estate at all (only the battle over the inheritance that presumably contained it), and several maps of the grounds. It's possible that the first qualifies as a reliable secondary source giving nontrivial coverage, but I think the others are a stretch. A bit of what's here could potentially be moved into the Crugers, New York article. Khazar (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So does this mean no parcel of land is ever a candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia? This is a 100 acre property that was once a grand estate, owned by prominent members of the civic and buisness community, foreign diplomats, and contemporaries of the Rockafellers. Furthermore it has been an area that generations of residents have interacted with and have interest in. The group involved in researching (and possible preserving/restoring) the property grows every week, a valuable process that Wikipedia has clearly been a catalyst for. If preservation efforts move forward it will provide context for this historical significance, but that significance already exists. Wespomeroy (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable_sources / Reliability - The primary source for this article is a book called "The History of the Town of Cortlandt", which was *not* written by the 'town council' but by a group of local authors and historians that made up the 'Town of Cortlandt Bicentennial' committee. The book references hard research - for instance court, land, and tax records maintained by Westchester County. It may also be worth noting that Cortlandt is not a tiny village. It in and of itself is rich in history, one of the first areas on the continent settled by Dutch and English immigrants. This wasn't Bill and Marla deciding to write a book. It was a government-sponsored, professional, endeavor.
  • Independent_sources - The authors of the primary reference material had no personal connection to the topic. They had no ownership stake in the property, or family connections to anyone who lived or worked there.
  • Significant coverage - The 'History of the Town of Cortlandt' mentions the property in several areas, following it's history across almost a century, relating it to other localized events and locations of historical significance. The mentions of the McAndrews Estate are not 'trivial', they are substantive.
  • Sources - The main reference is absolutely a 'secondary source'. The guidelines clearly state that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage". In this cases the amount of information in the article is tangible but not extensive, thus the reason why there is only one primary source. Furthermore the guidelines state that "Multiple sources are generally expected". Note the terms 'generally' and 'expected', as opposed to 'always required'. This is not a frivolous or commercially-oriented topic. It relates to local history in what is a very historic region. If this isn't a situation where one reference would suffice, what is? The other references and external links (which I agree are questionable standing on their own) are intended to corroborate the research and facts stated in the primary reference.
  • Independent of the subject - Neither the author of the article (myself) or the authors of the reference material reference work are 'affiliated with the subject' (e.g. self-publicity, advertising, etc.)
I feel the persistent effort to delete this page seem to be overly critical and at odds with Wikimedia's Mission_statement. How would the removal of this page (who's actual content does not seem to be in debate) serve the broader community? I understand the need to maintain the bar of quality and consistency - really I do - but this seems a classic case of cutting of your nose to spite your face, and I question if the criticism here truly reflects objective and legitimate concerns about the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wespomeroy (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rickedmo, I understand finding the subject charming--I do too--but could you expand on how you see it as meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Again, the only source for this article appears to be a single book self-published by the town for its anniversary; I'm sympathetic, but I don't see how that clears the GNG. (Whether the GNG need to be rewritten, as seems to be the implication of the "Keep" comments here, is a worthy discussion, but one for another section & day.) Khazar (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit of research, I'm getting the idea that this should possibly be weak keep and move to Oscawana Park instead. The fight over the estate is not major legal precedent. However, I now realize that I've seen the park; the Metro North Hudson line and Amtrak trains cut through it, and there are free images available (see, e.g., [21] [22]). There are some developed trails, historic ruins, mapping info, and is an official site for filming. There are not a lot of news stories, but I think the sources already in there, as well as potential others, would add up to barely passing general notability. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Berian's proposed Keep and move works for me, as the park appears to have at least basic RSs and potential for further expansion. Though some rewriting will be necessary to avoid giving the estate undue weight in the article as it only appears to be one section of this park. I'd also suggest that WP:COI advertising (the stated reason for this article's creation) for the restoration project be kept to a minimum, until this restoration attains some sort of notability as well (local news coverage, etc.) Khazar (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This topic got major press coverage today. See the latest reference that I added to the article Wespomeroy (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brief Response: I agree that the local media coverage helps (though "major press" is a little optimistic) and potentially allows this to clear notability, though merging this into an article on the park overall still seems to me the best solution, as the larger park is more clearly notable. To clarify the issue that Wes regarding linkspam, the IP address from which Wes has been editing also has recently been adding linkspam on behalf of Wes's company (which turned out to be linkspamming and deleting links and information about rivals through other accounts as well); when Wes stated that he shared this IP with a coworker, I offered to delete my warning at his talk page. As for objectivity, I can only state that I have no personal connection to McAndrews Estate or Wes, and if other editors see the new sources as making this topic notable enough for inclusion, that's fine with me. In any case, since Wes seems to be interpreting this AfD as a personal issue between us, I'm happy to bow out after this note. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please expand on that? The Journal News is the only remaining broad-circulation newspaper in Westchester County. It reaches 122k housholds in an area with almost 1M people. Does something have to receive coverage on a national level to be consider notable (I doubt it)? Also, can you clarify which part of the GNG proves the notability of this topic to be insufficient? I've provided an analysis of the GNG guidelines above, which to this point no one has refuted. What is the point of having guidelines if they are applied subjectively? Wespomeroy (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the guidelines represent the community standing on the matter, but since it is not possible to foresee the specific circumstances of every case, the guidelines are written in a generic manner that is meant to guide editors in how to assess the validity of specific articles. That has the consequence that the guideline will be taken subjectively, and I believe that it is in the spirit of the project that we acknowledge and address our subjectivity as a personal issue, specially to identify whether we are being biased. Personally, after reviewing the available sources and searching for potential extras (which I couldn't find), I think that the coverage is not significant enough to meet WP:GNG. Local coverage is not automatically discarded but national coverage is certainly preferred, since local sources tend to provide undue value to local matters given that their main audience holds a keen interest in them - frankie (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ziris[edit]

Sony Ziris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious WP:COI, WP:SPA & WP:PROMOTION. Nothing of note about the product. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
  • While the fact that other articles exist is not usually considered a strong argument to keep any particular article, this response may not be all that satisfactory. It's not unreasonable for a new edihttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sony_Ziris&action=edittor to judge the suitability of a topic by what's already here. The narrow, focused diligence of PR professionals often outpaces the capacity of generalist volunteer editors to patrol. Still, it's been a long standing problem that dozens of minor software vendors in crowded fields and limited general interest view Wikipedia as a good place to get free publicity for their products. I generally tend to the opinion that businesses and products need to show some sort of significant effect on history, culture, or at least the technical development of the field before becoming entitled to a stand alone article. Almost no digital sign software is going to meet that test, I reckon. I will have a look at the articles on that page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 May 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! 06:26, 3 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. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unite the Right[edit]

Unite the Right (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 about attempts to unite the Reform Party of Canada with the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. The topic is already covered under the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance and Conservative Party of Canada. Also, it has very few references and is therefore largely original research. TFD (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:26, 3 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. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barclay Harding Warburton II[edit]

Barclay Harding Warburton II (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 was speedy deleted by me as an A7, no indication of importance. The text at the time of deletion (and of this nomination) was "was an American businessman who died in a hunting accident in 1936" with a reliable source for this. This qualifies perfectly for A7, neither being a businessman nor being killed in a hunting accident is an indication of importance. However, the article author asked for an AfD instead.

As for the subject (taken separately from the state of the article at the time of the nomination): reliable sources can be found for his marriage, divorce and death, and he had a Royal Aero Club Certificate. Some members family seem to be notable, but that is not inherited. No source indicating any notability for this B. H. Warburton (there also was a I and a III) could be found. Fram (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.
[Revert using strikeout as per WP:BANREVERT.  16:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)]
Ask WP:Notability not me, it says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Anything else is just subjectivity. You write: "Can you name anything he has done in his life that would make him notable" I ask that every time I see a sports star article and reality television star. People are notable when the media take notice and write about them, for whatever reason. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N doesn't force anyone to write an article. So I am left wondering: why did you feel the need to write an article for this person, to challenge the speedy deletion of the very short, incorrect old version, and to spend your time rewriting it? Fram (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO doesn't trump WP:GNG. You should also know better than to make a vague wave to a guideline without quoting it. You are also ignoring 12 other references including an obituary by the Associated Press and one in Time magazine, which gives the impression you didn't read the article and just read the previous postings. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as a more specific guideline, it DOES trump GNG. Also, nice violation of WP:AGF, Richard. I read the article before the Delete !vote, and did not find notability. A minor socialite who got an obituary. Not the stuff of which great encyclopedias are made. Edison (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:N which includes WP:GNG independently defines notability without regard to WP:BIO, see WP:N.  There are multiple paths to notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't being famous for being famous for being a a socialite essentially being famous for who you know & who you're related to, and thus only WP:INHERITED fame-but-not-notability? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why I think it would be better for a merged article about the Warburton family which I believe is notable given the coverage of them and the American equivalent to European noble families we have articles for. But as an individual article it seems almost pointless... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 sources needed for just 11 sentences? That is hardly indicative of the depth of coverage required for notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is true that those sources do not have 'depth of coverage', which your formula fails to establish, Wikipedia:Notability_(people) states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple sources may be combined to demonstrate notability..."  Unscintillating (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • TIME gave him only a single paragraph for an obituary -- so no, I would not accept that they 'considered him notable'. That The Meriden Daily Journal (of Meriden, Connecticut, hardly a prominent source) gives his obit a few paragraphs more does not add that much notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia only cares if it is a reliable source not a "prominent source". We have three reliable sources with obituaries: Associated Press, Time magazine, and the New York Times. The Meriden Daily Journal is the AP version. I would say anyone whose birth, marriage or death appears in the Time magazine milestones column is ipso facto notable. Most deaths reported in that column are just a few sentence. That has to do with the format of the column, not the notability of the person named. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but born on June 15, 1898, he would be 17 in late 1915, rather early in life to be on a commission in Paris.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The American Relief Administration was set up in 1919, and he would have been 21 and just graduating from college. The commision has nothing to do with Paris, reread the article and the reference. He was divorced in Paris. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is silly to assert "snow keep" when there have been several delete arguments. Edison (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that the previous respondent is confusing "speedy keep" with "snow keep".  WP:Snow keep is a part of WP:IAR that is an essay, which means I'm saying that I see that the case is closed, it is time to move on.  To be sure, if the previous respondent doesn't agree to a snow keep then I see no need to hurry to close this.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: given that the American Relief Administration existed (outside Russia) from 1919-22, and that BHW2 was only 21 in 1919, got married in Maryland that year, and had a son in 1922, it seems likely that he was simply a junior staffer in the ARA's head office, rather than a field worker in Poland. And I would suggest that such a brief and ambiguous mention of a likewise brief and likely low-level appointment isn't really worthy of mention -- let alone inclusion in the lead. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took an earlier version out, and now it is back in the lede in a longer form. I agree with HrafnTalkStalk(P) on this detail about the lede, and I will take the whole sentence about this matter out. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored it. Original research doesn't trump reliable sources. Thinking that he was too young is speculation, and thinking that the position was "likely [a] low-level appointment" is again speculation. The Wikipedia rule is verifiability using reliable sources, not speculation. Four references from reliable sources place him in that position with the wording used by the sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I have changed it to being a sergeant, not a technical adviser one doesn't exclude the other, but it's the only thing I could verify). I have explained why on the talk page of the article. "Four references from reliable sources place him in that position with the wording used by the sources." means that three sources have him in Poland, and one seemed to indicate that he was a technical adviser from what you could get from Google Books snippet view, but not from more scrutiny? Or do you have actual sources, quotes, for this piece of information? Fram (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine he read WP:GNG which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I am assuming your argument is that he has fame without any achievement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to which of the sources (most of which appear to give him very superficial mention) "address the subject directly in detail", as required by that guideline. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTDIR goes on to say "One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." In this case, we have several external sources and so, by this measure, the person has some sort of fame or achievement. Q.E.D. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would note that WP:NOTDIR says "featured" (cf WP:N's "address the subject directly in detail"), not merely 'mentioned in passing' -- that rather indicates that a degree of depth, which the sources for this article generally lack, is required. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You tried that argument already and the reply was a quote from Wikipedia:Notability (people): "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Ten facts from ten sources have, mathematically, the same depth of coverage as ten facts from one source. WP:Directory is there to remind us that appearing in a telephone book does not make you notable, since it provides just two facts about any person, their address and telephone number, neither of which appear in standard biographies. Having three national biographies is a measure of his fame, despite lacking a great achievement. People were called "socialites" then and "celebrities" now. This is someone having fame, despite not having a major achievement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that WP:GNG does not demand "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail" idly or in isolation -- it does so "so no original research is needed to extract the content." The trouble we have had trying to piece together Warburton's Hoover/Polish activities from the tiny snippets available from the sources that we have demonstrates the importance of this. Further, WP:Notability (people) goes on to explicitly state that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I would suggest that much of the coverage we have here is "trivial". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG is a guideline, EP and NOT are policies. This is a case where the guideline is clearly too lenient when interpreted to the letter, and the article doesn't meet the spirit of it, as it is spelled out in NOT. Fram (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't change your comment after someone has already replied.[38] If you want to compare this to now, he would be an extremely minor "celebrity", D-list probably, who only got in the news (briefly, in passing) when he had another divorce, harebrained idea or stupid accident. It's bad enough that some people create articles on such non-entities living now, but to do the same for someone forgotten for the last seventy years is stretching the GNG, WP:NOT and common sense to new extremes. Fram (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The context for the quote you made from WP:NOT was "Genealogical entries" but this topic is not a genealogical entry. You seem to be trying to stretch that policy to exclude subjects who, in your opinion, lack moral worth because they are stupid socialites and celebrities. Opinions of this sort are contrary to core policy and so have no place here. We rely instead upon the judgement of the editorial staff of reputable organs such as Time and New York Times. As they considered that this subject was worthy of notice, we just follow their lead. Warden (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Lack moral worth"? Umm, no, that's not my position. I don't care about the moral worth of anyone here, I care about what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. That the judgment of the editorial staff at those publications back then was way off is bad, but we shouldn't continue their errors. You claim that it is not a genealogy, but the only reason he has gotten any attention is because of his family ties, not for anything he did. Fram (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have no reason to prefer your judgement to that of independent professionals. Note, by the way, that the genealogy policy is pretty much a dead letter as a recent case demonstrates. Warden (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is covered by WP:GNG also" "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally consider Chelsea Clinton to have done anything except grow up in the White House, but she gets a lot of press.  If reliable sources write about it, it is verifiable and has met the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia.  The argument that "the sources made errors in judgement in noticing him and we should now improve the encyclopedia by ignoring him" is IMO contrary to WP:V and WP:OR.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:15, 3 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toples[edit]

Toples (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 3-sentences-of-text band article was PRODed under A7, as failing to reflect notability (it says little more than that the band exists). The PROD was removed, without any rationale at all being offered. It appears to lack notability under wp standards. Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Whpq. Are you suggesting that based on that one source they have satisfied GNG, or wp:nmusic 1 or 9? I'm happy to have it kept if notable, but I don't see what criterion it satisfies. Also, are we comfortable that the indicated posting by "dodano" is an RS? Thanks. (BTW -- you do excellent work at these AFDs, I've noticed).--Epeefleche (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification. I agree that the 1 source in the article is an RS. I'm still uncertain whether the second source posting is an RS. Also, that posting is not about the band. Rather, it is about one individual -- Marcina Siegieńczuka (and simply mentions in a 2-sentence parenthetical and another 1-phrase mention that he is the Toples leader). That brings into question whether such a mention -- even if the posting is an RS -- is what GNG calls for when it speaks of "significant coverage" (meaning that sources address the subject "directly in detail"). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - It's not so much the specifics of these sources, as much as the indications in the content are that this is a notable Polish group. At AFD, we are trying to determine if an article is to be kept or deleted. We do not need to have all the sourcing at hand if there are indications that support notability. I think the two sources are indicative of notability, and we could keep the article so that somebody conversant in Polish could work on it. But in any case, this article seems to indicate that Toples is notable and has had hit songs in Poland. I realize that the article is unverified at this point, but there's no reason to disbelieve that they've had a career since 1998. 13 Years with 10 albums and coverage in a major Polish newspaper seems to me to point towards notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. That's why I asked what criterion you were relying on. You indicated GNG, but GNG requires that we have at hand "significant coverage" of the band, meaning that RS sources that we have seen address the subject "directly in detail". Neither the second posting nor the third -- which may not be an RS -- discuss the band directly in detail. The third source you mention appears to be in the nature of a posting regarding a charity concert, and while it does have a 3-4 sentence mention of the band, it doesn't seem to contribute much to satisfying the GNG requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 27 May 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! 04:22, 3 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 speedy close. Discussion has already been bundled here (we must have both done it at the same time). (NAC) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Holland[edit]

Maximilian Holland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:AUTO and does not seem to establish notability. Lots of people write thesises and get their PHD. Curb Chain (talk) 04:19, 3 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! 08:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social bonding and nurture kinship[edit]

Social bonding and nurture kinship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Maximilian Holland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article on a doctoral thesis written by the work's author. Although the author has recognized that there is a conflict of interest and is well-intending I am unsure this article is suitable for an encyclopedia. There appears to be quite a lot of synthesis WP:SYNTH as well as original research WP:OR and relies heavily on large quotations. France3470 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a copyright violation, I'm sure it could be deleted. Also, is there any notability established?Curb Chain (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess we kind of edit conflicted, eh?Curb Chain (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the talk page the author make it quite clear he was aware of a conflict of interest, and the policy surrounding it, see Talk:Social bonding and nurture kinship. Although that doesn't make it preferable. In terms of notability, I am far out of my depth. I know nothing on the subject and can't really hazard a guess. From reading some of the author's talk page conversations, and a quick google search there is a chance the topic may be notable. It does though seems to be an area rather embedded in academia, my Google search has pulled up almost all essays and papers. France3470 (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what discussion you are referring to? I am not aware of any previous AFD nom. France3470 (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Nevermind, I now see it above. France3470 (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for taking an interest in this entry and the responsible manner in which you are handling it. I hope I might clarify a few issues that have been raised. The article provides a summary of the thesis; there is no original work (or synthesis work) in the article itself, it is merely a summary of the (published, peer-reviewed) work, in much the same way that other wikipedia articles pertaining to published work provide a summary of the ideas, and snippets from the content. Of course that doesn't establish notability. As far as published work goes, it is not yet 'well known' but is notable in the sense of 'significant', which I felt was in keeping with the notability guideline "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." Having said that, the thesis did make the top five in a journal on the SSRN network a couple of months ago (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/topten/topTenResults.cfm?groupingId=1239622&netorjrnl=jrnl). I hope this helps a bit. Please share your thoughts. (excuse if I can't respond immediately, I'm in an odd time-zone)Maximilianholland (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to see Maximilian Holland deleted - I would have done this myself, but I didn't know how. I didn't intend to create that article myself, at the time it had appeared to me that someone else had created it, so I filled in some details (there's a discussion on y talk page about it). I would nevertheless argue that the social bonding and nurture kinship page is of merit, but of course I defer to the community.Maximilianholland (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilianholland, I find it hard to believe that you did not create Maximilian Holland, when this diff proves that you did.Curb Chain (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that he said "I didn't intend to create that article" (emphasis added), not "I didn't create that article". At any rate, I have tagged Maximilian Holland for G7 in light of the above comment. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's Your Story Teen Video Game 2011[edit]

What's Your Story Teen Video Game 2011 (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 consists of content made up one day Guerillero | My Talk 03:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deena Martin[edit]

Deena Martin (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 actress - no major roles, awards, etc. NoleloverTalk/Contribs 02:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as speedy. Neutralitytalk 06:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salsa marocaine[edit]

Salsa marocaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced and promotional article about a non notable dance, coi from the creator Jac16888 Talk 02:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn at nominator's request. Neutralitytalk 06:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lynchburg City Public Schools[edit]

Lynchburg City Public Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the individual schools may be notable, this article is simply a list that is not needed. I don't think this is an official school district per say (note that it does not contain all the schools found here), and therefore consists basically of WP:OR. NoleloverTalk/Contribs 02:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, since Postdlf has demonstrated that this is a real school district, and not just a list of schools within a city, as I first thought. NoleloverTalk/Contribs 21:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Sree Gita Sangha[edit]

Sree Sree Gita Sangha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD that was contested: Temple of unclear notability. Eeekster (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 15:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 6 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.

Honolulu University[edit]

The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Verplanck's Point[edit]

Battle of Verplanck's Point (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 don't have access to the book that's referenced, but myrevolutionarywar.com is not a reliable source, and there are many sources describing the events around Stony Point in July 1779. Verplanck's was fired upon, apparently at distance, but it was not taken, and there does not appear to even have been any attempt to assault it (contra this article's assertion). We don't write whole articles about minor military movements; at best Robert Howe's movements merit a paragraph in Battle of Stony Point, but I don't think anything in this article is salvageable. (Consider, for instance that it states that Howe decided to besiege Stony Point. This complete and utter baloney, as readily-available accounts of the action show. Ditto that the British at Verplanck's were "pounded into submission".) Most of this article is just a bad rehash of the Stony Point article. Benson Lossing's account. Hugh Rankin's account.

Two versions of this article have previously been deleted (one under Battle of Verplank's Point). Magic♪piano 23:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 May 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, slakr\ talk / 00:50, 3 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pekka Heino (television presenter)[edit]

Pekka Heino (television presenter) (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 was deprodded [39] without addressing the underlying concern of lack of reliable sources to establish notability. It appears the primary claim of notability is being a commentator on the Eurovision Song Contest. I haven't been able to locate any sources that describe his role in the contest in a substantial way to suggest notability. Currently the only source on the article is a biography from his employer. I recognize that there may be materials in Swedish to establish notability, but since I do not speak Swedish I must rely on others to provide such sources. If those are discovered I will gladly withdraw the nomination. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be helpful if you could provide such references (particularly if you can find them in Swedish), since I have been unable to turn them up to establish notability by Wikipedia standards of reliable sourcing. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So it sounds like it would be helpful if there could be some reliable sources turned up to help keep this article, as well as to properly source the Swedish article, which sounds like it suffers from the same problem, eh? I wonder why there are no reliable sources considering all the notability claims? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Indeed. I get 1496 hits when I search for "Pekka Heino" in Swedish (and Norwegian) newspaper articles (through Mediearkivet, "The Media Archive"), so notability should be easy enough to establish. I, however, know next to nothing about television, and suggest someone who has a clue about the subject decides what is relevant to include and what is not. /Julle (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep My improvements to the article should show his notability. Theleftorium (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nomination withdrawn - Thank you for the Swedish sourcing, Theleftorium. With the sources now on the article I would like to withdraw the nomination. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BigTent[edit]

BigTent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreated CSD, non-notable website article written by an SPA. Websites mentioning that it was purchased by a more notable company do not make this company notable. If Lady Gaga buys a sandwich, we don't make an article for that individual sandwich. I should also mention that the more notable parent company now redirects to the guy who owns that. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully contend that this article is not promotion any more than the pages for Ning, GroupSpaces, etc. If this page is viewed as promotion, all similar wikipedia pages of startup companies should be nominated for deletion.

If the issue is nonnotability, BigTent should be a brief mention on a Federated Media page, and the Federated Media page should not just redirect to its CEO. -Numerusclausus, BigTent page creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numerusclausus (talk • contribs) 03:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 00:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Volny[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Johan Volny (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:PORNBIO and WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guidelines. GNews/Gbooks hits are all either trivial or promotional. Prior AFD turned on the significance of the "European Gay Porn Awards," which have since been determined by consensus to be non-notable and therefore not contributing to notability.[40] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 00:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Habib Ullah[edit]

Mian Habib Ullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spammy, probably auto-, bio. Is he actually notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article makes a definite claim for notability. Note that the AfD notification was removed by an IP, so that may have disturbed the discussion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 2 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) 00:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Converter (Unit Conversion Software)[edit]

Universal Converter (Unit Conversion Software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software with no indication of notability. A PROD tag was put on it shortly after creation in August last year; it was contested with the argument that "most of the references in the article are from notable sites, and the software is known to be reputable". Unfortunately, that a software programme is available for download from a notable website does not make the product notable, and there is no trace of any significant coverage in reliable independent sources. bonadea contributions talk 13:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume dabinpons[edit]

Guillaume dabinpons (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. Notability not established in accordance with WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Acting roles have been minor supporting and uncredited roles, rather than significant ones. Cind.amuse 14:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Czech exonyms (Głubczyce)[edit]

Czech exonyms (Głubczyce) (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 page is a selective duplicate of what can as well presented in Czech exonyms. I see no reason to have a separate list for this particular location. De728631 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 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.
More