< 14 September	16 September >

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. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SysSec[edit]

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

I found zero significant coverage for this organization. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another research project. I can't find any sources to indicate that this one is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Chrétien[edit]

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

Cannot find evidence this porn star exists. Search gets only Wikipedia mirrors. BLP Prod was declined after a link was added, but that link does not even mention him. Suspected hoax. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: pretty sure that's a hoax, no trace of existence on the web, and in Italian pronounce the name of the subject sounds like "son(o) cretino" ("I'm a stupid").--Cavarrone (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G3: I did a search on Yahoo and Google, and got the same result as Gene93k--only Wikipedia mirrors. So tagged. Block the author as well--his only contribs have been attempts to insert this article under different titles. Blueboy 96 02:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.--Blindy McNosight (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Found people by that name but nothing about pornography.Curb Chain (talk) 05:18, 22 September 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 Bugsy Siegel. Courcelles 21:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esta Krakower[edit]

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

Does not pass general notability, she is only connected to other notable people Cox wasan (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the cousin of Hubert Davis and the nephew of Walter Davis. Where's my article? Blueboy 96 02:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I guess you'll get an article when Wendy Phillips plays you in a movie, Blueboy, but don't be surprised if your article is nominated for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bugsy Siegel. -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bugsy Siegel. Notability is not inherited from Bugsy. Esta Krakower Siegel lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect salient info. only to Bugsy Siegel. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as above. I hope someone doesn't come along with a copy and paste keep argument here. LibStar (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nimbus Plug Computer[edit]

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

Delete per WP:PRODUCT. Non-notable, but interesting product, from a non-notable manufacturer. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Huff[edit]

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

This article, originally about an artist and gallery employee with one minor media notice, is now an amalgam of information about 3 or 4 different Jason Huffs presented as if it were about a single person. None of them are notable. ShelfSkewed Talk 19:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I meant to point out that both versions were created by the same editor.--ShelfSkewed Talk 19:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Don't build the Frankenstein. This is a classic case. See TALK:Frederick Meyer for a more subtle example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is poorly written, with some extracts cut and paste from copyrighted sources in which I had to remove immediately. Other than that, I can't find evidence of notability. Minima © (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 21:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Clough[edit]

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

Non notable person. Previously PRODed, but an editor objected, stating that he was a notable person. Nominating for deletion to get a better consensus on the issue Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 18:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources that establish notability for this person. As a football referee from the 1950's, I acknowledge that sources may not be online. However, I am unable to even find a hint that this person is of note in unreliable sources such as blogs, discussion forums, and the like. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - top-class referee, in charge of numerous notable cup finals, looks to be notable to me; article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 15:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rsssf source in the article confirms that Clough refereed a French Cup final, and this that he refereed an FA Cup final. Either one of these would be a pretty strong claim of notability, as referees at this level attract loads of press coverage, and to have done both would seem to indicate incontrovertible notabilty. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just being a top flight referee would establish notability, but he also refereed two different national Cup finals. Adam4267 (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A top level referee. Officiating an FA Cup final is quite an honour, and being the only foreigner to referee a Coupe de France final – according to the relevant article – makes him unique. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI feel that one event, even if he is the only person to have refereed both games, doesn't establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability. --Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 23:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. I marked a link as dead. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've expanded it with what I could find and added a number of references. As well as officiating two major cup finals, he refereed senior internationals – World Cup qualifiers, British Home Championship matches and friendlies – so he was recognised as a top official by FIFA, and European Cup ties, a UEFA competition. Such an official would receive substantial coverage if he achieved all of this in the 21st century and not the 1950s. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has officiated a lot of notable major finals. Lack of sources due to WP:RECENTISM, but sufficient evidence for an official from the 50s. --Jimbo^[online] 18:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes notability guidelines per WP:BIO, notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” The topic passes WP:BIO, section WP:BASIC due to the availability of multiple independent sources which demonstrate notability and in the manner of which those sources are not comprised of trivial coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin this user tends to recycle identical statements in other AfDs. [1] , [2], [3]. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 22 September 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. clear consensus after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enabling Desktop Grids for e-Science[edit]

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

Article was proposed for deletion with the rationale "Ephemeral project. No independent sources that are actually about this project, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG." The proposed deletion was contested posthumously - this is a neutral nomination. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As the original PRODder, no surprise here. The undelete request was wrong, the PROD was not a mistake, I did not think this was a wrestler, as, in fact, the people involved in this project know well. At least, that is what I am being told: User:Ademmen sent me multiple emails protesting this deletion and even asked a colleague of mine (working for the same employer) to call me at my office about this. This colleague told me that the deletion had been the subject of discussion at a recent meeting of the project participants and that people were really upset that their efforts to give this project an Internet presence were being thwarted. Despite all that brouhaha, I still think that this should be deleted as non-notable, not meeting WP:GNG. There are no independent sources. Yes, the project exists. Yes, project participants have published or participated at scientific meetings and mentioned the project in their presentations. This is what scientists do. I have a presentation at an international meeting tomorrow myself and will talk about my own pet project. That's my job and nothing out of the ordinary. If after my talk several independent sources report about my brilliant project (and I know it is brilliant, even if many colleagues don't see that - yet - but wait a few years!) could we start talking about creating an article about it. The same applies here. This is one of a bunch of articles on EU-funded research projects that have been created after some online canvassing (see here for link and some other remarks on this kind of projects. AS an aside, please note that some of the references in this article have nothing whatsoever to do with EDGeS, but are just links to existing desktop grids without any connection to EDGeS. --Crusio (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently fails WP:V for not having anything independent verify the claims and published. The WP:Cabal operating behind the author is requested to see WP:42. Phearson (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:V. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 18:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Synthesis. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A significant proportion of the article is about other initiatives which are more appropriately covered under Volunteer computing, as indeed they are. As for the remainder of this article, it relates to a now expired EU project, by which point any notability should be demonstrated by verifiable 3rd party discussion of outcomes, if such exist. The project is mentioned in the Grid_computing article, but even there carries a Citation Reqd notice. That should be sufficient (subject to suitable sourcing), and the project article is superfluous. AllyD (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Janiš[edit]

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

This screen writer and actor is not notable and does not pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER. Gorrad (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hmmm... WP:ENTERTAINER says: "1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." This depends on what is considered significant and Janis' roles in Hostel and The Ninth Day weren't insignificant. He also starred in a video for Basement Jaxx, not a minor band. As before, I'd suggest redirecting to Hostel as an alternative to deletion in this case. Valenciano (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, there are no reliable sources making those claims. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 18:40, 15 September 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. Can be restored if somebody really wants to merge anything. Sandstein 06:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Full Sail University people[edit]

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

This is a list of (mostly) non-notable people. Unlike most "people lists", this is a list of notable subjects and the people associated with them, as opposed to the other way around. For example, List of University of Florida people is a list of people who graduated from that school and how they are notable. This is a list of video games, movies, etc. and the people who worked on those films and just happened to graduate from this school. Most of the people on this list fail WP:BIO and only two people actually have articles. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, without prejudice to re-creation if these individuals are determined to be notable and have articles created on them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the minimal amount of legit content back to Full Sail University. Only one person on this list (Darren Lynn Bousman) currently has an article: the David Clyde listed here does not seem to be the same person as the famous '70s teen phenom pitcher. Bousman has directed multiple films in the (noxious but) famous Saw franchise, and he certainly passes the notability threshhold. However, after reviewing the rest of the list I am not sure that I see any other obvious candidates for notability. I agree that there is no good reason to have an article listing all the projects on which someone from this school happened to work. So at this point there's no need for this spin-off article, which does come off reading like marketing for the school rather than an encyclopedic list. I think the best solution would be to merge the minimal content about Bousman into the main article about Full Sail University. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List of non-notable people (aside from 1). -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Larrison[edit]

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. He last played in the minor leagues in 2009, meaning he likely won't be coming back. Per WP:BASE/N, minor league players are not inherently notable. Most of the results on Google News appear to be WP:ROUTINE: They're box scores, game recaps, and so forth. Alex (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He never made the show and does not pass WP:ATHLETE.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 16 September 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. Borderline for a no consensus close here. Courcelles 21:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yuka Saitō (voice actress)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The subject fails both WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I have been unable to find any reliable sources for the subject. There are plenty of user-edited sources and the one source from her agency, but nothing reliable. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Inks.LWC (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any reliable coverage or sourcing to satisfy notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added one reference to the news section of Anime News Network, to confirm she was in a series as the character indicated. If those are major characters in notable series she has done, then that makes her a notable voice actor. See WP:ENTERTAINER. Her roles can be confirmed in the primary sources if there was any sincere doubt it was her. Dream Focus 02:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Most of her roles are secondary characters but ones that fans of the shows could identify if asked and are notable within the fandoms. That said, there's not a whole lot of information currently on her at this time so I can't make any strong arguments to keep her article up at this time. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep. Per Dream Focus Comment and per WP:A&M/ORS.--Ald™ ¬_¬™ 12:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --shikai shaw (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does anyone read Japanese? I think this might be an interview with her, but I'm not sure. --Cattus ^talk 20:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: The one interview does look promising, but one interview isn;t enough to make them notable. However, given that something has been found and the difficulty in locating info, I'd say its a good reason to keep for the moment. This is not a blank check to keep the article forever if nothing else is found though.陣内 _Jinnai 22:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Over the past 24 hours, this article seems to have been subject to numerous redirects, dabs and so on. I think the article under discussion is now Yuka Saitō (voice actress) - could someone please confirm? PWilkinson (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the article with the AFD notice that links here. Dream Focus 22:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the links to the article. --Kusunose 02:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hitoshi Doi's seiyuu database lists a 1 page article about her in an issue of Newtype [4]. I don't know what exactly the article entails, but it might be useful source. Calathan (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I have that issue somewhere, although since I can't read much Japanese it is of limited use. If I can find it (and if I remember) I can provide a photo of the page if someone else wants to look at it. Shiroi Hane (talk) 13:52, 21 September 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 to delete, default to keep. There is clearly a dispute as to whether or not the subject is notable. Keep arguments are slightly stronger, as only a single notability guideline need be met, but the source used to verify the information is itself not terribly strong. lifebaka++ 17:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mariko Honda[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The subject fails both WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I have been unable to find any reliable sources for the subject. There are plenty of user-edited sources, but nothing reliable. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Inks.LWC (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any reliable coverage or sourcing to satisfy notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CSE search for 東山奈央. --Malkinann (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the guidelines for voice actors at WP:ENTERTAINER. Anime News Network does a good job of stating which were major roles in a series. [5] If you sincerely doubt the information there, it can be confirmed on the person's official website, or in the credits of the products mentioned. Dream Focus 04:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's enough here to where the characters she portrays are either main characters or notable characters and at least one of the series Omamori Himari has a decent following outside of Japan. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep. Per Dream Focus Comment and per WP:A&M/ORS.--Ald™ ¬_¬™ 12:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --shikai shaw (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She's a Japanese voice actress and even the Japanese Wikipedia doesn't have an article for her. While that in and of itself isn't a reason to delete, she does not appear to be notable. Yes the info is verifiable (although relying solely on ANN's database for a keep when its been shown numerous times to be unreliable is bad form), there is no reason to believe she is notable.陣内 _Jinnai 21:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hitoshi Doi's seiyuu database lists her as having three interviews or articles in anime magazines [6]. I haven't seen those articles (and can't read Japanese, so I couldn't read them anyway), but they might qualify as significant coverage from reliable sources. Calathan (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have at least one of those magazines, but likewise I can't read it. If someone is willing to take a look (and I can actually find the issues in question) I can provide photos of the pages in question. Shiroi Hane (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Buller[edit]

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

Half of the original article was just a copyright violation, as it was just copied and pasted. Other than that, I cannot find any reliable sources for the subject. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---Please see the copyright notice on Buller's page, and you'll notice that it does not violate copyright. As for reliable sources, it would appear that somebody has deleted the two outside sources regarding the Vanguard Voices competition and the Da Camera Young Artist Program page.VonHerzen2011 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Aside from the fact that copying a biography from the subject is likely to be problematic from a neutral point of view situation, the requirement at the subject's bio page requires that the biography not be modified with is incompatible with the licensing in use at Wikipedia and as such, that material cannot be copied here. -- Whpq (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of general notability from independent, reliable sources and doesn't meet any of the specific musician related notability criteria. --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Regarding the notability criteria: Note #9 for musicians in general (has won major award -- subject has won a major choral competition and several ASCAP awards, hardly minor) and #1 in the notability for composers (has written major work: subject has written several major, well-received works.) Subject has written music performed in all of the major US cities and several European countries. *Do Not DeleteVonHerzen2011 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I wouldn't consider the competition he won a "major competition". Inks.LWC (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The awards are not major, but do indicate that the person may be notable in the future. No prejudice to recreation then so long as it isn't a copy paste of the subject's bio from his web site. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:05, 18 September 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, however, following WP:1E the article should likely be moved with a redirect to a more fitting title, such as 2011 UBS trading scandal. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kweku Adoboli[edit]

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

The person alleged to be the rogue trader who caused a USD 2 billion loss to Swiss bank UBS today. It's likely that he fails WP:BLP1E at this time. What's notable is not the person but the event, which is covered (although not well) at UBS#2011 Rogue Trader Scandal, which should suffice for now. Should media coverage of the person, as opposed to the event, persist over a period of months or years as it has for Jérôme Kerviel, then the recreation of a separate article would be warranted. Sandstein 18:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he's number 7 on the List of trading losses. The lack of information is because it happened today. Also, the nomination is by someone whose main activity is to delete article. Tony (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - WP:BLP1E pretty clearly applies here. On the other hand, judging by the amount of cash involved and considering the established notability of characters like Nick Leeson, it seems pretty obvious that this guy will pass BLP1E in the near future. Granted we're not meant to be making judgments on predicted future notability. Quick question; does this event have an article? If not, we should probably rename (i.e. something like 2011 UBS Unauthorized Trading Scandal) rather than delete. NickCT (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In just one day the person has been the focus of articles (or online stories for those who missed the deadline) by AP, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, BBC, and many, many other top financial news providers. Rogue trader stories are always closely tied to a single person. In any case, if this AfD goes 7 days there will be thousands of articles on the story by that time. Just search "Kweku Adoboli" on google news on Sept. 22 if you don't believe me. Before this incident there were 0. Smallbones (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Just checked Google news 1,688 news articles now. Smallbones (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least in the absence of a separate article on the event. I'm not convinced that a subsection on the UBS article will suffice in terms of the amount of info and interest that will come in over the next few days. Plus I'm loathe to delete anything that will almost inevitably be recreated rightly at some future point and in the interim be recreated ad nauseum by well meaning editors not party to this discussion and then repeatedly deleted. danno 19:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative to deletion, the article could be renamed and adapted to cover the event rather than the person. I probably should have thought of that earlier. Sandstein 19:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that might be good as an interim measure unless/until we have enough to justify breaking out the Adoboli section into its own article space. danno 19:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate my comments above, I'd support an interim renaming. NickCT (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Extremely notable. The personality of a rogue trader must also be taken into account when considering the event. Deletion would be ridiculous. --Tovojolo (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Suppose someone previously unknown assassinated the president of the US. It'd be silly to nominate an article on the guy 5 minutes after the article is created with the rationale that the guy is only known for a single event. Some individuals are clearly going to be notable as soon as the "one" event occurs. Quarl ^(talk) 19:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He might be notable for one event, but it's quite a significant event. How many people can boast of losing $2bn? Seriously though, if we don't keep this article, we should at least have one on the event itself, which is certainly notable. Perhaps Adoboli's article can redirect to something like 2011 UBS crisis with the information from here merged to that article. Just a thought. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been many reliable news coverage citing his name. There is no need to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muani (talk • contribs) 04:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and redirect as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E and NickCT above. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BLP1E. The question is not whether the incident is notable (it is), nor whether he will be notable in the future (he might be) nor even how many newspaper articles talk about this incident today (zillions). The question is whether we have enough information for a biography of the man. Just now I removed such scintillating trivia as the claim that he has 11 friends on facebook who are current or former employees of UBS. Gee, he has friends on facebook... from work. This is not a biography, this is just collecting scraps of information that don't add up to a biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure I like NickCT's 2011 UBS Unauthorized Trading Scandal suggestion above, since authorisation (or lack of authorisation) seems like the kind of thing debated in a court of law. Maybe 2011 UBS Trading Scandal? 2011 UBS Investment Banking Scandal? Given the 2000 hits on Google news in the last three days I'm assuming that scandal is safe. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People causing such huge losses get 'famous', their name will be known also in some years: remember i.e. Nick Leeson and Yasuo Hamanaka (1,6 bn USD). The name of Kweku Adoboli will imo stand for two questions:
- how - quite exactly three years after the Lehman desaster - could that happen ? Didn't many banks make holy vows to improve / tighten / sharpen their internal risk control ? Didn't regulatory authorities enforce that ?
- is it really reasonable to give so much money into the hands of so young men - have they enough experience of life ?

Imo, his name will stay famous; maybe his photo will be an icon (symbol) for these questions / grievances --Neun-x (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Response to Neun-x: Well, ask yourself, what did his father do? A diplomat. Did the father have connections? Do people put money in various places in Europe? Do they expect favors in return... who knows...? But an angle to research, and if WP:RS, add. History2007 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has already made himself one of the most notable traders in history. And it seems like his notoriety will only grow--there seems to be a good possibility that his actions will be the final straw that will cause UBS to ditch investment banking as well as galvanizing support for UK legislation to require banks to ring-fence investment banking from consumer/commercial banking, which would make his influence on the finance industry outsize w.r.t the actual loss he incurred. eyrieowl (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I still have not seen any coverage of this case which did not in some way focuse on this trader. I think there is quite a lot of information out there about him, and given the size of the loss there will undoubtedly come more very soon. I think given the nature of a rogue trader case like this, there will always be a lot of focus on the trader in question.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just made very good use of it. I didn't want to know about the scandal, because I'd just read a news article about it. I came here to find out him, what it known about him as a notable individual, such as his bio and such. Absolutely keep, but some information might not be necessary as you already link to an article about the scandal. Use this article instead of including his background and such in the article about the scandal. 67.246.33.203 (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What do we need $3 bil loss? $4 bil? I say over $1 bil is notable these days. A decade ago $500 million would have been, but these days with all the mortgage backed securities and all, $1 bil gets you noticed. Does anyone know if his job has been filled yet? It seems so easy to get into UBS.. just kidding. But he is notable. History2007 (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Front page of today's WSJ and making international headlines. Definitely notable. Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first thing I did to find the wikipedia page was to google his name. The name of the incident itself is not yet well know. His name is the most recognisable term in this incident right now. Vapour (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge or move to 2011 UBS rogue trader scandal. What's with all the keep votes? Clearly untenable under WP:1E. Seriously, why do people bother commenting in AfD debates if they have no idea of how our inclusion criteria? The article can be salvaged by making it about the event, not the individual. All that is needed is a move. What is crystal clear is that the article as it stands does not meed WP:BIO. --dab (𒁳) 18:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge or move Agree with Dbachmann. Merge or move to 2011 UBS rogue trader scandal. WP:BLP1E definitely applies here. Also agree with nominator that this can be broken out into a separate article later. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it's a person known for only one event, but in this case the person IS the event. Also, the trading scandal itself doesn't have its own page, merely a section in UBS. And, of course, similar cases have articles about the rogue traders themselves, rather than the event. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The media coverage of the incident has focused on Adoboli himself, as well as the implications of his actions, thus making him notable. The names of traders who committed similar acts of large-scale fraud have entered the public consciousness in the past, such as Nick Leeson, and as such have articles of their own. There is no evidence so far to suggest that Adoboli is not equally notable. --Tom Slaughter is going to win (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not as though there was a whole gallery of rogue traders, just this one guy. He is the event. Would you argue then that Nick Leeson should be moved to 1995 Barings Bank rogue trader scandal? I'll concede that WP:BLP1E does suggest that in general, when there is a single article it should reflect the event. However I think WP:CRITERIA supports the current title, as I feel users are more likely to be looking for this with Kweku Adoboli than "UBS rogue trader scandal". --Saforrest (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E tells us that a biography is fine in such a case: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. ". WP:PRESERVE tells us that we shouldn't even be thinking about deleting when we have numerous good sources like the BBC and FT. Warden (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep, and besides, Colonel Warden's interpretation of the WP:BLP1E policy appears to be the correct one. Seriously, people, if you are going to cite Wikipedia policy, at least have the decency to read it first. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 03:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It defies logic and belief that this article is being considered for deletion. The person is definitely notable, has played a large role in this event, and merits a separate article. There are also enough information about him floating about the media at the moment.(1tephania (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The issue here is whether relatively trivial coverage for a number of different activities adds up to notability, and the consensus is that it does not. JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Shields[edit]

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

Photographer with "no formal training" who has been involved in a series of events which have made the news, but not due to the quality of his photographs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable person doesn't have to have formal training to be notable. The individual also "set a world record by staying awake for 968 consecutive hours while being observed 24 hours a day by a team of friends acting as monitors.", which is referenced and notable, despite the fact that Guinness didn't confirm it because of safety concerns regarding this type of activity. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The person also has a listing at IMDB - Tyler Shields at IMDb, which typically doesn't list unnoteworthy people. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB simply lists credits in film, television, and video productions. A great many of the people listed in IMDB would fail our notability guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couple of minor controversies, limited photographic notability. Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 5 September 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) 00:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's more data that establishes notability for the topic's inclusion on Wikipedia, both from AOL News:

"Ultimate All-Nighter: Man Tries to Stay Awake 40 Days", AOLnews.com, October 23, 2010.
Muessig, Ben. "Man Who Stayed Awake for 40 Days Looks Back With Open Eyes", AOLnews.com, November 2, 2010.

The data is noteworthy per the individual being a performance artist. Also note that the nominator for deletion of this article removed this data from the article recently, under the rationale (verbatim) in the edit summary that "unconfirmed claim of world record is not a world record", which doesn't qualify removal of the data, because in part, the information is not about an actual world record, just a claim of one. The data serves to further establish notability for the topic and is worthy of inclusion as content within the article, and it seems inappropriate for it to be deleted by an individual whom also nominated it to AfD and wants to have the entire article deleted while it is being worked on by others to improve it and establish notability for the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, significant references about him doing his profession. IMDB is considered not a reliable reference. Most Guinness World records are fluff and that doesn't mean the person gets an article. Bgwhite (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable by our standards--a few passing mentions and news items is not enough. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His exhibits that get coverage. Here is one link where they mention him and quote him as well. [7] You can also find ample coverage of him and his work at [8] That's two, so no sense digging through the rest of the Google news results for others, although I'm sure they are out there. Dream Focus 02:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.popeater.com/2010/02/20/tyler-shields-the-new-face-of-celebrity-photography/ shows ample coverage of him personally. Dream Focus 12:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO . Coverage is mainly about him taking photos of notable people, nothing in-depth about him. LibStar (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 18:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The topic actually passes notability guidelines per WP:BIO, notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” The topic passes WP:BIO, section WP:BASIC due to the availability of multiple independent sources which demonstrate notability and in the manner of which those sources are not comprised of trivial coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin this user tends to recycle identical statements in other AfDs. [9] , [10], [11]. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if one tries to insist on following policy, there are a limited number of ways to say it. If one wishes to make up ad hoc policy on one's own, only then is it possible to be more creative. (This does not mean I agree with Northamerica's position on this particular article, necessarily) but your's is an unfair criticism, unless you wish to say the argument is being applied to situation where it is totally irrelevant -- and that does not seem to be the case here. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

flooding various AfDs with text that is as easy as clicking on WP:BIO is not necessary. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if the policy is being ignored, and ones wishes to say it needs to be followed, it would seem to be quite necessary DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note he did comment specifically on this AFD at the top of the AFD. This wasn't a mindless vote spam, this was someone stating their case in three places, where the same situation seemed to be happening. Dream Focus 03:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – My discussions in the page are about the article this AfD is based upon, not other AfD discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, it meets the GNG, but there are other policies to take account of , such as NOT TABLOID. My own position from the first has been that if a person is considered to be notable, they have to be notable for something, and I do not think this is the case; I've said as much for similar "celebrities". This is the sort of situation which leaves me less than enchanted with the real applicability of the GNG. But how to balance alternative policies is always going to be a matter of judgment. I could have instead of saying this closed the AfD , with reliance upon my own judgment of how to balance. But I do not think any admin is entitled to do that when the community is unsure. It would be a supervote, and I don't approve of them even when they express my own opinion. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't he famous for his artwork? That many famous people don't volunteer to do art exhibits with him if he wasn't a notable artist. Its not some random guy out of nowhere who never did anything called them all up and said hey, I want you to dress up like a vampire for me, and I want 20 of you to give me some of your blood to make an art exhibit with it, and they all said sure, why not. This was someone who was known for his art before hand. Dream Focus 03:03, 22 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Hill[edit]

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

Does not pass general notability, she is only connected to other notable people Cox wasan (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WAGs don't inherit notability.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's the subject of coverage (either biographical or fictionalized) in multiple reliable sources, viz. the biography listed under "Further reading," another biography by David Hanna, a Joel Schumacher film, continued news coverage. Yes, she probably wouldn't have received this coverage if she weren't the girlfriend of a notable person, but it's still coverage; WP:NOTINHERITED says that people aren't notable just for being related to other notable people, not that we should ignore our ordinary notability standards and discard RS coverage because the person is related to a notable person. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered in reliable sources. I agree that she has inherited her notability, but the coverage establishes that as notable nonetheless. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roscelese. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The topic passes notability guidelines per WP:BIO, notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” The topic passes WP:BIO, section WP:BASIC due to the availability of multiple independent sources which demonstrate notability and in the manner of which those sources are not comprised of trivial coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin this user tends to recycle identical statements in other AfDs. [12], [13], [14] LibStar (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears that the nominator may not have followed the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which, if true, nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. The nomination's basis seems to be upon content within the article, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article very likely shouldn't have been referred to AfD in the first place. Seems to be another hasty nomination to delete, for whatever reasons, rather than improve, verify and expand Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added a rescue tag to this article, because the topic is actually notable. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing just rationale for doing so, instead just making basic, generic statements such as "doesn't pass general notability", etc. If nobody comes along to correct the injust nomination, the article apparently is just deleted, based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching before nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: nominate an article for deletion, make a generic statement to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability, wait and see if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, then watch the article be deleted. There needs to be better checks and balances in this process to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia guidelines for the deletion to occur. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being deleted. It's easy to type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute inferior nominations. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, regardless of the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article nominated per generic statements, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of simple censorship that is easy to accomplish. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable female criminal, article needs to be expanded. Loads of sources that establish notability. - DonCalo (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - repeating,, notable female criminal. thats it.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:37, 22 September 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 Cobb County School District. JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eastvalley Elementary School[edit]

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

Speedy delete. No indication of notability. Elementary schools generally not considered topics for articles for that reason. They are non-controversial and parents and teachers want to keep it that way! Student7 (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Marietta,_Georgia#Education~~ Cobb County School District [Ed. didn't realize there was an article on the district] as we sometimes do with non-notable lower schools. Unless other users believe it is too similar to the multitude of schools in other locations called East Valley, with a space, in which case delete. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cobb County School District, per standard practice. Carrite (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cobb County School District, per standard practice. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kristinn Steindórsson[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Reason for contesting was that he is a well-known international footballer. This is false he has not played for the Icelandic national team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:57, 16 September 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. The no consensus here refers to the keep and merge discussion, there is clearly no support for using the deletion tool. Merge discussions should continue on the talk page. Courcelles 21:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-ex-gay[edit]

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

Simple WP:CFORK from Ex-gay movement#People who no longer support the ex-gay movement. We should delete this article and move to the ex-gay subsection any information that's here but not in the subsection, and redirect this to the subsection. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable page. --Cox wasan (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's just not notable? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Roscelese makes a good point. We are obliged to give reasons for why we think an article is not sufficiently notable. Just saying "not notable" is not enough if we want our vote to count. Deterence ^Talk 13:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ex-gay movement#People who no longer support the ex-gay movement. Not notable enough for its own page. -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yet another POINTy nomination by a user bitter about the deletion of "List of ex-gay people." Topic has been covered in source after source (eg. [15], [16], [17]); notability is clearly demonstrated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, ever heard of WP:AGF? I didn't even know the article existed until today, and it's a clear content fork. I'm not saying we delete it altogether, I'm saying it's covered at Ex-gay movement and doesn't need its own article. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Retaliatory nomination in respose to recent deletions to make a WP:POINT. Nominator has recently filed another retaliatory AfD: [[18]]. Extremely well sourced and conforms with BLP. Also conforms with WP:CFORK. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be substantial enough to have its own article. --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from it being very well-referenced, AfD noms that are motivated by political agendas or retaliation, (see comment by User:Dominus Vobisdu above), just piss me off. Deterence ^Talk 23:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Biased POV nonsense. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About a third of the prose content describes the ex-gay movement, and the list of people appears to be largely duplicated. The content is related to Ex-gay movement. I see little reason, aside from POV to-and-froing, not to merge the content to that article, with the usual redirect. (I note that a merged article will be borderline in terms of WP:SIZERULE, but I think the substantial use of list format makes the article readable at that size.) Cnilep (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Ex-gay movement. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic covered in multiple reliable sources, including:
- books: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]
- News articles:[33][34][35]
- Magazines:[36][37][38][39][40][41]
- And, I would like to adress "arguments" given for deletion and merging, my comments are between "()":
  - User:Cox wasan:Not a notable page (Statement not argument).
  - User:Conservative Philosopher:Biased POV nonsense (Statement not argument).
  - User:Stuartyeates:merge to Ex-gay movement (This isn't even a stetement, this is JUSTAVOTE)
  - User:Marek69:Not notable enough for its own page (Again statement not argument)
- And response to User:Cnilep (The only user who gave an argument for merging or deletion): Of course that Article Ex-ex-gay must adress Ex-gay movement, because of meaning of the term Ex-ex-gay. Just like Ex-gay movement or Ex-gay is related to Gay and Gay rights movement, but that doesn't mean that we should merge Ex-gay movement to Gay rights movement or sometning.--В и к и T 10:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the source you have for suggesting that I'm claiming my !vote was an argument. Either provide a source or stop misrepresenting me please. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuartyeates, what kind of "source" could be needed? User:Wikiwind (ВukuT) merely responded to your vote by pointing out what is obvious to anyone looking at this page - your vote violated WP:JUSTAVOTE due to your failure to provide reasons for your vote. If anything, you are the one doing the "misrepresenting". Deterence ^Talk 06:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISCUSSAFD states:The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.--В и к и T 06:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ex-gay movement. The topic currently seems inextricably linked to the extent of being a subtopic. Although it is indeed notable and well sourced, the length and nature of the article as it stands doesn't as yet warrant a separate page rather than a section on the ex-gay page. Alternatively, a significant expansion with well sourced information about ex-ex-gay people or the movement (counter-movement?) which would render it too long to be a section would do the trick. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge - with all the ex-gay crap. The article is clearly a section of a larger whole, and makes little sense outside of the whole ex-gay thing. Also, a potential blp-nightmare, so whatever anyone does, please be careful and midful of blp issues. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect While there is, in my view, sufficient notability and sufficient material to justify a "keep", the current presentation approaches being a POV fork, and I believe that a neutral exposition of the topics would be best served by a consolidated article. (As an aside: I feel we often go too far out of our way to avoid merging topics whose exposition would be more cleanly handled in a single article, I'm a bit of a mergist.) As with Dr. Marcus, I'd likely change my view to keep if the article were significantly larger, at some point the parent article would simply be too large, butI don't see that we've yet reached that point. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:11, 22 September 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. Courcelles 21:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Murtaugh[edit]

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball figure. Did not reach majors as either a player or manager and played only five games at the highest level of minor league baseball, Triple-A. His political career does not seem very notable. Alex (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ——Bagumba (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Danny Murtaugh. Some concern that statements about the baseball player's political career are a case of combining a person just because their name is the same per Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein. I only definitively sourced that the baseball player also worked for attorney general Jerry Kilgore. Most of the sources for his baseball career start with the fact that he is the son of Danny. His political career doesnt generate enough coverage about him personally and doesnt meet WP:POLITICIAN, although he is often quoted as Kilgore's spokesperson. While one could argue that Murtaugh has enough significant sources to meet WP:GNG as a baseball player, his WP:IMPACT seems primarily to be as his father's son. GNG allows that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." There are enough accomplishments to merge into his father's article. —Bagumba (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the sources available, I think there is enough to meet GNG, though the article needs quite a bit of work. Murtaugh apparently also served as a spokesman for George Allen,[42] and was part of the effort to bring an MLB team to Northern Virginia (source already in article). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 9 September 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, BusterD (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niklas Horn[edit]

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

he never played on professional level, fails notability Nuumanok (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NFOOTY, ~~article states he plays for a 3rd Liga team (a semi-professional league)~~ Edit:struck per below Jebus989 ^✰ 20:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AfD was not properly completed; the article in question was never tagged, and the article creator was never notified. I have rectified this. Giant Snowman 18:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the 3rd Liga is actually fully-professional, but this player has not appeared in it, meaning he fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, and has not received significant coverage. Therefore, he fails both relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 13:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jericho & Carlito[edit]

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

Non notable tag team. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When did they team up? Not notable.--Deely1 17:47, 7 September 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, The-Pope (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources" (WP:GNG) Jebus989 ^✰ 20:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one-time-only combination is so lacking in notability that it doesn't merit a mention on the individual bios, let alone its own article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:56, 16 September 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, blatant hoaxes are vandalism. Something would have verified the existence of a historically significant subject under this name by now, even if the underlying article was nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grido Slabadaze'h[edit]

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

Very probably a hoax, utterly unverifiable and contains very dubious things. Feel free to speedy delete it as a hoax page if people with more knowledge of Chechnya agree with this. That I can't find a single reliable source for the article subject may be a problem of transcription. But there are also no sources for the two authors of the books listed at the bottom of the article, nor for the very unlikely named people like "Tiago Mandrillo". It's a bit sad that this survived for four months and was recently "reviewed" (until then, it was listed as an unreviewed article at least). Fram (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete:

....was born in the town of Lavta, 13 km (8 mi) from the Chechen town of Grozny, to a family of farmers from the Dorge nish nish clan, a sub-group of the Hogre nishde tribe.
His mother, Madre Slabadanze'h, named her newborn son Grido, which in the Chechen language means "Thy who is".
Shortly afterward, Grido's 42-year-old uncle returned to the Chechen republic after many years living as a transsexual in Sudan.
During this time, Grido supported himself as a stripper at a bar in Grozny.

Sounds like a hoax to me. The names seem to be some kind of Spanish/Yiddish pastiche. Not mentioned in Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a hoax/joke. Zero references. Editor has a total history of 6 edits, all on this article, their first was to create this article. North8000 (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the outrageous claims in this article would be easy to verify by Google if this were not a hoax. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Very funny. xDDDDDD Moscowconnection (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete — it seems that there was no chechen republic before the year 2000, so he wasn't president in the 90s. but it seems that there was a chechen republic of ichkeria from 91 to 2000. unfortunately some other guys were presidents of it. the only google hits for this name are to the wp article. the conclusion is that it's a hoax. not a bad one, either, but they should have toned it down and put in a bunch of sources in cyrillic. it might never have been noticed. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:52, 16 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back-date[edit]

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

This is a disambiguation page that does not disambiguate anything. The only two entries are word fragments. Whpq (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. North8000 (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Confirmed, this page disambiguates nothing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it should be a redirect, but redirecting it to Options backdating doesn't seem right. The "what links here" are a "see also", back-dated records, back-dated royalties, a back-dated promotion, and List of The Men from the Ministry episodes entry. TimBentley (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IssueBurner[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence that it meets the notability criteria: no assertion of notability per WP:GNG; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; borderline WP:SPAM. Proposed deletion contested by WP:Single-purpose account. Gurt Posh (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Gurt Posh (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Also advertising for rather run of the mill software: an integrated help desk & issue tracking software. It is known for its ease of use & tight email integration. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability and no significant coverage online to be found with Google. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable software. SL93 (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any notable third-party sources for this software, more than half of those sources are a conflict of interest. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Schools of Ninjutsu. Sandstein 06:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genbukan[edit]

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

Modern martial art without reliable, independent secondary sources. WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Schools of Ninjutsu retains mention of this MA. jmcw (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Schools of Ninjutsu, but it may need tidying up and the unsourced bits stripping out, there's not enough independent info to do a standalone article 5/10 of the sources are to the Genbukan site.--Nate ^t/_c 11:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The talk page for the article in question has a lot of complaints from people trying to add references to magazines like Black Belt et al, with issues of the page being semi-protected or people deleting the references or some nonsense. There don't seem to be any real world-famous top-tier Ninjitsu organizations--possibly because Ninja are really an elaborate joke (the reference art fell out of use and there is no direct lineage from any original practitioner to any current practitioner)--which may mean any such "Ninja School" is either completely non-notable (due to worthlessness) or automatically notable (due to uniqueness). Encyclopedic is a different argument from general notability, though. --John Moser (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been to the talk page and I do not see any arguments regarding the deletion of references. There are arguments related to the inability to add references to:

Black Belt Magazine Article "The Battle for Ninja Supremacy" on the issue of 1985. BLITZ Australasian Martial Arts magazine Black Belt Journeys Inside Black Belt Gradings: Genbukan Ninjustu. Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, Volumen 2 edited by Thomas A. Green,Joseph R. Svinth Encyclopédie technique, historique, biographique et culturelle des arts martiaux Escrito por Gabrielle Habersetzer,Roland Habersetzer Journal of Asian martial arts, Volume 17

Besides this is a martial art though in over 100 dojo's in thirty countries and twenty states of the USA: that goes to notability.

Regarding lineage of the teachings of ninpo one only has to follow Shoto Tanemura's and Masaaki Hatsumi's training with Toshitsugu Takamatsu. What I do find interesting is this POV interest in destroying Genbukans and Shoto Tanemuras pages time and time again while maintaining Bujinkans, and Masaaki Hatsumi's. This is interesting since Tanemura trainned with Hatsumi until he left to found Genbukan so there seems to be people trying to discredit one and not the other (Tanemura's article has been removed more than once but Hatsumi's hasn't, etc.)

One has only to check the background of Hatsumi, Tanemura, Takamatsu and Bujinkan and Genbukan in order to wonder what is wrong here: especially since Jmcw37, prime promoter of this removal is quite intersted in promoting certain martial arts and not others, as one can find out just by following him.

As for wether Takamatsu's story is real or not: that is POV, the only encyclopedic thing to do is to document not to speculate (POV) wether the art died or it passed on, that is Bluefoxicy opinion, not a fact.

The fact is that Tanemura, Hatsumi, Takamatsu, Bujinkan and Genbukan do exist, are notable and are referenced with enough sources. What Jmcw37 Et. Al. have is a a Vendetta against certain martial arts and if it is this why they choose to be editors (to impose their POV on the Wiki) the Wiki should reconsider who has what editor powers: just that Jmcw37 and friends do not "like" something does not make it uncyclopedic, or non-notable. It is wise to question what Genbukan and Bujinkan acert about themselves and what is written about Tanemura, Hatsumi, Takamatsu, but Hatsumi himself has been consultant in serious historic events that try to reconstruct as the Shinobi no Mono series of movies.

Just that Jmcw37 Et.al. do not like the existence of this schools does not erase them from the world.

--186.176.107.45 (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read and reread and I do not see what article is Bluefoxicy reading: The Genbukan is a world wide martial arts system that includes a Ninpo Taijutsu Curriculum, trainning in the use of some weapons such as Hanbo, Rokushaku Bo, japanese sword techniques (Bikkenjutsu), Jujitsu, Goshinjutsu (self defense), Koryu Karate, Chugoku Kenpo, Shuriken, Kyudo, and else founded in the 1980's when Shoto Tanemura escinded himself from Haatsumi's Bujinkan. They do claim to have trainned (and it seems they did train) with Toshitsugu Takamatsu whose training in ninpo tecniques is quite referenced to in martial arts sources (i.e. Black Belt Magazine article The Roots and Reality of Ninjutsu of OCT82). So this schools do exist, people do train on these arts, it _is_ questioned what relation there is between this schools and the traditional martial arts of the ancient past if any, some say they are based on ancient tradition, some say this is bogus, they are referenced by reliable third parties...

Do we erase all Judo info because most of it's references are related to Kanō Jigorō and followers? Do we erase all Aikido info because most of it's references are related to Morihei Ueshiba and followers? Do we remove all catholic faith related articles because papal infalibility is not provable? Do we remove all religous faith's articles because some people believe stuff that is not provable but they claim it (is it wrong to say that Shoto Tanemura claims he is "Meyko Kaiden" in these arts and this is questioned here[] and there[]

And I want to clarify something: there were some tags in these articles that I myself, in good faith, removed when I added independent sources since it was argued y the talk page that there weren't enough independent sources. Jmcw37 put them back without explanation in the talk page so I removed them again. Since this was happening some editors protected the artice so I could not edit it. Then _finally_ it was explained by Jmcw37 that he did not consider those references reliable. I added new sources in the talk page, from the magazines and reference that _he_ told me to search from, he himself, as a "wiki editor" requested Black Belt Mag articles as verifiable references: I complied but I cannot edit the article because it is protected so I cannot edit it so Jmcw37 can still claim that it is not "notable" or not "verifiable" no matter if there are 100 independent references it seems he will go on asking for more. This is a vendetta on these organizations so they do not appear on the Wiki, or so it seems to me, not a real concern for notability or reliabily or wether the articles have encyclopedic value. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Edit I read the Wikipedia:WPMA/N and the sources cited above _do_ seem to comply: I move for the article to be edited based also on this information. I could do the job myself but the article is protected so I can´t.

--186.176.107.45 (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now, since there are some POV comments I would like to clarify that the vision of The Genbukan is _not_ the vision of "Ninja" of the Hollywood movies and else. Since there are some POV comments here: I myself trained TaeKownDo when I was in High School and as a younger man, both WTF and ITF at different times earning a black belt in WTF. I've takken some classes in Hapkido and Aikido at different times, before entering the Genbukan and having my kids train on it and it is not what people might imagine from unscrupulous people dealing on the subject. My Sensei here in Costa Rica was one of the important figures in the devolpment of Judo and Jujutsu in the country with higher degree Dan in both and in Kendo from before entering the Genbukan and achieving higher degree Dan in Ninpo Taijutsu and Jujutsu in the system started by Soke Shoto Tanemura. I also have been to a seminar in Milwaukee from Genbukan, hosted by Kioshi Michael Colemann and taught by Soke Tanemura himself: some people might not believe what goes on there but the art is quite legitimate and quite effective as both, a martial art and a defense system.

The Tanemura, Haatsumi, Takamatsu connection could be questioned as a line of uninterrumped ninjutsu techniques since ancient times: they claim it is like this and it can be questioned. That does not mean there is no notability: Genbukan has been featured in top rank martial arts litterature, and is being taught in more than a hundred dojo's in thirty countries and and twenty USA states. Claiming that all dojo's that train in Genbukan are afiliated primary as to asses notabilty is like claiming that anybody that has something to do with Judo or with Aikido or Jujitsu is affilaited with the subject and all those articles would then need to be deleted too, on the same grounds. Efforts have been made and are being made (and blocked) to add more and more independent and verifiable sources to the Genbukan article, and Tanemura's role. That some people in the martial arts world do not _like_ certain martial arts and prefer others is not new and not news to me (wether it is a debate between WTF and ITF TaeKwonDo, Aikijutsu, Aikido, Jujitsu, Judo, and variations different Karate styles and the like). But that some people do not like the Genbukan, Bujinkan and like schools existence does not erase them from the planet, nor makes them less notable, nor unreliable: it does not diminish their importance and it does not make content related to them "uncyclopedic". --186.176.107.45 (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i.e. I do not see any basic difference of interpretation that would not warrant the deletion of the Shintō Musō-ryu article, or why Takaji Shimizu would be "considered" 25thd headmaster. Most references appear to be linked with Takaji Shimizu's Shintō Musō-ryu, there isn't any way to garantee continuity since the 16 hunreds, etc. Same for To Shin Do, Tamiya-ryū, and many of the modern practice of ancient ryu ha, but _they_ are notable and encyclopedic and, if same standards apply as to primary references then I do not see the difference that motivates Jmcw37 to try to "get rid" of Genbukan from the Wiki. Most japanase (and chinese and korean, etc.) martial arts article would have to bee erased by the same standards. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Nate1481 claims that "5/10 of the sources are to the Genbukan site" I have tried also adding sources to other Dojo's around the globe that teach the same art but they were questioned as affiliated because they teach Genbukan's form of Taijutsu, Jujitsu, Karate, Bujutsu, Bikkenjutsu, Ghoshinjutsu, and other martial arts: http://www.ninjutsumexico.com.mx/ http://genbukan.es/ http://genbukan.idomyweb.com/ http://www.bushikaicr.com/ http://www.genbukan-barcelona.com/ http://www.seikadojo.co.uk/genbukan.htm http://www.genbukan-ninpo.org/ http://www.ninpo.org/ http://www.taiyodojo.com.ar/index1.htm http://genbukan.tripod.com/GENBUKAN.html http://www.genbukansa.com/ http://www.genbukan.be/ http://www.genbukan.com.br/ http://www.genbukanmorelia.com/inicio.html http://genbukanbajio.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/resena-del-seminario-genbukan-en-celaya-noviembre-del-2010/ http://www.genbukan.de/Content-pa-showpage-pid-44.html http://cnargentina.com.ar/tienda/productos/499/120357-verme/amatsu-tatara-bumon-genbukan-ninpo-bugei http://www.genbukan.co.uk/splash.php http://kohakudojo.co.uk/taikai/ --186.176.107.45 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)--186.176.107.45 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Schools of Ninjutsu I looked at the sources mentioned on the article's talk page. The ones for Black Belt magazine generally led to ads for videos and the mentions in books tended to be one line passing mentions. I did not find significant independent coverage of this art. The numerous links to related sites do not convince me of notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Black Belt Magazine Article "The Battle for Ninja Supremacy" on the issue of 1985 is an article centered on Genbukan and Bujinkan. (http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=39sDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA20&dq=genbukan&hl=es&ei=nGx2TofzDcnGgAfn4dHiAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=genbukan&f=false) In Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, Volumen 2 editado por Thomas A. Green,Joseph R. Svinth, in page 170, "Ninpo in the Modern Era". It is centered _completely_ on Tamatsu's students including the founding of Genbukan and Bujinkan. (http://books.google.com/books?id=P-Nv_LUi6KgC&pg=PA171&dq=shoto+tanemura&hl=es&ei=KEBmToD3BczAtgeKteH-CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=shoto%20tanemura&f=false) In Encyclopédie technique, historique, biographique et culturelle des arts ... Escrito por Gabrielle Habersetzer,Roland Habersetzer, Takagi Roshin Ryu is referenced as an art taught in this day and age by Tanemura (Genbukan) and Masaaki (Bujinkan). Encyclopédie technique, historique, biographique et culturelle des arts ... Escrito por Gabrielle Habersetzer,Roland Habersetzer There is an article in Metropolis about doctoral candidate in medieval studies Roy Ron, who has lived in Japan for 12 years and trained in Genbukan since the middle of the 1980's where he explains the art (http://archive.metropolis.co.jp/lifeinjapan/303/lifeinjapaninc.htm) There is an aritcle in Blitz Black Belt Journeys Magazine about Gebukan's grading siystem. (http://www.blitzmag.net/people/ninjutsu/166-black-belt-journeys) Of course there are _also_ adds in Black Belt Magazine for Genbukan. Another article in Black Belt Mag can be found in the issue of OCT96 "Stick fighting techniques of the Ninja" by Joe Svaral, a student of Shoto Tanemura (it says so in the article). (http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=S9kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA113&dq=%22amatsu+tatara%22&hl=es&ei=FXF2Tv_BPIvrgQex8v3lDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22amatsu%20tatara%22&f=false) Of course I am new at this wikipedia martial arts editing thing and I might have made mistakes about how to use the talk page when the page was blocked as a place to store references but I still hold that there are numerous references by third party magazines regarding the art and numerous dojo's training in the art: so it is notable. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course there are other articles (In Black Belt Magazine) that refer to Tanemura's time under Haatsumi's Bujinkan and Stephen K. Hayes visit and transformation from TaeKwonDo instructor to Ninjutsu instructor. At this time Tanemura hand't changed his name to Shoto yet and still went by his birthname Tsunehisa. Hayes trained mostly under Tanemura.

(http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=_9QDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA24&dq=tanemura&hl=es&ei=KnN2Tq60MNOtgQfXtLXuDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=tanemura&f=false) "Atlanta's Store front Ninjutsu Dojo" where Black Belt claims that Hayes ran the "only certified ninjutsu dojo" of USA back in JUL76: certified because he went to Japan to train in Bujinkan under Masaaki and Tanemura. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply This is an article by Andrew Adams interviewing Steve Hayes. Repeating Steve Hayes words in an article makes it primary source material. jmcw

Or http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=GtQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA82&dq=tanemura&hl=es&ei=XXh2TuWDFsudgQfh7NnZDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCDge#v=onepage&q=tanemura&f=false "Ninjutsu a Martial art of Mistique" by Hayes. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply This is an article by Steve Hayes. Steve Hayes is not established as a reliable source, just a prolific source.

That Black Belt Magazine is considered a reliable source is a 'line in the sand' for the Wikipedia MA Project: it is not peer-reviewed but is has a good general reputation. It is however popular press: I assert that there are articles about ninja because it sells the magazine - not because BB Mag has researched and checked the credentials of the ninja authors. The only reliable source about ninja (that I know) is Donn Draeger: there is no mention of Genbukan. jmcw (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply I just checked the wiki article for Donn F. Dragger. "Draeger wrote many books on the martial arts. The books he wrote came to be recognized as some of the most reliable sources available in the English language.[citation needed]" cleary not neutral point of view without any sources. _all_ the sources of the article _come_ either from articles from Black Belt Mag _or_ primary sources affiliated to the subject!!! Should I add the tags at the top then that the Genbukan article has?

--186.176.107.45 (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply I do not understand: Is Hayes to be considered a a primary source affiliated to Genbukan? That does not make sense at all. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply Wether Hayes is a reliable source or not is a matter of opinion, not fact. If anybody that does research on Genbukan or Bujinkan or these schools is automatically considereded unreliable because some people do not "like" these schools (wether they admit it or not) is another matter. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

replyNow, Jmcw37, please _read_ the Genbukan article and tell _where_ in the _article_ it is stated that the Genbukan is a school that teaches "true ancient ninpo" or something like that. We are not trying to stablish wether Shoto Tanemura's and Masaaki Hatsumi's claims that their trainning with Takamatsu Sensei consists in training in some ancient ninpo techniques or some modern reinterpretation of these techniques and how much of the trainning is in ancient techniques and how much in modern derivatives. At point in time it has been sated that Shoto Tanemura or Genbukan _claim_ this, which is true, and that it is questioned wether it is true, which is true too. We are assessing notability based on certain sources (i.e. Black Belt Magazine, other publications on the subject and encyclopedias in the subject, such as have been mentioned above and that you fail to address). The reference to primary sources affilated with the subject issue has been addressed by the standards of this project, or, by the same standards, the whole project must be shutted down.

I find it OK that you should question the validity of these claims made by this or that martial artist to teach these or that school in a traditional way: that does not imply that the martial artist is not notable. I sustain that enough people are practicing Genbukan's Ninpo Taijutsu, KJJR Jujitsu, and it's versions of Goshinjutsu, Karate, Bikkenjutsu, Bojutsu and the like to take notice and do an article based on proper sources. You, Jmcw37, clearly have a problem with certain claims of Genbukan, Soke Shoto Tanemura, Bujinkan, Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, and Takamatsu Sensei, and these claims _are_ questionable, but that does not make these schools "not notable" or "not worthy of their own article". It is quite clear, from your interventions, that you have your doubts about _these_ claims but you are confusing your doubts about these claims with criteria for notability in order to have a Genbukan article on wikipedia, and you are going in circles questioning the sources that sustain the articles of people you claim to be notable. You yourself asked for articles from Black Belt Mag: so they were provided in detail, articles about Hayes, Tanemura, Hatsumi, Takamatsu, Genbukan, Bujinkan, that go as far back as the 70's. Notability has been questioned yet there are more that a hunred dojo's in 30 countries and 20 USA states training on the subject with notable martial artist of countries all over the world trainning on Genbukan (here in Costa Rica the main Dojo's Sensei has been a major figure in Judo and Jujutsu). Apart from the Black Belt Mag sources I have found at least two martial arts encyclopedias that reference Genbukan and other magazines from life in Japan and from the martial arts circuit in different countries and associations that reference it such as in Macedonia. And my research on third party references on this subject has been quite brief and on the side: only when Jmcw37 asked for extra references did I start, when you questioned them and asked specifically for Black Belt Mag articles I provided them and provided more info including encyclopedias in the subject that I found on Google Books. I think the place for Jmcw37 doubts on the degrees that Shoto Tanemura might hold or how much of Genbukan is modern and how much is really ancient are on the article itself _with_appropiate_sources_ not trying to delete the page or trying to subliminate his doubts on readers misusing the wikis tags. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From your citation above [43]: The Japanese Consulate said "Only legends of ninja remain". Ninja were a historical fact - I do not critique these articles. I see a group of modern martial artists who created a business out of a myth. Modern ninjutsu does not have reliable sources: Wikipedia:Exceptional claims#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. jmcw (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Schools of Ninjutsu. What I found was lots of 1 line mentions in books saying Tanemura founded Genbukan as well as ads in Black Belt magazine (plus an article of questionable independence). I didn't find enough good independent sources for an article, but I found enough that I don't think there should be no mention of it in Wikipedia. Therefore, my vote is a compromise. I don't believe in any of the ninjutsu claims of going back to real ninjas, but that's irrelevant. If some more reliable independent sources can be found than this article can be recreated without prejudice, at least on my part. Astudent0 (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repply There aren't only the references to _multiple_ (listed above) black belt mag articles: I found at least two references in encyclopedias of Martial Arts in my small effort to find sources.

Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, Volumen 2 edited by Thomas A. Green,Joseph R. Svinth Encyclopédie technique, historique, biographique et culturelle des arts martiaux Escrito por Gabrielle Habersetzer,Roland Habersetzer. Both can references can be read in Google Books links provided _above_ --186.176.170.99 (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References This is a list of the references I found that should be checked before making a vote:

Black Belt Article: "The Battle for Ninja Supremacy" of DIC 1985 http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=39sDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA20&dq=genbukan&hl=es&ei=4Jx7TtLKMNORgQfKj7GkAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=genbukan&f=false

Encyclopédie technique, historique, biographique et culturelle des arts martiaux, Gabrielle Habersetzer,Roland Habersetzer. p703. Takagi Soshin Ryu. http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=mqTP18US1asC&pg=PA703&dq=shoto+tanemura&hl=es&ei=4j5mTpnxNcmhtweTirWHCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=shoto%20tanemura&f=false

Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, Volumen 2 Thomas A. Green,Joseph R. Svinth. Ninpo in the Modern Era. pp 170-172. http://books.google.com/books?id=P-Nv_LUi6KgC&pg=PA171&dq=shoto+tanemura&hl=es&ei=KEBmToD3BczAtgeKteH-CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=shoto%20tanemura&f=false

"Stick fighting techniques of the Ninja" by Joe Svaral, a student of Shoto Tanemura (it says so in the article). (http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=S9kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA113&dq=%22amatsu+tatara%22&hl=es&ei=FXF2Tv_BPIvrgQex8v3lDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22amatsu%20tatara%22&f=false)

Black Belt Articles: "Atlanta's Store front Ninjutsu Dojo" JUL76 http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=_9QDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA24&dq=tanemura&hl=es&ei=KnN2Tq60MNOtgQfXtLXuDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=tanemura&f=false "Ninjutsu a Martial art of Mistique" http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=GtQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA82&dq=tanemura&hl=es&ei=XXh2TuWDFsudgQfh7NnZDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCDge#v=onepage&q=tanemura&f=false

Just this, plus the original sources of the article, plus the sources from material from dojo's where Genbukan is taught is quite enough to prove notability and to backup that these ats exist and these schools teach them, and there is quite enough "third party material, more than required in the rest of the martial arts articles of the Wiki. --186.176.170.99 (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I mean: just check the references for the Shintō Musō-ryū article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shint%C5%8D_Mus%C5%8D-ry%C5%AB and you will see that all are affiliated in some way with Jodo or the aritcle for Jōdō http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodo and you will find the same thing, or the aritcle for Donn F. Draeger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donn_Draeger. I would even bet that most sources on the Aikido article could be thought of as to be affiliated in some way to Aikido, or the same with Judo or Jujitsu. Pretending that, because a Dojo and Gym in, i.e., Costa Rica, teaches Genbukan it does not stablish notabilty would not make sense: actually it does make the art notable. Aikido, Judo, Jujitsu are notable because they are being taugth all over the world, even more so than Genbukan, altough Genbukan is also being taught in over 30 countries and over 20 US states in over 100 dojo's, so it is a notable organization with third party primary sources not affiliated to Genbukan. That Jmcw37 does not like the art or some of the assertions made by it's founder (I might not buy the religous system of Morihei Ueshiba and its impact on Aikido, i.e.) does not mean the art is not notable, or that primary sources not affiliated with the subject are not to be found or not reliable, or that the article can't be "encyclopedic"... If he does not believe the assertions as to the Ninpo, Jujitsu, Karate, Goshinjitsu, etc. taught been fundamented in Koryū that is his personal POV not basis for tagging and retagging and trying to remove the article. --186.176.170.99 (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, when one defines Koryū in certain specific ways, it might be quite suspect the claims to long lost traditions been preserved through doubtful lineages an that _does_ belong in an article about these schools, but, as I've read in articles and institutions dealing in Koryū: this does not mean that these schools are without value or that all that they train is meaningless or without value (or without notability or veryfiabibilty). One thing is that the claims to be the 30 something Soke of this or that school is quite questionable, another is wether the whole system (Bujinkan, Genbukan) is without merit. Just that some of the religious or philosophical believes of Ueshiba are not "verifiable" as "truth" does not mean Aikido is without merit, or is not verifiable or notable or encyclopedic material... So an article where claims stated by soke's and kancho's that are not verifiable and dubious by historic standards are clarified as such is _desirable_ that is why I vote to KEEP and EDIT the article in proper fashion with proper sources, but without tags that do not belong there. And remember this is a wiki and is not a democracy and is supposed to be NPOV and all that... cheers!--186.176.170.99 (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC) --186.176.170.99 (talk) 21:35, 22 September 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 by Gh87. The consensus votes "keep", mostly after the references and notability have been established. If it was open a little longer, this discussion would have resulted "kept". --Gh87 (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Girls Want to Go to a Nightclub[edit]

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

This television episode is the first aired episode of I Love Lucy. However, no citations or any other notability has been established. Therefore, I propose a reincarnation: deletion first, redirection second. Therefore, history is deleted, so no reversions or violations may happen. ~~—Gh87 (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)~~ Almost forgot: this was deleted under WP:PROD and then contested to be restored as notable for its pilot status. This is a second filmed episode. --Gh87 (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was all ready to make an argument based on the fact that this was the most popular U.S. TV show for four of its six first years of broadcast, and so on. Maybe that argument would have been a stretch. Then I tried the Google Books tool, and learned in five seconds that at least six books have given significant coverage to this specific episode. That left me wondering why this article was nominated for deletion, rather than just simply being improved? Only the nominator can answer that question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction I said that at least six books discuss this episode. In actual fact dozens of books discuss this specific episode in great detail. How can it not be notable? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extraordinary number of detailed references in books (thank you Cullen) establishing notability. Nominator being in fear of violation is not a rationale for deletion. References now supplied to demonstrate verifiability. Thincat (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Extremely detailed coverage on how this episode was used to develop characters show that not only does the coverage exist, but it well beyond just a plot description. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen. Deterence ^Talk 08:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 19:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry For Music[edit]

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

This charity appears to fail the applicable notability guideline. I am unable to locate independent, reliable sources as discussed in the guideline; a GNews search turns up just hits from blogs and PR sources. VQuakr (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here's an article: "HUNGRY FOR MUSIC", from The AcoustiCana Journal Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is listed third in a Google search written as "news, Hungry For Music", here's the link. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another link, from NPR "Instruments Of Good: The Healing Power Of Music", found by clicking on the ninth link from the Google search listed directly above this comment. Clearly, there are reliable sources available, they just have to be searched for more comprehensively. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding the notability of NPR, from the "About NPR" section of their website:

"this is npr - A thriving media organization at the forefront of digital innovation, NPR creates and distributes award-winning news, information, and music programming to a network of 900 independent stations. Through them, NPR programming reaches 26.8 million listeners every week." Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That Acousticana article, that's a blog post more than anything else. The NPR article, that's an entirely different matter and adds notability to the subject. Note to Northamerica: I assume that no one here needs to be convinced that NPR is a reliable source--conversely, citing NPR on NPR does not make it one. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Acousticana Journal is NOT a blog. Please refer to: EDITORIAL • “WHAT IS ACOUSTICANA”, "“The Acousticana Journal” is a publication, a forum and a means to support a musical art form...". Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also: EDITORIAL • “PIGEON HOLES & DOGMA”, from Acousticana Journal. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So, is anyone going to actually add this NPR citation to the article? :-) If not, then I say Delete for lacking sufficient WP:RS to satisfy WP:NONPROFIT, or even WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 68.239.69.231 (talk · contribs) _{02:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment – The NPR link was just added to the article, as a reliable source that serves to establish notability of the topic, and to verify information within the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Topic meets all requirements stated in WP:NONPROFIT, period. Specifically, "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." The topic easily passes both. It's uncertain why a relisting occurred, because the basis of the nomination has been nullified by the availability and addition to the article of reliable sources. Hopefully the administrator who relisted this in AfD isn't just counting votes without checking the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has one source that is reliable and arguably independent of the subject. This hardly seems to be an adequate degree of coverage to merit suggesting that the relisting admin is being negligent. VQuakr (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider moving your recent comments below the last relist notice for chronological clarity. The article you suggested from Acousticana was written by "Echo," whose profile includes a "posts by Echo" section. I do not know if the publication meets the definition of a blog, but it pretty clearly is not a WP:RS. As mentioned earlier in the discussion, what a publication says about itself is pretty irrelevant with respect to reliability. VQuakr (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rather than nitpicking, why not spend your time to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM instead? Check out the article now. Many more reliable sources and inline citations added. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding the statement that the article has "one source that is reliable and arguably independent of the subject" - which one? Should people have to guess which one? That's moot now anyway, per the addition of more reliable sources to the article and the availability of reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here are more sources: "Hungry for Music!." from Bisnow - Local Business News, whom, per their website, "is a journalistic news source which accepts no payment for featured interviews. It is supported by conventional advertisers clearly identified in the right hand column." Article in the Milwaukee Journal. Another from the Maryland Gazette: here and here, another from connectionnewspapers.com here, here's another right here, and another (summary from the Washington Times here, and one from the Washington Post here. Check out this search for more resources available on the internet: Google search titled: "Hungry for Music" nonprofit. The Washington Post article is particularly reliable. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Topic meets all requirements stated in WP:NONPROFIT, period, per available reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yet more information, reliable sources, and inline citations added to the article, in a manner of minutes. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Northamerica1000 has done a great job in finding sources to prove its notable. Dream Focus 12:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks good. JFHJr (㊟) 08:26, 20 September 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 The X Factor, XSeer Al Najah per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rajaa Kasabni[edit]

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

A contestant in an Arab reality TV show. Does not live up to WP:MUSICBIO IMHO Tachfin (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:37, 15 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give Thanks[edit]

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

Also nominating:

Not notable. Insufficient secondary sources to meet WP:NALBUMS notability guidelines. The albums are already mentioned in songwriter's article at Don Moen (singer). See entire list of songwriters albums at Category:Don Moen live albums. The article on Give Thanks says that particular album went "gold", but I don't see a reliable source that establishes that fact. If we can get sources, perhaps that album's article could be kept. But the others are even less notable. -- Noleander, (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I call BS on the gold claim. RIAA says nothing of that sort. Where'd the secondary source get that from? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All of them fail WP:NALBUMS notability guidelines. --Cox wasan (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These CD's/Album's are not at all notable. --Iairsometimes (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Peters Church Yondoru[edit]

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

Church does not appear to be notable at all: Google offers nothing, and neither does the article. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In all the time since the creation of the article, and all the time it has been at AFD, no references have been presented to satisfy WP:ORG. Random churches or religious congregations are not inherently notable any more than random local clubs, local businesses, or other local organizations. Edison (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The region/town is probably notable, but not the church. St Anselm (talk) 06:34, 18 September 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. WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All The Rage[edit]

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

I have been unable to locate significant reliable source coverage of this self-released album to establish notability per WP:NALBUMS. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood on the dance floor (band) and A9. TimBentley (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for digging up that old AfD. Based upon that, I agree and have nominated the article for speedy under A9. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:54, 15 September 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. WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Start A Riot[edit]

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

I have been unable to locate significant reliable source coverage of this self-released album to establish notability per WP:NALBUMS. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood on the dance floor (band) and A9. TimBentley (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for digging up that old AfD. Based upon that, I agree and have nominated the article for speedy under A9. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:54, 15 September 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. WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Hard to Be a Diamond In a Rhinestone World[edit]

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

I have been unable to locate significant reliable source coverage of this self-released album to establish notability per WP:NALBUMS. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood on the dance floor (band) and A9. TimBentley (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for digging up that old AfD. Based upon that, I agree and have nominated the article for speedy under A9. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:54, 15 September 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. WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Scream I Scream[edit]

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

I have been unable to locate significant reliable source coverage of this self-released album to establish notability per WP:NALBUMS. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood on the dance floor (band) and A9. TimBentley (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for digging up that old AfD. Based upon that, I agree and have nominated the article for speedy under A9. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:54, 15 September 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. WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMFG Sneak Peak[edit]

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

I have been unable to locate significant reliable source coverage of this self-released album to establish notability per WP:NALBUMS. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood on the dance floor (band) and A9. TimBentley (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for digging up that old AfD. Based upon that, I agree and have nominated the article for speedy under A9. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:53, 15 September 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. WP:CSD#A9 - band has no article JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Play (EP)[edit]

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

I have been unable to locate significant reliable source coverage of this self-released album to establish notability per WP:NALBUMS. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest redirect to extended play. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood on the dance floor (band) and A9. TimBentley (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for digging up that old AfD. Based upon that, I agree and have nominated the article for speedy under A9. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:53, 15 September 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. WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Edit (compilation)[edit]

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

I have been unable to locate significant reliable source coverage of this self-released album to establish notability per WP:NALBUMS. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood on the dance floor (band) and A9. TimBentley (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for digging up that old AfD. Based upon that, I agree and have nominated the article for speedy under A9. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:53, 15 September 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. WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lest We Forget The Best Of BOTDF[edit]

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

I have been unable to locate significant reliable source coverage to establish the notability of this album per WP:NALBUMS. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood on the dance floor (band) and A9. TimBentley (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for digging up that old AfD. Based upon that, I agree and have nominated the article for speedy under A9. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:55, 15 September 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. Despite the over abundance of SPA anon IPs here, an argument has clearly been made that there is copyvio/close paraphrasing issues as well as lack of verifiable reliable sources. I've given less to almost nil weight to the IPs (and two registered accounts) that appear to be NPAs. v/r - T P 19:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Budhpuri Ji[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

You can figure out the policy basis yourself: all I know is that there is nothing here to form a proper basis for an article. Note that an article on the same person, Swami Buddhapuri Ji, was previously speedied as a copyvio. This is not a blatant copyvio, but it is still not keepable in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikepedia doesn't seem to have 'Yeah, right, pull the other one' as a rationale for deletion, but it probably should. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Patent spam. Nothing worth saving. Sister article Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga was already speedy deleted as spam. The present article was created the same day it had been deleted under a slight different spelling. The primary authors are spam-only accounts with no useful edits in two years. All of their edits have been to this article and the sister article, or have been links to them. Furthermore, they've apparently created a swarm of puppets to oppose this AfD.

Only one reliable source is provided "The search for truth", and it supports only a minor biographical detail. All of the other sources are self-published promotion, or are local community-level service anouncements pertaining to lectures, yoga-camps and similar events, and thus probably derive primaruily from promotional material provided by the proponents of the subject of the article. The "academic" sources used are deceptively disguised to hide the fact that they are prefaces to books self-published by the subject of the article. They cannot be considered independent and impartial, and in fact seem promotional as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Kill it with fire. Unscrupulous spam. I almost deleted the claim that he hasn't eaten food since 2004, but I don't want to obscure how craptastic the article is. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, the claim of going without food is gone, now we're told that he once went without sleep for three years. Anyone want to start a pool on what'll be next? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I just read that article. I'm not sure it's salvageable. Delete, unless someone can go in and separate and organize the flecks of verifiable content from the horde of nonsense. Like I said, I don't think it's going to happen, but I'll keep an open mind, so I guess it's only a Weak Delete. Van Isaac_WS 05:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Nuke it from orbit. No point in me wasting more words trying to explain the problem; the people above have said it as well as I could. bobrayner (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has good references.66.199.140.95 (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — 66.199.140.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy delete - WP:CSD G11. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Removed some unverified claims. Please address specific text in the article which seems inappropriate, instead of merely recommending for deletion. 72.14.181.182 (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — 72.14.181.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. This article provides plenty of sources which never mention the name of this person. India is a land of Sadhus and anyone wearing saffron can become one. No notable or verifiable sources and the material is not written from a neutral point of view.Vivekananda De--tAlK 12:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Please mention which references are irrelevant.Ssky (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note 1,2,3,49,21,24,25,26 clearly mentions Swami Budhpuri Ji name and note many of them clearly states that he is head of the Shabad Surat Sangam Ashram as well as Dera Harisar at Kila raipur and also the inventor of Siddhamrit surya kriya yog. Please refer to the particular text which doesn't seems to be neutral and I'll change it.Ssky (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Tribune is reliable source as is the Hindustan Times, the article has Garbage claims in it but the topic is notable and has multiple WP:RS. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I have followed this debate. Curiously, I realize much of the text and so termed "nonsense" must have been deleted for I could fine none. This certainly does not appear as a blatant copyvio, and is therefore certainly not unkeepable. And it is really good that Wikipedia does not have a "pull the other one down" rationale, for even though the sister articles might have been deleted, every article ought to be tested on its own content. And on its own grounds it stands well. The article only states plain facts, which I found verifiable by the references provided (I checked all of them, except for no. 23, there is an explicit mention of the subject). Further, there are links to published books of the subject also given. The article cannot be deleted on grounds of "unverifiable references" - that would be ill-justified. As for the fact of the subject staying without food (which anyways seems to have been deleted by now), there can be no longer a dispute over the possibility of such an occurrence (see for example, the Discovery Channel's documentary and the BBC's coverage of the Buddha Boy). This article is a keep; not a clarion-call, tiger roar "keep", but a resilient "keep", nonetheless.Svechu (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Svechu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Books describes itself as Self Publishing Website. There is still substantial references from News papers and the such. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out the newspaper sources, you'll find that only one of them is an articles in any real sense. The rest are just promotional community-level announcements of lectures, yoga camps and similar events. The information almost certainly derives from the promoters of the movement themselves, and not from any "investigative reporting", except for the "In search of truth" article. As for the non-self published sources (Singh and Jhansi), both of them mention the Swami only in the preface, which may or may not have been written by the authors themselves. All but three of the sources are self-published or promotional, and of the three, two are insignificant. This leaves the "In Search of Truth" article as the only reliable source, and that's used to source a single rather trivial biographic event. That's not even enough to establish the notability of the subject. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The points made above are quite pertinent. However, attention is drawn to the fact that the books claimed published by the subject are not from the self-publishing house (http://www.unicornbooks.com but from http://www.unicornbooks.in/books/author/swami-buddh-puri-ji/index.html, which is not a self-publishing house. The website lists four books published under the subject's name.Svechu (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - What about the article on 'The power of the sun' by The New Indian Express, 23-Jan-2009. Does the same article should also be available in their online version? I mean it is was published in 2009. Also I've read the book Chingar Ton Brahma Jot and preface is written by Dr. Jatinderpal Singh and Dr. Rekha Jhansi. I'll add ISBN numbers shortly. besides that there are books on Swami written by others like Harkanwal Korpal: The Haloed Trinity and Dr. Laxman Das Saddi : Biography of Swami Dayal Puri. I'll try adding there isbn # too.Bcsadhak (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article seems to have been taken from this webpage; the same website was reportedly the source of the previous incarnation of this article. Random phrases (eg "the far-flung caves of the Himalayas") are in this article and on that webpage. Thus the article seems to be made up of copyvios from a problematic self-advertising source. Mathsci (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a Copyvio?! Why are we bothering to debate, then? 86.178.193.2 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is a comparison with a historic version from 2009, for what its worth.[44] It does seem to be transcribed with some paraphrasing and some copypasting from that page. Mathsci (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't look like a copied article. Some information was similar to the information on website which has been removed since it wasn't properly referenced either.Bcsadhak (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Bcsadhak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as per above, and per most keeps Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me that there are at the very least meatpuppets here. The one legit keep is using 1 source, not enough.--Cerejota (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are two bony puppets saying keep - ssky, and the Resident Anthropologist. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 04:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found no strong and valid reason to remove this article. References are posted by correspondents of reliable newspaper which don't just publish any news or announcements.66.49.129.203 (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — 66.49.129.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that the name is itself wrongly spelt many times in the sources. Once it is Budhpuri, another Buddh Puri, another Budh Puri(Puri now becomes last name). So, it is difficult to relate to all the persons
- These things always happen in non english speaking countries. Especially in India where Hindi is the main language, so you can't blame news paper for such discrepancy. This isn't the first time, it has happened. For ex, try searching ramkrishna paramhans, ram krishna paramhansa and you'll see some sites and even institutions with names which has different ways of writing it. 117.205.54.15 (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) No mention of the person:-The Tribune - January 4, 2009 , In search of truth http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090104/spectrum/main3.htm 2)The page is not found-->The Tribune : Ludhiana March 25, 2006, Lecture on ‘Surya Kriya Yoga’ http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070326/ldh2.htm#7 3)The person mentioned here is "Swami Suryendu Puri" and not the person in the article. -->Hindustan Times (24-April-2006) Good health at no cost via Siddhamrit yoga. http://www.shabadsuratsangam.org/wp-content/gallery/SSS-2006/scan0102%20%5B1280x768%5D.jpg --> Free Press, Indore (27-April-2006) Humans can utilize solar energy like plants http://www.shabadsuratsangam.org/wp-content/gallery/SSS-2006/scan0091%20%5B1280x768%5D.jpg 4)This book's author is the person himself.So, how can anyone even get a neutral point of view from a person describing himself.Surya Kriya The Pathway to Immortality - Unicorn Books ISBN: 9788178062419 - Surya Kriya, The Pathway to Immortality Vivekananda De--tAlK 05:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your point doesn't make any sense. Since different references are used for different text in the article. 1,2,3,49,21,24,25,26 clearly mentions Swami Budhpuri Ji name and note many of them clearly states that he is head of the Shabad Surat Sangam Ashram as well as Dera Harisar at Kila raipur and also the inventor of Siddhamrit surya kriya yoga. Now if you read the references that you mentioned, they clearly mention about Siddhamrit surya kriya yoga. The references mentioned above are all from well known publishers and newspapers, even if the books written by him are not taken into account. Then there are references by Dr. Jatinderpal Singh and Dr. Rekha Jhansi of Guru nanak dev university and Punjab university respectively. Harkanwal Korpal also wrote a book which has his a chapter dedicated on him. 117.205.54.15 (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC) — 117.205.54.15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please could this SPA distinguish themselves from 117.205.53.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who has recently edited the article. blanking an apparently sourced section and removing tags? Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a biography of a particular person.But, the sources only mention him as "head of the" some institution.Most of the sources are talking about the deeds of some other person namely "Swami Suryendu Puri". Thus this becomes the biography of "Swami Suryendu Puri". As far I can understand a person's biography should contain sources citing his work not of any other person. Yes, work could be done in a team. In that case then there could be some more persons. But, check the two articles which I had cited in my previous comment at No.-3. Both these articles never cite the name of the "Swami Budhpuri Ji".Moreover the "The Tribune" source does not exist on the net -->http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070326/ldh2.htm#7 (Source Reference as:-The Tribune : Ludhiana March 25, 2006, Lecture on ‘Surya Kriya Yoga’).The respectable newspapers can also have articles sponsored by the advertisers.(But beware I am only saying this is a possibility in this case).It has been clearly accepted that the book(given as a source) has been written by the person himself and so the question of neutrality becomes a big issue.Ramkrishna Paramhansa is a household name and thus I request don't compare. Vivekananda De--tAlK 12:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be noted: these two references

“

Dr. Jatinderpal Singh - School of Punjabi Studies - Guru Nanak Dev University , Amritsar : Chingar Ton Brahma Jot(ISBN: 978-81-907146-9-3) , preface page 5

”

and

“

Dr. Rekha Jhansi - Department of Philosophy - Punjab University , Chandigarh : Chingar Ton Brahma Jot(ISBN: 978-81-907146-9-3) , preface page 6

”

Are highly misleading ways of citing the preface to a book written by the subject of the article. As these were apparently the biggest arguments for notability, that's a major problem. Of course, it's a WP:Close paraphrase copyvio, so I doubt it matters much on the whole. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm ignoring the close-paraphrase/copyvio problem for now as this AfD should be able to result in G4s! The Tribune ref is a "local community activity" review, the HT source barely mentions him, the Indian Express one is the only one that can actually be used as a source, but even that doesn't provide anything significant. On the whole, doesn't pass WP:BIO, and I haven't been able to find any sources either. —SpacemanSpiff 21:41, 21 September 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 withdraw the nomination, with thanks to the Colonel for their good work and to Cullen for their thoughtful response. I do think that the article title should lose the 's' and the article be rewritten to have the other, weak ghosts be removed or relegated to an addendum. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersmith ghosts[edit]

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

I don't see how this is a proper standalone topic. Sure, there are reports of ghosts (but not that many) in the area named in the title, but that doesn't make this a subject in its own right. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ A region of Greater London has had some reports of "ghosts" over the past two centuries - fewer than the fingers on my left hand. One proved to be a workman dressed in white, another a fellow trying to scare people. Other reports (not surprisingly) were unexplained. Sources are "ghost books". ~~This topic is not encyclopedic, in my humble opinion.~~ Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems quite notable and there does not seem to be a policy forbidding coverage of ghosts in Wikipedia. The similar case of the Cock Lane ghost is a featured article, for example. Warden (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But rename to The Hammersmith Ghost and remove reference to other ghosts.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The material and references on the 1803-1804 ghost are sufficient in themselves to justify the article being kept. I sympathise with Pontificalibus about restricting the material to this one ghost and changing the title but I do not think AfD should force that decision. Let those be editorial decisions after discussion at talk. My hunch would be to change the title but allow the other ghosts to scare us briefly in a separate section. Thincat (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 1804 affair, at least, is certainly notable; here's a BBC article. Zagalejo^^^ 00:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am changing my recommendation because of the references furnished during the course of this debate, especially the BBC article documenting long-term legal significance. I hope that the article will be rewritten accordingly, and perhaps renamed to something like Hammersmith "ghost" killing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 16 September 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 string.h. v/r - T P 19:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strxfrm[edit]

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

contested prod and wikipedia is not a textbook -- The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. This is a term definition, not an encyclopedic entry. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to string.h (and preferably rename without the capital S). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has previously been prodded and deleted. [45] This article is the subject of an educational assignment at College of Engineering, Pune supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. See Wikipedia:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Data Structures and Algorithms.
Deferred deletion article does not meet our standard inclusion criteria, however as this is part of an assessment through a Wikipedia Ambassadors program there is some reason to keep it alive until the end of the project, October 30, 2011. It could potentially be moved to project/user space if the decision is to delete. There are probably quite a few other articles on the program which need attention.--Salix (talk): 07:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why defer? Wikipedia is not a free host - the College of Engineering Pune can easily set up a wiki on its own system. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where is the apropriate forum to be discussing this whole IEP process? The issues raised here are far more than just one article. I see no reason why these students can't work in article mainspace, and produce good articles at the end of it too, to the benefit of everyone. However the current situation seems rather less ideal than this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the students can and should be encouraged to work on main space articles. But part of learning to work in collaborative environment is learning to live by the rules of the body first. This is a continuing problem I have with the "Ambassadors" programs: they encourage large numbers of poor articles that use up our time deleting them or fixing them. /rant W Nowicki (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a programming language manual. No objection to redirection to the library this is from. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to string.h where it is already adequately covered. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete manuals are widely available, while this should be an encyclopedia. There is a somewhat related discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Deletion precedent. W Nowicki (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to an appropriate or new to be be created WikiBook. —Ruud 17:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- b:C Programming —Ruud 20:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G11 by TParis (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Envision Manifesto[edit]

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

wikipedia is not for personal essays -- The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you could see past your own ignorance here and see that this is not a personal essay. This is a Manifesto that can further the impact made by mankind in a good way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UncleVisionary (talk • contribs) 02:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll bring it back when it gets in the news, deal? →Σ ^_talk_contribs 05:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another case of us needing a speedy deletion criteria for clear, unambigous and unsalvageable violations of WP:NOT. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT violation. →Σ ^_talk_contribs 05:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The issue here isn't that it's an essay or that we're ignorant. The issue is "how does this belong here?" Wikipedia is happy to be "ignorant" of all the exciting new things happening; otherwise, we'd end up having to sift through piles of press releases for barely known people to find things that actually, uh, belong in an encyclopedia. Go ahead and change the world; we're not stopping you! Wikipedia will record your change when it's done. It's not our job to be a medium for change and new ideas, but to record those which have received coverage. When the Envision Manifesto is well-known enough to meet our notability guideline, we will have an article on it. (an article, mind you! A neutral piece of text about it, not its actual text on its own, not any opinion on it.) Not before. sonia♫ 05:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete g11, I think this counts as advertising of this person's cause. NawlinWiki (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as told by Sonia. Article is clearly violating WP:NOT. 11coolguy12 (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a noticeboard for publicising new movements. WP:SOAP: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox... or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." WP:NOR: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete : I had earlier tagged article for CSD under G1 but was denied. However, this article is as said above by many violates WP:NOT also falls under G11, I think one the admins should closed this debate and delete is as per WP:SNOW Jethwarp (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per JohnCD. This "manifesto" doesn't appear to exist outside Wikipedia. Not encyclopedic in any way. Yunshui (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11, blatant promotion of this person's own agenda. The fact that this is a noble cause does not exempt it from Wikipedia's article inclusion guidelines. If speedy deletion on those grounds is declined my !vote defaults to delete for the same reasons. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Today, the negativity, the dangers, the corruption, will start to come to the end. Sorry, but I'm putting it off until tomorrow. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I recommend the sources provided by Odie5533 be added to the article. v/r - T P 19:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cyberathlete Professional League champions[edit]

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

Virtually unsourced list of non-notable occurrences and people. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The most notable part of the article is the 2005 Painkiller results between Vo0 and fatal1ty, but these are also posted at 2005 CPL World Tour. Some of the other tours are also notable, which forms a body of notable information. I'd initially say put it on the CPL article, but that article is really full now. I think by WP:LISTN, the article is notable since independent sources do talk about the CPL results, with heavy emphasis on the 2005 champions and particularly on fatal1ty. I think also the article could be moved to a better name like List of Cyberathlete Professional League tours or List of Cyberathlete Professional League seasons, or however sports articles name similar stuff. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide reliable sources? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:22, 5 September 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) 00:53, 7 September 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) 00:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds about the 2005 tour: BusinessWeek Gamasutra, MTV, New York Daily News, Joystiq, etc. Champion "Ksharp" from Team 3D is mentioned in The Washington Post. 2005 WC3 winner "ToD" was mentioned in BBC News. more details from BBC and more and in the Guardian 2002 games in the NYTimes. I only searched in Google News, which doesn't fare well for gaming news more than 5 years old either. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list of non-notable occurrences and people with no reliable sources. Dzlife (talk) 13:36, 16 September 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 Nogizaka Haruka no Himitsu. v/r - T P 19:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shaa[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BLP and the only references are the artist's personal website, and a non-notable encyclopedia. Tarheel95 (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played a significant part in creating various notable works. And I added references to the two news sources at Anime News Network, confirming this did the illustrations as well as original character designs for the notable series of Nogizaka Haruka no Himitsu. [46] Dream Focus 04:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not independently notable person - redirect to most notable connection - which appears to be - Nogizaka Haruka no Himitsu, add a comment about him there if there is not one already. 07:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 19:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Bradshaw (pastor)[edit]

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

Nominating per request at WT:AFD: Rationale in talk page of article: "No indication of notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO. 75.192.207.68 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)" Cerejota (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BIO He recently took over as speaker/director for a weekly international TV show that claims the viewership of millions. --Traviskeith909 (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a comprehensive review of the sources that have been added (or existed) since the start of this AFD, every single one is closely associated with the subject so they do not count towards notability. The Keep have shown how he meets any of the notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.21.169 (talk) 01:30, 10 September 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) 00:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have yet again reviewed the sources that were added to the article while this nomination was in progress, once again, all of the sources are closely associated with the subject and cannot count towards notability. While these sources may be acceptable to verify most information-they cannot establish notability. The article, still, contains NOT ONE source that is independent of the subject. 75.197.249.71 (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.--Cox wasan (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You say all sources are primary just because they are the same denomination? These are separate entities, including the news reporting department of the global church, as well as other media organizations. These are well-respected sources used as references throughout other parts of Wikipedia. -- McIntosh097 (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2011— McIntosh097 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete The refs do not appear to satisfy the requirement of independence inherent in WP:N and WP:BIO, and do not show influence outside his organization or having been noted by reliable sources outside his organization. Edison (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't think we need a third relisting. Theconsensus is that the sources are all either not independent or not substantial DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Boonstra[edit]

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

Nomination as per request at WT:AFD. Rationale from article's talk page: "No indication of notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO. 75.192.207.68 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)" Cerejota (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy was the front man for an international TV show which claims a viewership of millions, and has written quite a few books, and not self-published either.Brianyoumans (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After some thorough research, his most recent role as speaker/director of an international ministry, weekly appearance for six years on a television program and podcasts, and publication of fifteen books verifies his notability. --Traviskeith909 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I notice this article is five years old, and is still unreferenced. St Anselm (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a comprehensive review of the sources that have been added since the start of this AFD, every single one is closely associated with the subject so they do not count towards notability. None of the Keep votes have shown how he meets any of the notability requirements. 75.192.21.169 (talk) 01:28, 10 September 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) 00:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have yet again reviewed the sources that were added to the article while this nomination was in progress. Out of the three added references, two are closely associated with the subject and cannot, by definition, establish notability. The final source was from the BBC, but it's coverage of the subject was incidental, not substantial, so again it does not add up to notability. 75.197.249.71 (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.--Cox wasan (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References from within his organization are not the "independent " sources required by GNG and WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 04:00, 16 September 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. even though no additional comments were made during the first relisting, I feel this can be closed, because, in essence, the deletion reason given was that he is not famous. But our policy only requires notability, not the much rarer quality of famous. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Walters (actor)[edit]

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

Someone believes that the article meets WP:ACTOR standards. To me this article's significance of acting career is into question. I read the IMDB records, and I could not figure out how and why this actor is notable. Usually, his roles are small-time, even when his roles are big to some works. I nominated it under WP:PROD, and it was contested. The article's entry desires to be re-written: there are too many Wikilinks, the format is prose, and there is no personal life. Is he married, single, or committed? Gh87 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this isn't a great article, and Hugh Walters isn't the most famous actor in the world, he has had multiple appearances in a multitude of British TV programmes and films, many of which are quite famous or cult productions. Therefore, I would hazard to suggest that he meets the criteria of WP:NACTOR; note that there are plenty of wikilinks to his page. A google image search provides a recognisable face from these productions. Essentially, I don't see any harm in this article existing, and should some biographical information be found, all the better. Bob talk 19:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second all of Bob's reasons. Just because an article needs improving should not automatically qualify it for deletion. I don't find anything in the MoS for bios that states that there must be a personal life section. Indeed with the sourcing and NPOV violation problems it can be an asset to not have them. MarnetteD | Talk 15:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 19:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael "Clip" Payne[edit]

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

This musician is not notable and does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Gorrad (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:MUSICBIO per 1 and 6. I just added two books that discuss Payne (I'll add page numbers later, when I have access to the books), and Payne was a member of Funkadelic and Parliament. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:MUSICBIO, "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." The reliable sources researched and added to the article by Gorrad establishes notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would be good to inline the references if possible, but assuming they are more than passing mentions (I don't have access to the texts), they constitute a pass of WP:MUSICBIO, per Northamerica1000. Yunshui (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to his decades-long involvement with Parliament and Funkadelic, he also was a member (briefly) of another notable band, Rockets. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely unencyclopedic and as the article itself says, impossible to maintain. This is a potential BLP minefield, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Note that all the alphabetized subpages are being nominated as well. This is the fifth nomination, but the last was in 2007, so it should get another look. (Also, I had trouble listing this, sorry if I completely botched it.) NYyankees51 (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article/subarticles appear to be reliably sourced and satisfy WP:LIST#List_articles; any problematic individual entries can be fixed or removed as applicable. Regarding the issue of WP:NOTDIR vs. WP:LIST#List_articles, there are many, many list articles regarding people, so it's unclear why this particular case deserves undue attention. Perhaps the nominator should initiate a more general policy discussion. AV3000 (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the page does require monitoring for inappropriate or improperly referenced additions, in principle nobody can be added without a valid source — and therefore it is not "a potential BLP minefield", because names can't be added to it if proper sources don't support the addition. (And as anyone who's ever had to remove The Clash from List of hip hop groups or Gordon Brown from List of Canadian journalists — no, you only think I'm making either one of those up — can tell you, inappropriate or badly referenced additions that require us to clean them up once in a while regularly happen to almost every any list on Wikipedia, but that doesn't invalidate their entire existence.) In fact, the ability to support inclusion with full references is one of the reasons that such lists are often appropriate alongside categories; another is the fact that since the category tree is diffused on a variety of criteria, including nationality and occupation, the list is the only way that actually exists to consult a general, one stop cross-national and cross-occupational listing. And furthermore, listing people by topics of legitimate encyclopedic interest does not constitute "being a directory" in the first place; it constitutes being an encyclopedia. Oh, and these were locked against IP vandalism a long time ago anyway, which substantially reduced the amount of time that actually has to be put into maintenance. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - five times this has been kept, and I can't see that consensus has changed. It's watched by lots of editors, sometimes protected, and therefore the BLP danger is not very high. It's highly useful for our core readership - students in high schools, colleges, and universities, to have such lists in one easy place. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The last nomination was four years ago, that's why I put it up again. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - for some reason this AfD is also listed as the 2nd, so this is actually the 4th, not the 5th. The last one had a fair number of the delete votes but was closed when the nominator withdrew his nomination before the close. - Haymaker (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO. There are tens of thousands of famous LGBTs. Thus tens of thousands of potential members of the list. People are coming out of the closet in droves. Heck if you read Kinsey, everyone has a little homosexual in them. Anyone who denies the success of LGBTs is a homophobe and should be blocked. SALAT states "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." And the broad nature of "Every famous LGBT" makes the list indiscriminate. On the other hand categories would handle this quite nicely and is a far preferable option to this massive, gigantic list.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is breathtaking BLP abuse potential here, paging through I noticed some pretty questionable inclusions. I'm also not sure what the threshold for inclusion here is. - Haymaker (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP issues can be dealt with by ensuring robust referencing. It is not a reason for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Article/subarticles appear to be reliably sourced and satisfy WP:LIST#List_articles; any problematic individual entries can be fixed or removed as applicable. There are lists of gay men only, lesbian women only, and Transgender people only on wiki so why not one for bisexual people as well? Deleting this article is bisexual erasure and shows biphobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.163.122 (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC) — 71.185.163.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete People's sexual proclivities are not encyclopedic. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about religious convictions and worldviews? Are they encyclopedic? WP has plenty of lists of this type. Lists of people by belief is an example. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - See comment below re: OTHERSTUFF– Lionel ^(talk) 04:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is a priori encyclopedic is what our readers want and need. That's why it should be kept. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sexual orientation is noteworthy and the page has attracted 39,000 hits last month, so it is of interest. I agree to some degree with the nominator that it is unencyclopaedic bit since we have these lists and many others they may as well be kept. WP is riddled with lists. It seems that some Wikipedians have a, ahh, fetish with lists. Now I am making no judgement here but as editors we must put aside any bias against topics with which we are uncomfortable. It is an issue and the creation (pun?) of Conservapedia is a case in point. I disagree with the nominator that the article come under the purview of WP:DIRECTORY. None of the points there are applicable to these lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument at AfD. Encyclopedic value takes precedence over number of hits. We're not going to sacrifice quality at the expense of popularity. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lionel, what are your talking about? Your comment is illogical. What does OTHERSTUFF have to do with this discussion that "the page has attracted 39,000 hits last month...."? This list was visited many thousands of times; this list is read and used by our core stakeholders. It should be kept because students visit, read, and use this list. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the job of a category, not a list. Sheer numbers makes this impossible to maintain and a BLP nightmare. Gamaliel (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that a category does not allow us to provide citations to this specific bit of biographical information, which is precisely why this page is useful. Users can ID LGBT people of interest and nail the critical reference all at once. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~This is, in my view, a bad faith nomination. One poorly sourced list is deleted three weeks ago, and nominator is probably angry and feels that there is a great unjustice in the world. But,~~ this list is well sourced, and satisfy WP:LIST. In adition, WP:DIRECTORY is weak argument and doesn't apply to this list. If there is a problem with sourcing of individual entries it can be fixed or removed (like AV3000 has already said). But I don't see that sourcing is big problem (and even people who voted for deletion don't mention that sourcing is problem). ~~Maybe nominator and some who voted for deletion should read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point~~.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 09:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have absolutely no proof for your accusations against the nom and Delete !voters. These accusations are not just an abject failure on your part of WP:AGF, but due to the number of editors also a gross violation of no personal attacks. Your insinuation that editors are being disruptive by way of WP:POINT is incivil. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~I have no proof? Read your comment here Lionelt! It pretty much says everything.~~--В и к и в и н д T a L k 08:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again I categorically deny your accusation. And what about Gamaliel, Jorge, Haymaker? They didn't participate at that AfD. What proof do have to back up your wanton, reckless and unfounded personal attacks now? – Lionel ^(talk) 12:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You didn't read carefully my comment, I said: some who voted for deletion I didn't said all who voted for deletion.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 13:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I striked some of my comments per WP:AGF.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 14:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly of interest to users and worth maintaining. I don't see how it fails any of the tests described under WP:IINFO. As for WP:SALAT, that standard uses this example: "Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion or on sexual orientation." Thus a list based on sexual orientation is anticipated. This particular list might at some point be reorganized -- some subcategorization might make it more useful, but it's well worth keeping. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note as well that the nomination complains "as the article itself says, impossible to maintain". It does not say that. It says "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness." and that language is generated by a standard tag "Dynamic list". The wikipedia gurus have wisely anticipated such situations. It's no argument against maintaining the list. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST and WP:POINT. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per most above. Nothing has changed since last four consensuses, or consenses, or whatever. Agree that nom's good faith is questionable. PhGustaf (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: List items are very well sourced and notable, as established by reliable third-party secondary sources. The list is relevant and useful, as evidenced by the number of visits. It conforms to all of the requirements of WP:LIST. BLP and vandalism not a major problem because of the rigorous sourcing and the fact that the article is very well patrolled. I see no conflict with either WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO or WP:DIR. Also agree that the good faith of the nomimator is questionable. Because of the timing, this certainly seems like a retaliatory move in response to the recent deletions of List of Ex-gay people and User:Lionelt/List of ex-gay people to make a WP:POINT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:59, 14 September 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) 00:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Procedural relisting. This AFD was never transcluded onto a log page but if another admin feels that it still can be closed he is free to do so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is encyclopedic and appropriate so long as the entries continue to be well references, and it appears to comply with WP:LIST. Edison (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per all the above, verging on WP:SNOW. Highly notable, verifiable group, lots of nominations in the past. --GRuban (talk) 14:32, 16 September 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.