Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 1: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Adding AfD for Young Heretics. (TW)
Adding AfD for Forced orgasm. (TW)
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forced orgasm}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Heretics}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Heretics}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic moped}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic moped}}

Revision as of 23:34, 1 June 2010

< 31 May 2 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. Clearly no consensus to delete. Should probably be merged in its current state, unless someone wants to actually incorporate some of those prospective sources. Shimeru (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forced orgasm

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

This is term promoted by the BDSM porn industry. Most of this article is unsourced. The only sourced parts are about involuntary orgasm, which has a separate section in another article, and I don't see how it differs from the notion conveyed here. So, this article appears to be a poorly sourced WP:CFORK. Pcap ping 23:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which don't reference the stuff that makes this different from involuntary orgasm. See WP:BOMBARD. I have the impression you haven't even read the nomination. Pcap ping 12:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Orgasm though that article seems to be getting a bit long no other section has a main article for it, and there are only the two paragraphs that aren’t in the Involuntary orgasms section so it wouldn't add much and would seem to be consistent. --Wintonian (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep specific sexual practice, though the literature on topics of this sort is not primarily in what we normally consider standard reliable sources. It's good there's enough here to defend the article. We need to expand these topics, not merge them. I sometimes think WP is surprisingly prudish. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:NRVE. Claritas § 13:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wow--Google scholar hits going back to 1888! Plenty of Books hits, too, including a discussion in an academic criticism of Yukio Mishima (neat!). This one needs to be expanded. Heather (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. There are no google scholar hits (other than trivial mentions) and the book mentioned is a literary critique. Closest thing is:
  • Roy J. Levin; Willy van Berlob (2004). "Sexual arousal and orgasm in subjects who experience forced or non-consensual sexual stimulation – a review". 11 (2): 82–88. doi:10.1016/j.jcfm.2003.10.008. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)--Savonneux (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Here we go again. People want to censor WP and use this cloak that its unsourced. This is all over the "underground" websites and yes, blogs that dominate (not in the BDSM way) this kind of source of information. Yes pornography makes a commercial clutter of finding legitimate information. For these reasons, it is essential that WP provide a sane link to information.OsamaPJ (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2010 (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---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young Heretics

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

Contested/declined speedy. Fails WP:BAND, not WP:NOTABLE. GregJackP (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2010 (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 nothing really stands out that "classic moped" is more than an adjective.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classic moped

Classic moped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. An editor's opinions about what is a classic X does not an article make. There are no sources which distinguish classic mopeds in the way the article purports. The adjective "classic" can of course be applied to any moped, much like the adjectives "good" or "blue" could used, but in this sense it is being used as a kind of special pleading. Classic moped could just as easily be named Real moped or True moped, which is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

A better use of what sources there are on this topic would be to expand the section Moped collecting in the main moped article. Dbratland (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.streetlegalmopeds.com/vintage-mopeds.html http://www.classic-wheels.co.uk/old_raleigh_runabout_mopeds.htm http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2005/12/05/daily37.html http://www.bikerforum.co.uk/forums/classic-vintage-bike-chat/17690-classic-moped.html http://scootersource.net/mobylette-2/ Quote "The classic moped styling of the French scooter included a streamlined frame or chassis, spoke wheels, and genuine leather on the saddle or bench style seats. In traditional moped style, the motor scooter looked like an exaggerated version of a bicycle." http://www.motosalon.ru/moped_eng.html Quote: Classic moped «Classic» moped has a regular bicycle pedal drive with chain transmission to the rear wheels to freewheel and brake in the rear wheel hub, brake includes a rotation of the pedals in the opposite direction. At the rear wheel set is also led by the drive chain of transmission from the engine (hard, no freewheel). Sprocket of the transmission is installed on the same shaft with the engine, but the star shafts and engine can bust a friction clutch (clutch). For the clutch is a lever on the left stick steering. Gearshift no. The right-hand steering handle rotates and serves to throttle the carburetor ( «control handle gas»). On the right hand steering is also installed the front brake lever. There are also «mopeds», made from a conventional bike (there are firms that produce for the special sets), in which case it may remain possible to a full ride in a cycling mode. 86.170.204.241 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is merely evidence of the use of the adjective "classic" in combination with "moped" -- there is zero authoritative support for a distinct, consistent category of classic vs non-classic mopeds. And the only one of those links that meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources is the Austin Business Journal, and it, as well as most of the other links, just use the adjective "classic" to mean some vaguely collectible or historic vehicle. The article Classic car (which probably should be deleted) is the sort of thing we should avoid here: a grab bag of weasel words describing lots of unfounded opinions collected from the 'Net. Lots of people make up things like this and put their opinions on web sites, leading to faux-authoritative articles like Rat bike and unfounded neologisms like "survival bike". It needs to stop. --Dbratland (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dbratland, I would request you to have another look at the link: http://www.motosalon.ru/moped_eng.html Quote:Classic moped «Classic» moped has a regular bicycle pedal drive with chain transmission to the rear wheels to freewheel and brake in the rear wheel hub, brake includes a rotation of the pedals in the opposite direction. At the rear wheel set is also led by the drive chain of transmission from the engine (hard, no freewheel). Sprocket of the transmission is installed on the same shaft with the engine, but the star shafts and engine can bust a friction clutch (clutch). For the clutch is a lever on the left stick steering. Gearshift no. The right-hand steering handle rotates and serves to throttle the carburetor ( «control handle gas»). On the right hand steering is also installed the front brake lever. There are also «mopeds», made from a conventional bike (there are firms that produce for the special sets), in which case it may remain possible to a full ride in a cycling mode. imho, classic is not being merely used as an adjective here - please also read the rest of the article for context. Rather Classic moped is being used as a noun, along with the best definition of Classic moped that I have seen. There is a difference with the comparison that you have made with cars/classic cars here. The issue is that the definition of mopeds has been hijacked in the last couple of decades by legislators who have defined the term to mean roughly any two-wheeler less than 50cc as opposed to where it started, which was roughly a motorized bicycle with pedals for assistance and starting. This has led to a an effort to recognize the classic moped as being a different class of vehicle from the legislative definition of moped.Indradoot (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC) (For avoidance of doubt, I am 86.170.204.241, I am not pretending to be multiple people)[reply]
Please take careful look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. http://www.motosalon.ru/ is a website put up by a Moscow company that puts on fairs and trade shows on building, finance, cars, you name it. Websites like that do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. It is a poor English translation but we can see that it only refers to Russian traffic laws, and it seems to treat moped and scooter interchangeably. The text is is also anonymous. Who wrote it, specifically? It does not give any indication of who made up that definition of "classic moped" or what the basis of their opinion is, or whether they are recognized as an authority by independent experts. It's basically a self-published source and thus carries no weight. --Dbratland (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per First Light: A classic moped is not what is stated here. This is one narrow article which inludes the word cool three times in the only paragraph it has. The notion "classic" moped that does not include lambretta or vespa or any of the original bicycleswithengines from the 1930's is obviously ill informed young persons (this says "like the VéloSoleX are specifically excluded from the definition of classic moped" and the velosolex page says it is a moped ?!?!?), in bad taste and factually innacurate.Chaosdruid (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what? Besides the unsourced original research and POV, what is there to merge into Moped?
  • Delete - I think the article suggests that further differentiation between a moped and a scooter is necessary. But I think these two articles are distinct enough as they are. The term "classic moped" could be introduced into the moped article, as the references above indicate it is used, but I don't think there is really anything from the article in question that needs to be merged. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:05, 15 June 2010 (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. deletion requested by author: [1] HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newgrounds Linux

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

Notability not asserted; references insufficient; recreated of page speedily deleted as advert/spam Yworo (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Userfy as creator of the article. Rohedin (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not convinced that prohibits you from expressing an opinion of support/keep. It would also be a good opportunity for you to assert notability. Incidentally, I'm tending towards delete, because I'm not seeing how it's notable - at this point. Convince me! TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 23:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the best I could provide are sources consisting of websites that copy videos and text to make it seem like it is related to the subject. At best, this article was just a poor man's attempt at a Linux article and I wouldn't mind it being moved back to it's user space until it ages and possibly gain some form of notability. Rohedin (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this was deleted as non-notable before and this version is virtually completely identical and still non-notable. This distro is not even listed on DistroWatch. Furthermore it is WP:SPAM and was created by the initiator of the subject which is a WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The_Head_that_Wouldn't_Die!

AfDs for this article:
The_Head_that_Wouldn't_Die! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability of a local play is extremely questionable

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Lacking a citation for that medal, there's nothing here. No prejudice to recreation if reliable sources covering the gentleman in depth should be discovered. Shimeru (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thimio Gogozoto

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

Fails WP:NOTABLE, just another combatant in the Spanish Civil War among thousands. The only sources I can find on this guy are communist-era tracts put out by the Albanian Communist Party, where his name is listed among many, and no specific information about him is given. Same goes for the only source in the article. Many thousands volunteered to fight in Spanish Civil War; that by itself is not sufficient to make someone notable Athenean (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I see that the only source that's used in the article [[2]] also lists his name among several others. There is not a single info. that treats him as individual.Alexikoua (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he has been decorated posthumously by Albania. For the record sources don't have to be online for a subject to be notable and just because there aren't many Albanian sources online thath doesn't mean that a subject is not notable. I copied most of the information from the Directorate of Archives and I can even bring a photograph from books written by Albanian writers who have been or still are members of the Academy of Sciences of Albania.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, even if these sources exist, they are nowhere to be found in the article. The only source in the article is a link to a Spanish embassy website. Second, assuming these sources do exist, that still doesn't make him notable. He was born in northwestern Greece, he went to study in France, joined the Garibaldi battalion, and got killed. He was then posthumously decorated. So what? Thousands upon thousands were decorated, both by Spain and their home countries. That alone does not make one notable. Joining the Garibaldi battalion does not make one notable. Studying in France does not make one notable. Seems to me that you seem to think this guy is notable because he was Albanian and born in Greece, which to you somehow "proves" that north-western Greece is "Albanian" land. Being a Cham Albanian, however, is not by itself sufficient to make one notable. Athenean (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I started that article as part of articles related to Albanians that joined the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War not because he was a Cham Albanian, but that seems to be your rationale not mine. I have started other similar articles like Petro Marko, a DYK article.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zjarri: Please do not change the subject. As you claim Marko was primarily known as.... Albanian author. Also Gogozoto is mentioned together with several others like: Zef Hoti, Urfi Agolli, Teni Konomi, Asim Vokshi, Musa Fratari, Ramiz Varvarica, Thimio Gogozoto y Xhemal Kada, Daut Muço Podgora. Mysteriously Gogozoto has his own article. Moreover, as you already stated there are a number of sources offline, but unfortunately, someone based on offline stuff can claim everything (we have serious wp:verify issues).Alexikoua (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Makes no claim of notability except serving? Flag officers are the only inherently notable military ranks. No significant coverage. Note: stop trying to lawyer WP:V, offline sources are perfectly acceptable, that's why WP:AGF.--Savonneux (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, in the past various editors tried to misuse specific sources in order to support a pro-Albanian pov, using works by Kretsi, Hart etc (before these works become accesible online), or even misinterpreting snippets they found in googlebooks (latest case Talk:Souliotes#Snippet_abuse...). This has nothing to do with wp:agf.Alexikoua (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , not notable, no reliable sources of note Megistias (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an Albanian antifascst that joined an the Garibaldi Battalion in the eve of world War II is an interesting fact and a wikipedia article about him can exist, not only flaf officier can have an article but also soldier that recived a secoration loke Gogozoto. User:Lucifero4
  • Keep, as per Lucifero4. I don't expect others to know all Albanian figures. In Albanian history he is notable and has been decorated by the president for his activity. Aigest (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lucifero, KengaJone, Aigest, and ZjarriRrethues. He was recepient of Per Merita Patriotike English: Patriotic Meritsmedal, , awarded by law of 1962, which is at the same level of the For Defense of the Socialist Homeland medal. These two medals were some of the highest recognitions that Socialist Albania could provide in 50 years (along with (People's Hero of Albania and Skanderbeg's Order)). The receipt of such medal alone makes this person notable. These medals have been awarded only to a handful of people. In addition it was not a one event person. He was notable because he was the only fallen from the region of Chameria, he was notable because he was an Albanian who participated in the Spanish Civil War in the Garibaldi Battalion, he was notable because he was the recipient of an extremely valuable medal from his country. If we add the fact that he was a volunteer to help in the antifascist war in Spain and gave his life for this. Some of the best people of Albania gave their lives in the Civil War in Spain: it was 4-5 of them and probably 40-50 Albanians participated overall in the Civil War. They were some of the best people inspired with international antifascist ideas and each one of them will deserve an article. It's an interesting article and for now it's just a stub, but other info, which is offline might be added. However there is plenty of notability if that's the concern. --Sulmues Let's talk 11:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His having been from Chameria has nothing to do with notability. His notability is because he was a 'recipient of an extremely valuable medal'. Keep if that can be verified. DS (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why I have the feeling that all this is a wp:or concert. God knows if something of the above ever happened.Alexikoua (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being Albanian and fighting in the Spanish Civil War is not sufficient to make one notable. Thousands of people from all over the world fought in that war. That doesn't mean they each deserve their own article. Neither is ethnicity a source of notability: Are Albanian volunteers more notable than Latvian or a Hungarian volunteers? And where does this end? Are Albanians simply more notable for being Albanian? The other point the "keep" votes miss is that there is no material specific to this person: His name is just mentioned along with dozens of others, just as we would expect for someone who is not notable, but whose article was created solely for the usual irredentist POV reasons. Athenean (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has been decorated by the People's Republic of Albania after his death. That fact is important as a sign of notability.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the totalitarian Stalinist regime, which decorated thousands of others, whomever it pleased, for whatever reasons it pleased (and usually not the best of reasons). Athenean (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean, I'm not sure if Presidents in western democracies hold any referendums when they award medals. As far as I am concerned Wikipedia does not make any distinction to the form of government as to notability, so please stop baiting people with these totally inappropriate remarks. --Sulmues Let's talk 17:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Receiving a medal from a totalitarian dictatorship does not make one notable. Sorry, but that's just how I see it. Not baiting anyone. Now, if we were to create an article about every single individual who ever received a medal from a government (regardless of its type), throughout history....we'd run out of server space. Athenean (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kleg

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

Found this when trying to find information on the Kleg mine in Siskiyou(sp?) County, California. Does not appear to be notable, and appears to have been tagged for darn near forever. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100 Men...(Or 400 Dollars)

Webside finland is a Finnish company dealing primarily in webbased sales and seo promotions, this book is its third publication. Its first in the USA. Its website is http://www.webside.fi/ and can be found through google, this site can be translated to English. Not really sure what constitutes "notable". This author has several articles published and can be found on her own column as well as in the examiner and google. Perhaps one of you could assist in how I would establish "notable" I thought it was an interesting and relevant book topic. Melissa —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissyThang (talk • contribs) 16:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100 Men...(Or 400 Dollars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly non-notable book. Additionally, article is author's only contribution to Wikipedia suggesting possible attempt at promotion of book CosmicJake (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2010 (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. NW (Talk) 10:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Cooper

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

Non-notable author CosmicJake (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject has been CEO of three pharmacutical companies and has published three novels. Coverage includes:

http://people.forbes.com/profile/glenn-l-cooper/43396
http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2008/06/09/daily35.html Racepacket (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual Recognition of States

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

Nice idea, but totally useless. A list of countries that don't recognise other countries might have some redeeming value because they far outweigh the number of mutual recognitions, but this is far too much information to be of any use whatsoever, and way over any recommended page size. ninety:one 20:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Too large and unwieldy to be a table, and user has apparently given up when I suggested he/she try to use prose rather than a table. Brambleclawx 02:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure what information is conveyed here anyway-- I've been looking at a table with a row and a column of flags, where every box is filled in with the same symbol (+) which apparently means that the nation on that row recognizes the nation in that column. They're all filled in, so what's the message here, that everyone gives diplomatic recognition to everyone else? Oh I think to myself, what a wonderful world... Mandsford 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So unwieldy as to be unusable. First Light (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Theory

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

There's a few assertions of notability in this article but I can't find any significant discussion of them or the article's subject in any reliable and nonpromotional third-party sources to meet WP:N. ThemFromSpace 20:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of coverage about this artist.

Heading text

Here are a few more sources:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/alex-theory/id80608463

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/events/2010/yuris_night/schedule/index.html

http://www.amazon.com/Alex-Theory/e/B001LH12GW/ref=ntt_mus_dp_pel

http://www.pandora.com/music/artist/alex+theory

http://2012timeforchange.com/demo/media-music.html

http://www.macworld.com/article/53544/2006/10/lunagroove.html

http://www.harmonyfestival.com/alex-theory.html

http://www.ilike.com/artist/Alex+Theory

http://www.tower.com/saturn-returns-alex-theory-cd/wapi/113753600

http://www.whiteswanrecords.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/bio.detail/bio_id/49

http://www.elevatefilms.com/content/alex-theory.html

http://emcritic.blogspot.com/2010/01/alex-theory-saturn-returns.html

http://www.earthdancelive.com/h2om.html

http://draves.org/blog/archives/000275.html

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2008/10/review-water-and-light-full-spectrum-sound-healing-alex-theory/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowelucat (talk • contribs) 18:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The links posted above lead to any of the following: trivial coverage (album and track listings, performance dates), descriptions copied from his myspace website and album reviews at blogs, which do nothing for his own notability and are not reliable sources anyway. Not notable per WP:NM. I am also worried about a possible WP:COI for user:Sowelucat Yoenit (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus after the relisting is clearly for keep. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten (manga)

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

Does not assert notability or demonstrate coverage by reliable third party sources. Prod disputed by IP. —Farix (t | c) 20:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 20:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Hmm, I find it hard to believe there isn't significant coverage of anything by Fukumoto in Asian language sources. The title being a very common kanji makes it hard to search for, though. Doceirias (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I agree that the article needs improvement, especially in the references department. Unfortunately, like Doceirias already said, is it very hard to find anything about it because of its common name. I mostly found shops selling the manga, and some blogs [3] and review sites [4] about which I'm not sure if they qualify as references. Maybe a Japanese speaker may be able to find more. By the way, the Japanese Wikipedia's article doesn't cite any references either, and its only external link appears to be dead, yet the subject seems to be notable enough there. Furthermore, I think the article is notable because it first introduces Akagi. WakiMiko (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that's dashedly hard to search for: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=Nobuyuki+Fukumoto+ten+manga
I did find http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2010-04-08/creator-of-akagi-and-kaiji-to-visit-finland-in-june which says "Mr Fukumoto established himself with a mahjong manga Ten – Tenhoodoori no Kaidanjin in 1989 during Japan's economic boom, when the popularity of gambling manga soared." so at the very least it should be merged into an article (either Akagi or the author's). --Gwern (contribs) 21:49 6 June 2010 (GMT)
The dead external link in the Japanese article is to D3 Publisher. They published the Mahjong game adaptation of the manga for PS2. (Internet Archive) --Kusunose 18:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BK and WP:N - a minor mention in ANN alone is not significant coverage, and non-reliable sources of course cannot establish notability at all. Without actual demonstrable, verifiable coverage, claims of probably coverage also cannot make it notable as they are not actually shown to exist. As it is now, it is an unnotable book and deletion is appropriate. Recreation as a redirect to Nobuyuki Fukumoto would be appropriate if there are links to it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' It was published for 13 years in a magazine and then reprinted in 18 volumes. It had a notable writer, Nobuyuki Fukumoto, whose other works have articles. He went on after that to publish the prequel Akagi (manga), with the same titular character, and this got turned into 26 anime episodes. You don't need to find reviews to tell you something is notable, you just need to think for yourself. Insert your regular insane arguments here if you must, I honestly don't care, I'm stating my case, and hopefully no one will be discouraged from stating their opinions also. Dream Focus 21:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AnmaFinotera. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. SnottyWong talk 23:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • week keep i'm convinced the sources are out there but i don't speak japanese... very notable international author and would at least merge the content to a list if it were too early in his career to be notableArskwad (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, articles can always be tagged for AfD at a future date, I see no discussion in this article's talk page about any improvements only that it is not notable and that it needs to be deleted. I feel that sources should be looked for internationally for this notable author. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was - Deleted at Author's request. This closure does NOT have any standing as to the notability of the subject or the consensus of the below debate - just a non-controversial deletion of a single-author article. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dreyer Farms

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

Farm which fails WP:CORP, no coverage in non-local sources. Two previous AFDs were closed as procedural keeps per WP:ILLEGIT due to the nominator being a sockpuppet of a banned user. Claritas § 20:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP. I see no evidence non-trivial coverage of the farm in independent, reliable sources. While it's unfortunate that the first 2 AfDs on the article were started by now-banned sock puppets presumably pursuing some sort of vendetta, that doesn't change the fact this article cites no independent, reliable sources. Yilloslime TC 21:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it has seemingly no valid sources to establish notability. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 21:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability—a local hero award is not sufficient—and lack of coverage in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A long-established business, but with no indication of anything of particular note - other than the Local Heroes award, which is rather, er, local. Apart from which, I note that three of the five awards of that went to places where the magazine "can be found", and that it is a readers' poll award. There could be more history in the business, but it's not in the article if there is. Peridon (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lack of references is a reason to add them, not delete an article. The findsources above offers possibilities for expansion and further improvement of this stub.[5][6]. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial, passing mentions of the farm or its owner do not demonstrate notability. Yilloslime TC 23:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accupos

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

Non notable company. Article was deleted before and creator banned. Recently the article was recreated by a suspected sockpuppet of the original creator. Article survived a speedy deletion for lack of notability on account of having sources, but I would not consider the current sources to be enough to satisfy WP:Corp Yoenit (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2010 (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 (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Records (Christian)

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

Non-Notable company. Codf1977 (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if you can, it would help if you could show the "Significant coverage" in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as detailed in the General Notability Guidelines and that it meets WP:ORG as I was unable to find any. Codf1977 (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my argument: Why not compare against WP:MUSIC? This is a musical topic, and in my opinion record labels should be compared to the spirit of the music guideline even if it isn't specifically spelled out there (see WP:CREEP). Every act associated with this label is very notable, so why wouldn't the label itself be notable? Point #5 under WP:MUSIC says "Has released two or more albums on a major label". This is a subsidiary of major label, not an independent label! At least one current artist has met almost all 12 points in the artists section under WP:MUSIC. I added additional independent reliable sources to make it stronger against the general notability guideline. Royalbroil 06:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which one of thoes is significant coverage of the company as opposed to "Band X signed to" or "Sony Y by band Z released by"  ? Codf1977 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very prominent label, and probably the most successful in its genre (CCM). Many of the artists on the roster are major ones that have received multiple awards, such as Grammys. I'm afraid this nomination is well-meaning but misguided. JamieS93❤ 18:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is misguided - None of the editors proposing Keep have been able to provide any links showing that this company meets either the WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Codf1977 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2010 (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. Fram (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraskana (formerly Nebraskana Society)

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

This book does not meet the notability standard in WP:NBOOK. There is no indication that it meets the 2nd through 5th parts of NBOOK. As for the first, a search of Google Books shows several hits, though most appear trivial (copyright entries, etc.). There is a brief review in the American Library Association Subscription book bulletin, but that doesn't seem substantial enough to meet the first part of NBOOK: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." ALXVA (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article fails WP:NBOOK. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article was originally called Nebraskana Society and was intended (apparently) to be about an honor society rather than about a book. For whatever reason, the author never went beyond the 1932 book in gathering information about the organization, although there are things available [8]. The nominator rewrote the perspective of the article to be about the book [9], based on the limited information in the article, and then nominated his or her own work for deletion. Thus, I can't see judging this by WP:NBOOK alone, and I'm going to throw in "Nebraskana Society" in to the title of the discussion . On the other hand, I don't see any news or book evidence to show that the Nebraskana Society was ever notable. If anyone out of the Cornhusker State wants to write an article about the society itself, I'm all for keeping. Mandsford 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is a good point. I refocused the article on the book at the suggestion of the editor who removed the prod I placed on the article. That editor thought the best chance for notability was for the book. So far as I can tell, the Nebraskana Society was never an actual club, society, group, or what have you, that had meetings or selected members or did the things one thinks of when thinking of a society of some sort. It was merely what the authors called the group of people the authors selected to be covered in the book. I think membership in the Nebraskana Society is the same thing (nothing more or less) than inclusion in this book. Thus, in fairness to the article creator (and to me in moving the article to the book name), the society and the book seem to be coextensive so I doubt much of note was left out. The book's introduction seems to support this view and explain why nothing else on the society can be found. ALXVA (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – it's not clear to me that there is a potential article on this topic, but the present article is not it. (The book seems to be mainly a list of names + photos + bios - eg we have "Mr. Dahlman, one of Omaha's most beloved citizens, served as mayor nearly 25 years, and in 1928 was elected delegate at large to the Democratic national convention. He was a member of the Community Chest, the Chamber of Commerce, the Young Men's Christian Association, the Library Commission, the Fraternal Aid Union, the Royal Arcanum, the Woodmen of the World, the Ancient Order of United Workmen, the Moose and the Elks. He was president of the Americanization League. (Deceased)." I would certainly like an article on 'the Woodmen of the World'.) A redirect and merge to a subsection of History of Nebraska might be a solution, pending more substantial efforts. Occuli (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since there has been suggestion that WP:NBOOK is not the only relevant guideline, I would just mention that the Nebraskana Society seems to fall short very short of WP:ORG. The only substantial coverage of the group I can find is in the book which is not independent of the society and even if it were independent, one book does not constitute multiple sources. The first hit on Google regarding the society as linked above is the online digitized copy of the book. Everything else seems to be genealogical work or various other listings. In sum, I think the book fails to meet WP:NBOOK and the organization or whatever one would call it fails to meet WP:ORG. ALXVA (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - per nom. Fails all five NBOOK Criteria as this book does not receive "mulitiple non-trivial" coverage, has not won "a major literary award", made a "significant contribution" to various forms of listed media, is not the "subject of instruction" or reading lists, and the book's author is not "so historically notable". ----moreno oso (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 04:50, 17 June 2010 (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 argument that the role in an unreleased film will make him notable is not evidence thathe is notable now; no prejudice against recreation when reviews become available DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Reid

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

Minor actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENT. ttonyb (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The film is not about the Essex Rebellion. It is a, "political thriller about who actually wrote the plays of William Shakespeare set against the backdrop of the succession of Queen Elizabeth I, and the Essex Rebellion against her." The rebellion is only a backdrop. Again, there is no indication he plays a major role. Additionally, until the film is released, there is no guarantee his part will not end up on the cutting room floor. ttonyb (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Please show me where the number of hits in Google establishes notability in either WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:ENT. Asserting notability is not a reason to keep the article in a AfD. Besides if you go the last page of the search you will see that there are only 225 hits for the individual's name in quotes. A good deal of those hits are not even related to the person. ttonyb (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The film is not about the Essex Rebellion. It is a, "political thriller about who actually wrote the plays of William Shakespeare set against the backdrop of the succession of Queen Elizabeth I, and the Essex Rebellion against her." The rebellion is only a backdrop. Again, there is no indication he plays a major role. Additionally, until the film is released, there is no guarantee his part will not end up on the cutting room floor. ttonyb (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Again, since the film is not released there is no way to determine if he will even be in the finished cut or the extent of his part. Notability is not based on something that has not as yet happened. ttonyb (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The film is not about the Essex Rebellion. It is a, "political thriller about who actually wrote the plays of William Shakespeare set against the backdrop of the succession of Queen Elizabeth I, and the Essex Rebellion against her." The rebellion is only a backdrop. Again, there is no indication he plays a major role. Additionally, until the film is released, there is no guarantee his part will not end up on the cutting room floor. ttonyb (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Again, since the film is not released there is no way to determine if he will even be in the finished cut or the extent of his part. Notability is not based on something that has not as yet happened. ttonyb (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I declined the speedy delete, because the text described parts that sounded reasonably significant. 10:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC) (Posted by User:Graeme Bartlett)
  • Comment: If the reason that this actor might be notable is that he is appearing in a not-yet released film, why not wait until the film is released before creating this article? What if the film is never released? What if it has a very limited release and flops badly? By the way, it appears clear that he is not "starring" in the film - he has a supporting role. I see that the major references to the film do not even mention him, and our own article on Anonymous (film) makes him seem like a very minor character - the plot summary does not even mention the character. The discussion of the film centers on its Oxfordian focus, not on Reid or his character. Just some thoughts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information, and because people are coming to Wikipedia to read about this very controversial and much talked-about film, and because when they read the Major Cast list in the film's article, they want to know who these people are, especially who is playing Essex in a film about the Essex Rebellion. It's that simple. We don't want them to have to search around on Google; we want them to have the information onhand linked right there. To wait till the film screens is to negate the fact that this film has already generated a lot of buzz and interest, and a lot of controversy/discussion, negative and postive. Softlavender (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I disagree. First, Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of encyclopedic and notable information, not trivial information. See WP:ENT. Second, the film's aticle is the place to find out about the film. By the way, the film does not even have a release scheduled; they hope it will come out in 2011. Third, it does not appear that Essex is a major role in this film. I don't believe that there is anything at all about this role in any WP:RS. It is not that your readers need to search around on Google: you need to find the reliable sources for them and cite them. We need to collect information from reliable sources. You can't just speculate that you "know who these people are" based on other versions of the history. You need actual facts from reliable sources about Reid. Finally, even if this were a notable role in a film that will be notable, it's just one role. I don't believe that every actor who ever had a role in a movie should have an article. You can only write a good article about an actor who has a significant body of work that has been commented upon by major media. See also WP:ENT. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2010 (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. No arguments to delete besides nominator. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 01:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashanthi

AfDs for this article:
Ashanthi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ashanthi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • DeleteThere is no any importance to create an article about this person. There are more than 1000 upcoming singers In Sri Lanka and encyclopedia is not a plat form to create personal blogs about them. Most of information in the article is essentially unverifiable. I am not sure of the accuracy of the article because anybody can publish personal interviews or personal coverage using newspapers or website. No sophisticate evidence of the coverage required to meet notability requirements. This is a personal promotion. --Wipeouting (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • note the AfD was incorrectly formatted, as far as I can tell, ontop of a previous nomination. I have relisted it and informed the user above who created the original S.G.(GH) ping! 19:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Control (Lady Gaga album)

Out of Control (Lady Gaga album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no confirmation of this being the title or these tracks being the track listing. There is also no confirmation of release date, the collaborations. None of this information has been confirmed. Alextwa (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2010 (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. Seems to be tending towards consensus of delete, with overriding concerns of WP:NOR and WP:ESSAY. Further editorial decisions about inclusion can take place at the talk page for Calligraphy#Eastern Asian calligraphy. -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

from User talk:Cirt/Archive 11

Hello, With 4 delete, and 3 keep, the game was close. But when we see that none of the users on the delete side (WikiDany61, 137.122.49.102, Savonneux, or SnottyWong) seems to speak Chinese. On the other side, all Keep users (Benlisquare (李博杰), Asoer, and myself (Yug)) are Chinese speakers, at least fluent, and involve in the Chinese communities/countries. The 2 wikipedia experts on the field of East Asian calligraphy, Stroke order, CJK stroke: me and Asoer support the keep. I think the expertise is clearly on the keep side. The deletion process is NOT a purely quantitative vote, that's a debate, where expertise have its place. Delete this article is a very "English/western centered" position.

The minimum is to userfy the page in user:Asoer space, to let him, the author of this page, complete calmly his work. --Yug (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, now at User:Asoer/Debate around East Asian calligraphy as an art. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, efficient & time saving reaction. thanks! Yug (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC) (seriously, as of 2010 on wikipedia : that's nice to solve opposition that fast.... ! so thanks !)[reply]
You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Final result: Userfied here.

Debate around East Asian calligraphy as an art

Debate around East Asian calligraphy as an art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is very much written in an essay style. In addition it is difficult to tell how relevant/reliable the references are because they are generally not in English. I'm not even sure that the title is correct, and/or if the information here should be merged into another article. The only contributor to this article (who does have significant edits elsewhere) created a "main article" link from East Asian calligraphy, but there's little in this article that isn't already in that article. This is probably a weak AFD, so maybe someone will see it and rescue it, but primarily this nomination is on the grounds of no indication the information warrants its own article, as most of the info is in the parent article. — Timneu22 · talk 18:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The "debate" mentioned in the title seems to originate more in the author's mind than in any source he references. The article seems to go a very long way to say "handwriting is prosaic, calligraphy is art". The author's interpretation of the word calligraphy as meaning "hand written" is incorrect, as the term actually means "beautifully written". As this term and the author's misconception about its true meaning seem to be at the heart of the "debate", the article is pretty much meaningless from the very start. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with nominator, it appears to be an essay, possibly original research, with inaccessible sources for most English speakers. If there is such a debate in scholarly circles, information about it in English should be available.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not having english sources isnt very strong criteria for deletion WP:NONENG.
  • Comment - perhaps. But the lack of sources is. There are essentially 2 cites. The first footnote is not a cite; some Chinese book (something scholarly?) from 1936 is cited twice (zero page reference, for something in 3 volumes it's too vague to call verifiable), then some video (not the most convenient format) from a source of hard to assess reliability is cited 5 times. Given the extensive amount of scholarly research in East Asian studies, it'd be surprising, if the debate was notable, that there would be no English sources at all.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ESSAY it's essentially the basic arguments of Art applied to a specific topic. --Savonneux (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I'm the user who lead and wrote most (by far) of East Asian calligraphy. This debate issue was too longly state by User:Asoer to stay in the core article, so I summarized it and I moved the it to a separate article, but this is, for sure, a real debate in Chinese calligraphic circles. This article need clean up (essay style, add sources), yes. But please don't use English web for this issue, most English articles on-line about Chinese arts are exaggerating and advertisement oriented. Yug (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with suggestion The way the article is written and the obscurity of the topic attracts the eyes of nonspecialists who are therefore inclined to suggest that this article be deleted. This debate leaves such a small footprint that there is basically no way you'll know of it unless you can speak/read Chinese and you're specifically looking for it. Consider naming the article "Definition and classification of Chinese calligraphy." (Sources cited in the article are specifically about writing Han characters and no other scripts.) Within, you may write about the debate/disagreement. Right now, I find it is of sufficient length to have its own article. You may want to summarize even further on East Asian calligraphy. Furthermore, as suggested above, the lack of English sources (or any sources) is not grounds for deletion of content. But this is part of a bigger problem on Wikipedia, which I'll write about in Talk:Debate around East Asian calligraphy as an art. Asoer (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My original nomination was primarily for "lack of information warranting its own article." I still stand by this; there is very little extra in this article that's not in the primary article. I also stick by the WP:ESSAY comments, but those aren't as important to this AFD. — Timneu22 · talk 10:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is indeed a significant topic, however incorporating it into the East Asian calligraphy article would make a long article even longer. But if all else fails, merge with main article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated, most of this is already in the main article. And this isn't paper, so article length isn't a good keep reason. — Timneu22 · talk 12:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a question of balance. This debate is a minor, very peripheral, meaningless experts' debate. This debate is not as important as the Four treasures, the Scripts, Techniques, Evaluation, etc. Accordingly, it just need a quick citation in East Asian calligraphy, and not 20 lines, which may have their own article. Yug (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ESSAY, WP:NONENG, and WP:OR. This article is quite small and, whatever info that can be reliably sourced could easily be merged into Calligraphy#Eastern Asian calligraphy or some other appropriate parent article. The title of this article and its contents are original research, and no information regarding this debate can be obtained in reliable sources. SnottyWong talk 23:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Morgan

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

Non notable artist. No evidence of the coverage by independent reliable sources required to demonstrate how WP:GNG or other guidelines are met. Nuttah (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2010 (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. "It's useful" is, for better or worse, not a convinving argument to keep something. Wikipedia is not here to spread the word about budding concepts- we report after independent, reliable sources have shown the topic is important, not before. Courcelles (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trance metal

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

I really do hate to put articles up for deletion, but this article has no reliable sources and is entirely OR. There is no proof that this is an actual form of music. RG (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Metal Hammer Magazine statement about trance metal genre reliable source, this can be read in their magazine? Little bit googling about trance metal and you find lot of talk about the genre and lot of bands that use this to descripe their music. I would say that it must stay since it is growing genre. Articalhero (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articalhero is right. Maybe the decision of Trance metal being sucessful is done here in WP, and I do not want this genre die like oldschool Rap Metal.--188.100.178.7 (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2010 (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 nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Nasir

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

I'm not sure on this one. I declined a BLP PROD and added a couple of sources, but I can't find any substantial or in depth coverage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question The gold medal in the Asian games: are you asking for more notability or more reliable sources? It is not clear to me why you have this article in AFD. jmcw (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as she appears to be a professional athlete competing at a high level (the South Asian Games) and having won a gold medal there. Also, if the "sports ambassador" title is anything important, that would be notable too. —fetch·comms 21:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:NSPORTS is not yet fully released, but clearly winning a gold medal in a multi-nation competition will qualify under those newer, tighter regulations than the more generic terms of WP:ATHLETE. Sourcing clearly indicates she has. As for professionalism, the source I added indicates she was awarded 1 million Rs by her country's president. I don't know how much that is in real money but it sure sounds like its worth something in her country. Absolutely no reason to delete or even be nominated.Trackinfo (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say her notability might be questionable under WP:MANOTE, but the honors she received certainly show that her country considers her notable and the combination of awards and athletic achievement is enough for me. Papaursa (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2010 (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 Joe Spencer (Hollyoaks). Tim Song (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Millburn

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

Non-notable minor actor. The only sources are IMDB and two articles each making one passing mention of Millburn. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2010 (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. If anyone wants to see what they can do with the article in user space, please just let me know. Courcelles (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Escort Ireland

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

Escort agency of little to no notability, fails Wikipedia:Notability Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now a number of third party sources have been added. People may wish to revisit their positions of "non-notable". Active Banana (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources provide verifiability not notability. This question is, is this website notable? or is it one of a squillion similar websites offering the same kind of services? Snappy (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been pointed out that there are a number of similarly named sites and from the news stories used as sources it is not always clear which site they are talking about. Even from the start with the page name and all text references were "Escort Ireland" when the Albright founded site is "THE NOT SAFE FOR WORK ADULT SITE Escort-Ireland" I would not be opposed to a delete with the potential for return for whichever company is able to indicate notability (and I feel that the site that was the host of the material whcih was the basis of the first Irish Internet Libel case is notable, I just cant at this time verify which escortireland.com / escort-ireland.com /escortireland.ie etc. holds that claim.) Active Banana (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Park Chang Soo

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

Korean composer and pianist written up in a rather spammy tone. Lots of links but which, if any, are to independent reliable sources? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — It sounds as if the nominator has a problem with the article's tone and has a unanswered question as to the reliability of the sources. If that's the case, then there are appropriate flags for each of these said deficiencies, and the article's creator -- or other editors -- should be given a chance to rectify said problems. WCityMike 19:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuses for nomination - I'm the creator. There were several reasons for misunderstanding - 1) I didn't know the official written name of Mr. Park, so I made a couple of different pages like 'Park, Chang-soo, Park Chang-soo and Park Chang Soo,' among which Park Chang Soo is the final decision. 2) This is the very first time I created the article in wiki. 3)English is a foreign language for me. 4) Mr. Park is a musician of minor genre, so there are few official, reliable websites which can support that he's notable enough. If any, they are in Korean. 5) The very official reliable website is his own homepage, where there are many reliable sources having appeared in magazines and newspapers written in Korean and in English for a few. I was afraid I made many issues here since I did this for the first time, nevertheless I created the article because I think someone should do. In fact Mr. Park may not care about whether the article about him appears in wiki or not. There are several links in which his playing the piano can be heard. If you care about these kinds of issues, then please listen to the musics and help improve this article together. MJE0610 —Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • weak delete He might possibly be notable, but the material here is not suitable for an article. It might be acceptable if someone who understood our style and the sources was prepared to work on it. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as article fails WP:MUSICBIO. There are no independent sources from the musicican itself and fails all criteria. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • some independent sources added - Searching for the original sources in the homepage, I included some, not many, sources into the page, among which are major broadcasts of Korea. Most of the sources are in Korean. MJE0610 01:38, 3 June (UTC+09) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Saxton

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BIO as having not played in a fully-professional league and WP:N as having not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bement Center Camp

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

I was originally going to move this article to Bement Camp and Conference Center (which appears to be the current name), but after searching Google, I see a fair number of hits for a campaign to save the camp; no sites going into much detail about the camp itself (other than message boards, Facebook and MySpace). Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see you nominated this eleven minutes after the article was created. Any notion of giving the creator a chance to improve and source it?  RGTraynor  03:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't your rationale for keeping, is it? Incidentally, WP:DEADLINE can work both ways. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure an unofficial essay can.  RGTraynor  17:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What other references do you need? The Diocese of Western Mass has all the records I cited their most recent document concerning the camp plus Mary Bement's will. Much of the verification for this would also be from living people not documents how do you cite personal experience. We did it for anthropological interviews. I would appreciate any guidance and help any of you can give.Also this isn't the right place to note this but they are linked - Bishop Lawrence has been dead for many years,1969 why do you have him listed as a living person? Bccalumnus (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you can't verify the information from documents, there's a good chance the subject isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Please read WP:V. By the way, considering your having said "we did it for anthropological interviews", you might also want to read WP:COI. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The information is verified from documents cited in the Document. If I cited them incorrectly please help me correct them. I could also add the news articles from the Worcester Telegram especially the ones for the 60th anniversary of the camp. Unlike the majority of summer camps Bement is labeled on many map searches when searching for other locations in Massachusetts. This is not original research. I was asking about the difference between the interviews we did in anthropology where we cited individuals when there were either no documents to cite or the interviews were used to verify existing documents. As to the conflict of interest you suggested, this entry is written from a neutral point of view covering only facts not in question. It also expands from the entry for Bishop William Appleton Lawrence who is erroneously listed as living and his birth and death dates are on a Wikipedia disambiguation page. Your question about the camp name is legitimate, but the camp was known by most people as Bement Center Camp for far longer than the current Bement Camp and Conference Center and is also called just Camp Bement. This should have been noted in the entry. In fact I'm sure there is a way to note all the names the camp has been known by so searches would be more productive. Your continued guidance and assistance on this is greatly appreciated. Bccalumnus (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • any feedback, suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated,

Bccalumnus (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harold "Butch" Hendershot Jr.

Harold "Butch" Hendershot Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete There is nothing indicating the sort of significance required for a Wikipedia article. WP:POLITICIAN says "being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability", and there is nothing else in the article to suggest notability. Several articles at times-news.com are cited as references, but most of them give only brief mentions of Hendershot, and one does not mention him at all. The article mentions his "now famous" Bricklayers Speech, but various Google searches have failed to find anything relevant except for this Wikipedia article. For example, "Bricklayers Speech" Hendershot produced nothing except the Wikipedia article, Bricklayers Speech Hendershot produced nothing relating to this particular Hendershot except the Wikipedia article, and so it went on with other search terms, so it is questionable how "famous" the speech is. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Harold "Butch" Hendershot has been speedily deleted under CSD A7 (does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). I think this article could well be speedily deleted under the same criterion too. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2010 (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 #1: I am withdrawing my nomination, and nobody else has a recommendation to delete. —C.Fred (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hobson (actor)

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

Actor with minor parts only and no cited sources to back them up. Fails notability and verifiability requirements. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • His work on The Fresh Beat Band is now painted in enough context to show that how he is significant. I now feel that the best course of action is to improve the article, not delete. As nobody else has !voted to delete the article, I am withdrawing the nomination and closing the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2010 (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. G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement Taelus (Talk) 06:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humanistic Management

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

This appears to be an essay or WP:OR. The article says it's in the middle of major revamp, but that was over a week ago. No references, no indication of importance, nothing worth keeping. — Timneu22 · talk 15:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rastabonzai

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

This article is about a reggae band that does not meet either the general notability guidelines or music notability guidelines. I can find no coverage in reliable sources for this band. If the assertion of headlining major reggae festivals as claimed in the article were true, I'd expect to see this with at least entries in event announcements. There is no evidence of charting songs, awards or other recognition. They did put out two studio albums and a live album on the Mango label, but that does not appear to be a major label that would satisfy criterion 5 of WP:MUSIC. Whpq (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social Semiotics of Montessori Materials

Social Semiotics of Montessori Materials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research/synthesis MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2010 (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. Akirn (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John G. Wollaston

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

Conspiracy theorist of no apparent notability. No sign in GNews; all sources are to YouTube or some conspiracy site. I also see no notability for his practice as an architect. Not to be confused with the painter John Wollaston. Mangoe (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Royal Hotel

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

Contested PROD - Insufficient evidence of notability per WP:N. Codf1977 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (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 option to merge can be discussed further at the article's talk page. Shimeru 02:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randal Graves

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep — The character was the main co-protagonist of two movies and an animated series. The actor's performance in the first film won awards (Independent Spirit Award) and the film itself won a Cannes Film Festival award. Not sure how this doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article may need a little work with regard to references; if so, send a note off to WikiProject View Askew (of which I am not a part). WCityMike 19:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator - I can find no significant coverage of this fictional character on Google Books, Google News, or Google Scholar. The sources I can find only either state the name of the actor who portrayed the character or else a one-line character description. The best claim for the notability of this character is that Jeff Anderson won an Independent Spirit Award for his first portrayal of the character. While this does increase the notability of the character, it does not provide sufficient notability for an entire article on the subject. Neelix (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last movie starring the character is four years old; Google News is unlikely. The movie was pretty much nearly a two-person film between this and another character, and in and of itself won awards at Cannes and Sundance in addition to the character winning the Independent Spirit Award previously mentioned. With all due respect, I think your argument as to his supposed lack of notability is not strong. WCityMike 23:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be merged there is not significant third person information to cover the character. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Having reviewed the Ghits, it's clear this character hasn't received significant coverage/analysis in external media and only returns name-checks, the lack of references in the article is further proof of this. This should be deleted like other askewniverse bios. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Some sources here, with a more refined search. Some critical reception, like calling him a "smart-ass" but I don't know if it's enough. Give it time to find its WP:POTENTIAL. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:FICTION#Real-world notability which refutes WCityMike's rationale above. And I quote: "Notability of fictional works and elements within should be based on their impact in the real world as opposed to what occurs within the work. Even if a character plays a highly significant and "notable" role within the work, this does not make them notable for the purposes of Wikipedia." I think it would be pretty tenuous to claim that the Randal Graves character made a non-trivial artistic or cultural impact in the world. Articles on fictional characters should not just be a list of where they appeared and what actors portrayed them, they should discuss how the character made a cultural or artistic impact. If you can find reliable sources which discuss Randal Graves' cultural impact, now would be the time to produce them. SnottyWong talk 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One could argue the article for Scarlet O'Hara makes a poor showing of exactly how her character has had a non-trivial or cultural impact in the world. Mind you, I wouldn't try to delete Scarlett's article, and I would argue that her character has had a non-trivial or cultural impact upon the world, but it does a poor job of showing it ... as do, I think, a great, great majority of Wikipedia's articles about fictional characters. I think the phrasing in that cited guideline -- which is marked not only as a guideline, but as a proposed guideline -- is sufficiently imprecise and vague that it's not really a very useful ruler. (It is mostly useful for providing quotations to support AfD delete votes, not as a genuine guide for fictional characters' notability.) Clerks is a movie that's been awarded out the wazoo, is a significant cultural element, and this is one of two major characters who essentially comprise half of the movie's content (given its one setting and dialogue-only content). The movie has made a non-trivial artistic and cultural impact upon the world; Randal is quite literally half the movie. Thus, yes, the character has a non-trivial artistic and cultural impact. WCityMike 23:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep There is bio established guideline for the notability of fictional characters. The quotes above are from the MOS, which is not the accepted place for notability guidelines and the rules there have never actually met with consistent acceptance by the community. The part in the MOS remains there merely because is no agreement on what to change it to. Only a weak keep because from what is said about the series he does not seem to me like a really major character, nor am I certain the series is highly notable to the minor characters to be worth articles. Those factors are in practice the ones used in actual AfD decisions. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (reiteration of earlier vote). As this was relisted, I'll merely reiterate my opinion above. The character was the main co-protagonist of two movies and an animated series. The actor's performance in the first film won awards (Independent Spirit Award) and the film itself won a Cannes Film Festival award. The nature of the film was such that the character was pretty much half of the film. There are 132 articles that reference the character. The evidence is fairly heavy on the side of this being an article which is weighty enough, verifiable enough, with sufficient references to stand on its own. WCityMike 22:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the interest of building a consensus, I'd support a merge (my earlier !vote was weak keep). Someone could build up a section about this character based on better sources and spin it back out into an article at a later time. My first preference is still to keep it now and merge it later if necessary. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2010 (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 advertising Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daekiss albums

Daekiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (in conjunction with original AFD nom)
Daekiss albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Several problems with this article: the apparent lack of an article for the band itself, the lack of notability for the band (and thus their albums), the complete lack of any sources or third-party references, the advertising nature of the MySpace, ReverbNation, and other links. There is just no reason for this list of albums by a band without a page, and no references cited. This could probably go speedy... — Timneu22 · talk 13:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digitalkey

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

Article is written like an advert, has no third-party references, and was created by User:Digitalkey. Was already speedied once. — Timneu22 · talk 13:44, 1 June 2010 (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. NW (Talk) 17:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breathe (Pink Floyd song)

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

Non-notable song, fails WP:NSONGS, consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd#Pink Floyd songs was to redirect to album per policy. John (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There was not even discussion about this song, let alone consensus at WP:FLOYD. I posted this here originally, but another user decided to move it below, to a less conspicuous spot.Mk5384 (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There was not even discussion, let alone consensus, about this song at WP:FLOYD.Mk5384 (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be? Erpert (let's talk about it) 14:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's cut the shit, huh? Above, John says that at WP:FLOYD, there was consensus to redirect this song. I have pointed out that not only was there no consensus; it wasn't even discussed.Mk5384 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you need to be civil. That was completely unnecessary. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was completely unnecessary for you to move it.Mk5384 (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly explained it the edit summary why I moved it. Sheesh. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the bit that applies from NSONGS: "Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". It would be great if those wishing to keep this could explain hows an article like this relates to this. --John (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is not a stub. It has "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". The song has been "performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups". This is not "most songs". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that's where we disagree. I guess my delete rationale is that articles like this are effectively sub-stubs, once you discount material that is or could be in the album article, and also that they can inherently never be developed beyond stubs. They should not exist unless there is sufficient sourced material that is of interest to an encyclopedia yet would not fit on the album article, and this is the intention of WP:NSONGS. That, I do not see at present, though of course YMMV. WP:INHERITED and User:Kww's excellent arguments below also sum up my feelings on this one. --John (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The statement that there should be an article if "there is sufficient sourced material, ect., yet would not fit on the album article", is your opinion, and not part of WP:NSONGS.Mk5384 (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot of Doom: That isn't a very good "keep" rationale; see WP:INHERITED.
Let me say it this way then - I own quite a few Floyd-related books, and I could very easily create a GA out of that song article. I'm not going to, frankly because there are more interesting things for me to do, but there is no shortage of coverage of this song in places where those who know where to look, do so. Parrot of Doom 18:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny, right below WP:INHERITED is WP:LOTSOFSOURCES! I don't see how the article could ever aspire to be a GA. If nobody is ever going to develop it beyond its current state, it's tempting to think it can't ever be developed beyond that stage. Hence the nomination. --John (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions" - I'd hardly include the list of print sources I've used in The Dark Side of the Moon as unreliable, and I know for a fact that John Harris says quite a bit about "Breathe". Perhaps, rather than simply redirecting the page, you might first try expanding it yourself? Parrot of Doom 19:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite: I think you might have missed the point of WP:NSONGS.

--Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - song has had some coverage and is in one of the most famous albums by Pink Floyd. However, sourcing could definitely be improved.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keeping our legs on the ground (as it were!), most of the coverage for most of the songs on this album is coverage of the album, the songs being part of the album. Potentially, all of these songs could be merged into The Dark Side of the Moon (or perhaps The Dark Side of the Moon (analysis) or some such). Just because a song is famous, doesn't mean that it will automatically have its own coverage in sources, especially if that song is a track from a concept album. This is exactly analogous, IMO, to having four different articles for each of the individual movements of Beethoven's most famous symphonies. In fact, even the opening movement of the Fifth and the last movement of the Ninth don't get individual articles. In truth, only one of the songs from DSOTM is heard very often divorced from the album, viz "Money". I am not saying delete/merge/redirect here as I suspect there will be more sourcing about this song (rather than the album) out there, we just need to find it. I do think too many here are getting a bit carried away with the moment, though: "Breath must be famous, it's on a famous album by a famous band!!!" or whatever. I almost posted words to that effect. The song is certainly "notable" in the dictionary sense; whether it is notable in the WP sense is yet to be seen. The article only has three sources so far, only one of which I can personally verify (Allmusic). The coverage in the other sources might be trivial for all I know. Also, I might point out that John has been incredibly bold and redirected most of side two to the album's article. Just out of interest, is Pigsonthewing the same Andy Mabbett that wrote The Complete Guide to the Music of Pink Floyd? Not that it matters (the author of that book wrote it long before WP and doesn't have any obvious COI here), I am just curious that no one has asked about this yet or attempted to use it against Andy's !vote! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parent albumNeutral: [{WP:NSONGS]] is quite specific about what songs qualify for individual articles, and arguments to keep this one need to refer to that guideline. What I see about is essentially "I like it and it's famous", which is not the stuff of which policy arguments are made. From WP:NSONGS:
  • "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
  • Specifically states that the requirements for songs include WP:N. The requirements laid down by WP:NSONGS are in addition to WP:N.
  • "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting."
  • This doesn't apply to this discussion, as it is about albums.
  • "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song."
  • Pretty basic guidance: in general, don't write separate articles for songs, cover them in sections of larger articles.
  • "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."
  • Here's the major exception: songs that have charted, won awards, or been covered by multiple artists can get articles.
  • "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."
  • Even if the article charted, won awards, or been covered by multiple artists, it may not deserve an article.
So, given all of that, the test for "passing WP:NSONGS" is "received coverage in multiple reliable sources" AND (charted, won an award, or been covered by multiple artists) AND "received enough coverage that we can write more than a stub". Coverage first, and then does something that qualified. This song doesn't seem to meet those conditions.—Kww(talk) 00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It meets all these conditions, as explained in detail by multiple editors above. This afd seems to be based on complete and wilful ignorance. A google search on Breathe "Pink Floyd" gets around 10^6 hits: I have not sifted through all these but expect some of them will have some merit. Occuli (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please show me where the song has charted, has had recordings issued by multiple artists, or won awards. If you can show that it meets any one those three, I will change my !vote to keep.—Kww(talk) 14:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I will withdraw the nomination, which is based on a failure to meet WP:NSONGS. If it can be shown that it does in fact meet NSONGS, obviously this nomination would be moot. I do not believe that it can, and I believe all the opposition so far to redirecting this shows fundamental misunderstanding of NSONGS. Prove me wrong, and improve the article to reflect the notable awards the song has won, the music charts it has been listed in as a single, and the bands who have released versions of it, and we can close early. --John (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had missed one of the covers: the cover by Sea of Green may be enough to squeak it past WP:NSONGS. The two off of tribute albums don't count for much in my view. The real question is whether one cover by an obscure band meets "performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups". I'd still say not.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation of vote change:I believe in following guidelines, and I'm pretty strict about it. I think the intent of WP:NSONGS was to eliminate articles about songs like this one: completely unremarkable individual tracks. That said, people have noted the existence of sufficient cover versions that I think it meets the "performances by multiple notable artists" for extremely low values of "notable." I'd rather the article didn't exist, but the topic squeaks past WP:NSONGS. I will point out that the intent of that is to allow discussion of the cover versions, and hope one of the editors so intent on keeping this article will modify it to actually discuss the cover versions that justify the article's existence.—Kww(talk) 04:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. Pink Floyd performed it independently. It appears on the album Dark Side of the Moon. Roger Waters performed it independently. It appeared on the album In the Flesh-Live. David Gilmour performed it independently. It appeared on the album Live in Gdansk.Mk5384 (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, you know what the policy means by "independent". Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is that one user is on a crusade to rid this encyclopaedia of Pink Floyd song articles by following the letter of WP:NSONGS, rather than using common sense. So if we're going to follow NSONGS to the letter, then perfomances by Floyd, Waters, and Gilmour meet the letter.Mk5384 (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's not "policy", but a guideline, subject to common sense, and occasional exceptions, not to mention WP:IAR.Mk5384 (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but you shouldn't ignore all rules simply because you like the subject. And where's the proof that the user is a crusade to get rid of Pink Floyd-related articles? Erpert (let's talk about it) 14:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the redirects in this index are the recent work of crusader John (and there are others: see J's contribs around then with the SONGS comment). These are all just 'redirect', not 'merge and redirect' (which requires reflection and effort). I'm surprised that no-one has challenged any of these (some of which may well be non-notable). Marooned ... anyone? Occuli (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep PoD has demonstrated that the song is notable and receives non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. If it wasn't for the caveat that "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", it would be pretty obvious that this AfD should be swiftly closed. As it is, the article is reasonably detailed and could be still further expanded. Nev1 (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of non-trivial coverage in WP:RSes. A live performance by another notable artist (Flaming Lips) seems to cap this quite solidly. Torchiest talk/contribs 17:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another tribute album. I have a hard time counting tribute album covers as counting towards the guideline for the same reason that I don't count phonebooks as contributing to the notability of people: tributes cover everything, regardless of notability.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tributes don't cover "everything". Instead they cover artists' music with a fan base wide enough to merit tribute albums. The phonebook does, indeed, cover (almost) everyone. Tribute albums are only made when an artist feels that another artist is worth covering.Mk5384 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming that Pink Floyd isn't notable. Certainly, the existence of tribute albums to Pink Floyd is strong evidence that Pink Floyd is a notable group. I'm not claiming that "Dark Side of the Moon" isn't a notable album, either. However, once someone decides to reproduce the complete album in a different style, they are going to do every song. The existence of Dub Side of the Moon and The Flaming Lips and Stardeath and White Dwarfs with Henry Rollins and Peaches Doing The Dark Side of the Moon show notability for the album, not the individual songs.—Kww(talk) 20:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is just getting stranger and stranger. Instead of treating the guideline "with common sense, subject to the occasional exception", as WP:NSONGS says, and realising that there's virtually unamious desire to keep, you keep trying to find a way to shoot down each attempt at proof of notability.Mk5384 (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am treating it with common sense: there's nothing exceptional about this song that would merit an article, and people aren't demonstrating that there is. No one has made a strong case that this is one of the "occasional exception"s. It's just a track, albeit a track on a notable album by a notable group.—Kww(talk) 20:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The case that this is one of the exceptions is the overwhelming majority of users here. The page is filled with "keeps", (I know; they don't count) and this AfD is not going to carry. I just don't understand it. Oh well.Mk5384 (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I referred to had nothing to do with any tribute album. I was talking about the Flaming Lips' live performance of the song on Jimmy Fallon. That's a separate independent performance of the specific song. Torchiest talk/contribs 21:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a separate independent performance, manifestly. WP:NSONGS makes no mention of tribute albums anyway. There's another cover on Emmerson Nogueira: Ao Vivo ... I await some common sense reading of WP:NSONGS (between or behind or above the lines) to exclude this one, while skipping over WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At least the Chinese seem better informed. Occuli (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, this is approaching the point of absurdity. There is overwhelming consensus to keep, yet "only votes that conform to policy count". (Made up rule) "Breathe" has been performed, and recorded independently by Roger Waters and David Gilmour, both of whom have solo careers outside of Pink Floyd that span decades. That doesn't count because "they were both in Pink Floyd". (Made up rule) The song has been performed, and recorded independently by numerous artists, but "tribute albums don't count". (Made up rule) When it was pointed out that the article is not a stub, "then it's a 'sub stub". (Made up rule) The song is somehow qualified for its own article only if "the information won't fit in the album article". (Made up rule) And this debate begins with John saying that he had consensus to redirect it at WP:FLOYD, when this song wasn't even mentioned there. Notability has been proven; there's clear consensus to keep. It's become humorous.Mk5384 (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't clear consensus to keep; there are clear votes to keep. And if you think the first point in your previous paragraph is a made-up rule, you clearly didn't read the tag at the top of the page. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above editor (the one who moved by post about no discussion at WP:FLOYD to a less prominent place in this article), has now gone to my talk page, and accused me of making personal attacks.-LOL-As this article is cruising to an easy keep, there's not much need for me to post further here, and risk allowing myself to be baited into something.Mk5384 (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combustion vehicle

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

DePRODDED by article creator, my concern remains that this is a clear case of WP:NEO. My Google search does not reveal real-world notability for this as a class of cars: the article creator is attempting to coin a classification that groups internal combustion and hybrid vehicles, however this is not a widely used term. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Renaud

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

A7 contested, but I doubt the notability is there. Elevating for discussion. delete UtherSRG (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I suggest google-ing his name. He is a relevant figure in the fashion world, however there are few biographies on him aside from his website which specifies very little. Just a lot of magazines with his work in it, but no articles accompanying. Considering he has published work, and has been mentioned in relevant publications relating to the fashion world, I feel he is an important inclusion among the fashion designers listed in Wikipedia. He may not be a Donna Karen, but I started this page so I could hopefully find others who have more articles and information on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mezmaid09 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commnet - Actually if you read the sources i have provided, it proves that this indiviual is of notable origin, not only in the fashion industry, but the music and art. Please see the references. Art Forum and Surface magazine are both two notable and reliable sources are they not? He absolutely does meet criteria for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mezmaid09 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – <sigh>I have read the resources you have provided.</sigh> None of the references amount to "non-trivial" coverage. A quick mention in a article about another topic does not fit the criteria. Again, I suggest you reread WP:BIO and while you are at it, please see WP:RS. ttonyb (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Lacks "non-trivial" sources, fails WP:BIO.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Tim Song (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Yugoslavian republics and states

Comparing Yugoslavian republics and states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

content fork ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please elaborate on "content fork"... Is this material presented on another page? Certainly a comparative analysis of the demographic composition of the countries which composed the former Yugoslavia would be a very worthy topic for a page. If this page already exists under another title — what's the title? And if it's not already extant, this is a poor first effort which should be marked as a stub and kept. Carrite (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page existed for about a year and is still an unsourced stub. A "Breakup of Yugoslavia" article already exists, if you wish you could merge it. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 15:24, 1 June 2010 (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. Tim Song (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically human basic need

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

This page was already previously deleted. To my astonishment, speedy was declined this time. There is no indication why or how the topic is important/notable, or even how the title is specifically related to the text. If there is anything worth saving in this article, it should be in the short Laszlo Garai article. There's no reason to keep this around as a stub or redirect. The page should be deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 12:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with fire, the title sounds like basic human needs but the content, in as much as I can make head or tail of it after the user has made several deleted attempts at this article, is about one person's esoteric definition of the term "Specifically human basic need".

According to a hypothesis of Laszlo Garai, a paradoxical need for a needfree activity is specific for humans and basic for their other needs. The structure of the hypothesized need is isomorphic with that of the work considered as a "specifically human basic activity" and defined as that of arranging in one and the same structure ends and means[1]. The hypothesis is based on the activity theory of Alexei Leontiev[2].

— Article content as of 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that the text is basically incomprehensible, Google finds "Specifically+human+basic+need"&safe=off&start=60&sa=N 25 unique hits, many of which seem to track back to Wikipedia. It does not look to me as if it even merits a redirect. The user seems to be handling issues with the content by the expedient of ignoring them. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had already left a COI notice on Szalagloria's talk page. Szalagloria sort of shrugged it off, but on the other hand, he has not since edited the article(s) in question. The Garai account has not made any edits in over three years, but I just left a COI notice for that account, as well. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2010 (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. Tim Song (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hall Kart Racing School

Jim Hall Kart Racing School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declining A7 - multiple notable people have used this company. Declining G11 - no promotion apparent. Elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

notable people using Jim Hall Kart Racing School does not make Jim Hall Kart Racing School notable. Codf1977 (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Hall Kart Racing School is notable, it is the biggest most used karting school in the US. Sign My Guestbook!·Sumsum2010·Talk 16:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please list the reliable sources that back up that statement, as I can't find any. Codf1977 (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did find one, not the same phrasing but it still implies notability, [18],pg 85(Longest running facility)Sign My Guestbook!·Sumsum2010·Talk 20:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not what you might call a serious publication, what with the overview saying "An entertaining collection of 101 quintessential places, people, events, customs, lingo, and eats that help define the personality of the Golden State."; however IMO not enough to demonstrate notability as set out in the general notability guidelines. Codf1977 (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the claim to notability of this company is based on the notability of some of the past customers - Do you have non-primary sources for this list ? Codf1977 (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking.Sign My Guestbook!·Sumsum2010·Talk 22:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What makes professional schools notable in the RW, ultimately, is that they have a substantial number of significant graduates--that's their basic reason for existence. But in this subject, I am unable to judge if the specifics here are actually sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment with regard to A7 vs WP:ORG, if there's a possibility of notability, then A7 is not appropriate. Having had a significant number of notable graduates/participants means that there's a possibility of notability, though not a guarantee. Hence my decline of speedy and elevation for discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - this article is an obvious advertisement for a non-notable business. No reliable, secondary sources discuss this business in any detail. Miserably fails all aspects of WP:CORP. SnottyWong talk 23:38, 8 June 2010 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Wood

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeniva

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

Contested speedy, elevating for discussion, but looks nn to me. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2010 (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. No arguments to delete besides nominator. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 01:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Hagyard

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

Unnotable actor. Fails WP:N and WP:ENTERTAINER, Without significant coverage in reliable, third-party quality sources, cannot meet our Policy regarding living people. The series itself is, of course, notable, but it had over 120 cast members, and its notability does not confer to them all. Hagyard, like many, received no significant coverage for her role nor her life after. It should be noted that the article was created by an editor with the same name whose only edit was to make this article. Prod removed by new editor User:Iftelse with claim of "well-known Canadian actress, rm PROD". However, as noted, she has no significant coverage. I found one brief mention in Alanis Morissette: A Biography[19], no news coverage, and no reliable sources that can even confirm her other claimed voice work. Despite the article claims, IMDB's listings show that she did minor voice work for the listed series, except For Better Or For Worse, which was not a "series" rather a couple of animated specials. Again, without actual significant coverage in reliable sources, she is not notable, and the article cannot meet WP:BLP. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of those appear to be local sources, which do not work to establish notability for a person. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solargard level crossing protection

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

This page appears to be little more than advertising. DiverScout (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2010 (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 all to Westwood College. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. Tim Song (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Westwood College School of Justice

Westwood College School of Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tertiary education establishment which does not meet WP:N, as there is no significant coverage in sources independent of itself. Proposed deletion was contested with the claim that "All colleges are notable" which is, quite frankly, nonsense. Claritas § 07:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - I am also nominating the following similar articles for deletion:
Westwood College School of Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Westwood College School of Industrial Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Westwood College School of Healthcare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Westwood College School of Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Westwood College School of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment I absolutely HATE the fact that this is a call for multiple deletions with one nomination. Each should get its own and be considered on it own merits — as a principle. Carrite (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That said, Merge All into the main Westwood College page — which somebody not affiliated with the school needs to edit hard, as it sounds like an advertisement. And "All colleges are notable," by the way. But departments of "colleges" like this one are not... Carrite (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is going off-topic, but WP:ORG makes no indication that "All colleges are notable". I'd be very surprised if there were tertiary education establishments which didn't meet WP:GNG, but there's not any consensus that they are inherently notable. If they were, we'd have a serious problem with deleting articles on Diploma mills. Maybe all accredited colleges are notable ? It gets a bit more complicated. Claritas § 16:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are repeated discussions of that issue, for example recent discussions at Wikipedia talk:College and university article guidelines. My own reading is that consensus is a little muddy at the margins, but leans heavily toward a presumption of notability for institutions that are authorized to grant degrees. That's just my reading, however. In any event Westwood College itself is pretty clearly notable under WP:GNG, which should solve the immediate issue of what to do with these spinoff articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll include that in the listing. Thanks. Claritas § 16:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Primeau

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

Declining Speedy G11. Elevating to AFD for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illicit Networks in an Age of Globalization

Illicit Networks in an Age of Globalization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be an essay paper, and google searches for the topic show that there is much similarity between this and the PDFs in the results. This is WP:OR, and not presented in an encyclopedic manner. There's no typical intro, every section is a hyperlink, and no indication why this topic is important. In short, this is an essay and should be deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 12:21, 1 June 2010 (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 Enigmamsg 20:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Henley

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

Footballer yet to make senior debut. Cannonbolt2 (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2010 (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.

Anushka Wirasinha

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

The result was delete all. Tim Song (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing in Consumer Products

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

4 Hard to classify pages. They look like copyright violations, but I have been unable to indetify thesource for them. But a starting sentence like "Consumer products are divided into three categories: detergents, personal care products, and cosmetics." (from Mixing in Consumer Products) is unlikely to be used in a newly written, general article, and appears to come from some handbook. The images used are obvious violations though. Anyway, the subjects are of very limited notability, and have titles with sometimes little relation to the content (e.g. Mixing in Bulk Chemicals, which is about food.) The references are sometimes missing (Mixing in Mineral Processing) Fram (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are:

Comment: it appears that the author of these 4 articles was not notified of this nomination; I have notified him today, but I suggest that this discussion be kept open for a few extra days to give him an opportunity to respond. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response: Hi Russ, I am new to wikipedia and am unsure of what is wrong with these articles. These articles were given to me by my supervisor and they are our property. The articles were written by the students of my supervisors and is entirely our work. All the work not considered "ours" have been sourced back to the original author of the handbooks or other sources. Please let me know. Thanks. (TheodoreNg (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]


'Comment: I have changed the article on Bulk Chemical Mixing to Mixing in the Food Industry. I accidently put this article under the wrong title and another article under bulk chemicals will follow. (TheodoreNg (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

SnottyWong talk 23:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wembley Point

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

Non Notable building Codf1977 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2010 (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. After discounting the !votes that either declare this person notable, and the !vote that advises deletion because the voter has never heard of the subject, what we're left with is a rough consensus to delete the article. Courcelles (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Kartik Patel

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

I would have prodded this article first had it not been for the precocious editing by the author. The BLP seems like a hoax at the maximum and a clearly non-notable individual at the least. No sources (leave alone RS) of any kind are available. Leave sources, I could find zero web links to the individual. Request AfD delete. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 10:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 69.81.58.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Bingbongdingdong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Tequila

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

Prod contested by contributor. A previous version was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, though that criterion doesn't seem to me to apply to the article's content currently.

This is a drinking game for which I can find no coverage in reliable sources, and which I therefore feel does not meet notability inclusion criteria. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up last weekend; no notability, no reliable sources, no verifiability. Accounting4Taste:talk 12:47, 1 June 2010 (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 (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Kamachi

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

Unable to find a single reliable source that discusses or interviews this topic. Indeed, the article itself has no third-party sources. The only external link is to the MySpace article. In short, this AFD is on the grounds that there is no indication of importance or significance, based on the complete lack of sources in the article or via google searches. — Timneu22 · talk 10:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to Let It Be -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wreckorder

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

Unreleased album with no indication of notability beyond album will be (when/if released) the first solo album by an established artist. Per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUM (there is some coverage in reliable sources, but doesn't appear to be significant coverage. (There's been some discussion at Talk:Wreckorder which may be of interest). No tracklisting, no firm release date. I believe the second paragraph (McCartney, vegetarianism, cookbooks) should be merged to Francis Healy, and the first paragraph (album itself) to Francis Healy same. TFOWRis this too long? 10:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---TFOWR, you failed to mention that the album also features Paul McCartney, the most successful songwriter and musician in the history of popular music.--Froggo64 (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the second paragraph (McCartney, vegetarianism, cookbooks)... Uh, no. Though I will concede I didn't say that McCartney is "the most successful songwriter and musician in the history of popular music". Sorry! TFOWRidle vapourings 11:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're going to be precise, no, you didn't. You mentioned his name (now in bold green), but seemed to leave out that he's on the album (which clearly makes it more noteworthy/significant).--Froggo64 (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the usual proceedure for anyone participating in an AfD is to read the article, read the arguments in the AfD, and comment. There really was no need for me to repeat the article for the benefit of a hypothetical AfD participant who hadn't read the article (if there is such a person, I would encourage you to read it - it's a quick read). TFOWRidle vapourings 12:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2010 (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 (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kay (poet)

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

Unnotable young poet. No books. A few poems published in obscure literary journals. Google on Sarah Kay brings up other Sarah Kays, not her. Unclear what Project V.O.I.C.E is supposed to be, but Google brings up other Project Voices. Herostratus (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. Poetry has changed greatly as an art form in the last 10 years, as some of the most accomplished spoken word poets swear they would never publish a book if given the chance - it makes the work stale and rigid. Sarah Kay is a live performance artist, well-known in New York City and elsewhere. She has been a featured performer at the United Nations launch of the World Youth Report, the Tribeca Film Festival, and hundreds of other venues. For info on project voice, go to project-voice.net. It is an organization that reaches thousands of students per year.

Spoken word poets deserve to be known and recognized, but unfortunately their medium prevents them from having books or other tangible proofs of legitimacy. Ms. Kay has performed on HBO, radio programs like Radio Open Source and world-famous venues like the Bowery poetry club. She is a notable poet, performer, and advocate for teenagers' creative self expression. .

Let me know if you have other concerns before deleting the article. Thank you. -erochelson

Ps Googling Project Voice brings up Sarah Kay's organization as the first hit! And a google search of Sarah Kay poet brings up lots about the poet in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erochelson (talk • contribs) 15:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The subject doesn't have to have published to be notable, but she does have to be the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources. The subject here is obviously not an unknown, given her HBO appearance, but what we have in the article so far may not be enough to establish her notability in Wikipedia terms. Reviews, interviews, and the like (from significant published sources) could be very helpful to establish notability. (Please see WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:CREATIVE for further explanations of the criteria.) I find little of this in an initial search. Can you supply some sources of this nature?--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — several further sources were added by Buckfull since the above Comment — Hebrides (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are now 10 legitimate references supporting this article, including interviews, publshed works, articles, and a tv appearance. Please consider removing the deletion tag from this article Erochelson (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - lotta comments. Anyone want to !vote? Herostratus (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Spoken word poets rarely get the coverage as one who might write a book for publication and review... so it is in how her work is recieved as a spoken word poet that the indivdual must be evaluated. The work done in improving the article has convinced me that Wikipedia has a place for her within its pages, and that the project will benefit by allowing this article to remain and grow through continued regular editing. And to User:Erochelson... the tag will remain as long as this discussion is ongoing... but please continue improvements with our blessings. This article might be revisited in a few months to evaluate progress. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – article is significantly improved since AfD. With regard to the original AfD rationale, existence of other people called Sarah Kay (or other projects called Voice) has no bearing on her notability. As a spoken word artist she may not have very much in print, but there are many recordings of her performances on websites such as YouTube, with enthusiastic appreciation and acclaim. It seems to me that she has chosen to pursue her art rather than pursuing publicity, but nevertheless has already achieved sufficient recognition and notability to warrant an entry in Wikipedia. — Hebrides (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Freer

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN by a landslide. Ironholds (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2010 (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. Claritas § 09:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Shatner

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

Actress who fails WP:ENT. Seems to only have had a significant role in one film series - Subspecies (film series). Only sources are IMDB and Memory Alpha (!). Claritas § 08:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan D Bullock

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN. Being a local councillor - not enough. Being a cabinet holder - not enough. Being a perennial candidate - not enough. Coverage is by the local newspaper, which is to be expected and hardly sufficient. Ironholds (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stimulator

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

This appears to be a non-notable band. I couldn't find any reliable Google hits, and the references in the article either don't mention the band's name at all or mention unrelated subjects containing the word "stimulator". Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Bragg

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

Non-notable pornographic actress. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Contested proposed deletion. The claim that she's been in over 100 films hasn't been substantiated by a reliable source. Claritas § 08:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I'm satisfied both about the lack of notability and the BLP considerations. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sheen

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

Seems to fail WP:BLP1E. He's basically known for getting in trouble with the law society, something covered in all of one source. In addition, privacy is a concern; we've received an OTRS request for removal (ticket 2010053110001242) Ironholds (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, upon looking closely at this one, I concur with the nominator. The sole significant coverage about Sheen seems to be an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. While this material would certainly have a place in the article if Sheen were a more notable individual, I can't really find anything else much on him. The other sources provided in the article do not address Sheen in depth. For this reason, I feel he does not meet the WP:BIO criteria at this time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:58, 12 June 2010 (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. Tim Song (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Tollerman

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

Contested proposed deletion. Sommelier who has received very limited coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. Claritas § 08:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is an article about a notable Sommelier who has received a great amount of coverage, including coverage in independent and reliable sources such as the Washington Post [27] and National Geographic Traveler [28]. There are more articles in Spanish, including this interview [29]. Many more links and references are found in the article. There are more than enough sources found to pass WP:GNG. Inniverse (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth noting that Inniverse has now been blocked as a sock puppet account. Tomas e (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly relevant here. There has been no sockpuppetry in this debate, as Inniverse is the only advocate for keeping this article. If sockpuppetry were going on, you'd see plenty more 'keep' votes from new or single purpose accounts. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The so-called "great amount of coverage" seems to consist of mere passing mentions, which fails to meet WP:SIGCOV. Did the "keep" proponent above even look at those sources? Washington Post: trivial mention. National Geographic: trivial mention. Keegy: what is this, a blog/community site? Come on. Most of the other references given in the article appear to be local-interest pieces, and this encyclopedia has global scope. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the mentions are trivial. There are scores of references, which taken all together, add up to notability. He also writes wine columns that show up frequently as web hits. Your argument amounts to 'that he is not notable because he has too many trivial references', and that is a nonsensical way to determine notability. The scores of trivial references obscures the non-trivial references. Being successful at promoting his business should not hamper a claim of notability. To have a strong web presence, in my mind, supports his notability (doesn't detract from it). Inniverse (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but regardless of your feelings or mine, scores of trivial mentions do not add up to notability, according to our guidelines. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory. I believe that the references found support notability. That is why I am arguing for this article to be kept. Have regard for your feelings and trust your instincts. The guidelines are just that - guidelines. Inniverse (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FYI: [30], Facebook page titled, "Reinstate Nigel Tollerman's entry in Wikipedia!" That page dates back to October 1, 2008, so there must have been a previously deleted article.--Milowent (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also see [31], French wiki deletion of article from May 2010 (7-1 delete).--Milowent (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was speedily deleted in September 2008. The deleted article had an uppercase title. The deletion log entry is here. I just noted it at the top of this AfD.
The French article looks like it has been deleted 4 times already since April. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, there is something fishy going on with this article with the constant recreations even though it looks like this person hasn't done anything to merit more than trivial coverage in reliable sources. If he does anything to merit WP:SIGCOV, then there is no reason not to have an article on him. But right now, despite the user(s) constant recreation, there are no sources to make this anything other than an vanity article. AgneCheese/Wine 04:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Amatulic and Agne. Sommeliers would typically achieve notability by winning the International Sommelier of the Year, or writing several notable books, not just by serving or selling wine, or owning stock in a wine selling company. To be frank I don't see a large number of sommeliers making the cut - notable winemakers would vastly outnumber notable sommelier. And the Facebook page doesn't exactly change my mind. Tomas e (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2010 (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.

I have restored the AFD to the text at the time of closing. It should be noted that the socking block against Inniverse was later reversed, and the suspected relationship to Azviz has been determined not to exist.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Major Bummer. Feel free to merge any usable content from page history. Tim Song (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannosaurus Reich

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

Non-notable fictional character - only makes a minor appearance in comic books, no significant coverage in reliable sources - simply fails WP:N. Claritas § 08:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • What coverage does this thing have? [32] is mentioned in the article now, and Google news has another thing posted at shinny robot, it a blog like entry also. If it had a significant cult following, wouldn't more than 787 hits be returned from the general Google search [33]? Not that many people talking about it online it seems. Dream Focus 20:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Teen Records

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

Non notable company - article almost entirely about Warren Haynes. Codf1977 (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CreationFlow

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

Promotion for non-notable company, article by SPA who is the COO of the company. While many sources are given, none constitute significant coverage, and I have been unable to find any such. Haakon (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About notability and Oscarguindzbrg being the COO of the company: This issue was already covered more than a year ago and the decission was to keep the page. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationFlow "Keep. Business seems to have won several local & national awards, although my Spanish isn't good enough to determine the precise nature of these awards. Certainly looks like it's notable, though. JulesH (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)". During the past few months, some other wikipedia users have edited the page and nobody marked the article for deletion. Besides that, CreationFlow has thousands of users around the globe. Since this is a tool for a specific market, maybe someone working on graphic design, animation, architectural rendering, advertising or post production, may give an opinion on this issue. CreationFlow is part of a new category of tools and yesterday I created an article Online artwork proofing, feedback, review and approval tool to provide information about this new set of tools (which mentions several other tools). Oscarguindzberg (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the sources, many of them are independent reviews of the tool, including The New York Times (The most relevant ones: http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/04/02/02gigaom-integrated-collaboration-and-project-management-w-10206.html, http://www.centernetworks.com/creationflow-collaboration-tool http://www.appappeal.com/app/creationflow/, http://www.brighthub.com/office/project-management/reviews/27371.aspx, http://www.denbagus.net/creationflowcom-collaboration-via-the-internet/), news about awards the product won (http://www.iae.edu.ar/iaehoy/IAEtv/videos/Paginas/naves.aspx, http://www.agencia.gov.ar/IMG/pdf/08.07.08_Emprendedores_aprobados.pdf) and links about investments the company received (http://www.iecyt.org.ar/inversores/red-de-inversores-angeles). Oscarguindzberg (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The decision wasn't to keep, there was no consensus. It just defaults to keeping the article. Rehevkor ✉ 14:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing the significant coverage required here. Most of the "references" don' seem to be valid or reliable references at all (blogs, database entries, profiles etc). Rehevkor ✉ 15:05, 8 June 2010 (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 'delete's *just* pip the post here, with there being no specific 'keep's, just a neutral and a suggestion to disambiguate -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Level Environmental Science

AfDs for this article:
A Level Environmental Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability and References lacking since 2008. BigGayAllison talk   07:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Block diagram Language

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

Notability in question since 2008, no reasonalbe attempt to address this since then. BigGayAllison talk   07:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - the list of literature on the subject is substantive - I think someone with relevant expertise needs to check these sources and provide in-line citations if they do contain references to it. Per WP:BEFORE, it would have been appropriate to do so before nominating the article for deletion. Claritas § 08:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hardware description language#History. Almost all papers listed are not in peer-reviewed literature, and the few that are, are either (co-)authored by the designers/implementors of ABL, or do not mention it, or both (for example the paper by Ayala-Rincón et al.); all together not enough to establish that this has an intrinsic interest that merits an encyclopedic article on its own. In my opinion the present article is not truly informative anyway.  --Lambiam 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. References seem to provide quite a few papers and articles published in publications that are independent of the creators of the subject language. Whether written by the creators or not, the fact that they have been accepted for publication by independent editors working for notable academic publishers (Springer-Verlag, Elsevier) suggests that the subject was considered noteworthy by these editors, who know their field better than I do. JulesH (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2010 (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. Tim Song (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Celli

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

Notability not established. BigGayAllison talk   07:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the claim that the player has turned out for the San Marino national side would have been enough too to establish notability, but I can find no reliable sources to verify that he actually played for the full national team. He is described as a team member on this website, but I can find no indication of the site's provenance or the reliability of its information. He is not listed on the page of the San Marino team official website. He seems probably to have played for the junior national sides, but WP:NSPORTS says notability derives from having played in an "officially sanctioned senior international competition" (my italics). So I'm going with delete unless someone can prove that the Campionato Sammarinese is fully pro.
I should probably note that my inclination toward delete is shored up by the general lack of news coverage of this person - all the Google News Archive hits for his name refer to someone else. So there's no indication, as far as I can see, of the subject meeting the general notability guideline. Since it's a biography of a living person, I'm all the more keen that claims be verified if the article is kept. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a full article on the Italian wiki Alberto Celli it.wikipedia.org with references. I will see about translating the refs. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If my Italian's up to it, it seems to be saying that he got a callup to the full national side for a game against Germany, but never came off the bench - does that cut the mustard for a full international career? Gonzonoir (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, WP:NSPORTS qualifies that statement: "Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition... The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria." (my emphasis.) I'm not seeing the significant coverage that the condition assumes, so I am still leaving my !vote as delete (setting aside the question of the reliability of that source). Gonzonoir (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You basically made the case with your bolding of "as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria". A new or young player is not likely to receive substantial coverage. In essence, the criteria you bolded suggests that by playing in a notable event, the player or coach would have received significant coverage had they been a star player or done something noteworthy in the game. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not, heh. Are you saying that the lack of coverage of this (new, young) player is to be expected and therefore shouldn't be taken as a reason for deletion (because the player is systematically disadvantaged in receiving coverage), or that it is to be expected and therefore should be taken as a reason for deletion? As you can probably tell, I subscribe to the latter interpretation (no coverage, no notability). Gonzonoir (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In essence, by all my edits I disagree to the deletion by the NSPORTS criteria for soccer players. That criteria suggests as per your bolding IMO that the player would have received "significant coverage" which is its threshold for notability. Unfortunately, this AfD has become very convoluted and with jumping around (no reflection on any editor to include me too), the debate items may be hard to discern. I basically re-affirm my Keep based upon Wikipedia:NSPORTS#Football_.28soccer.29, Football (Soccer) - please note, I do not include "Football (Soccer) inside the brackets ala Football (Soccer) which I know how to do. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as far as I can tell, he only played half a match in a friendly against Albania, which is not a "senior international competition" (a qualifier for the EC or the WC could be interpreted as such, but not a friendly). (One of the reasons that friendlies don't count, apart from the lesser importance, is that instead of three, an unlimited (?) number of replacements may be used. In the case of the San Marino-Albania game, apparently 6 substitutions were used by San Marino[34]). For the San Marino vs. Germany 0-13 game, Celli was a bench-sitter, but he didn't play in that game[35]. Looking at the other matches, Celli seems to never have been on the team.[36] So it looks to me as if he played half a game in one friendly, and that's it. Fram (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The San Marino-Albania match is reported as an "A" international by FIFA (you can search for it here: http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/results/index.html). I'm not sure why an "A" international suddenly wouldn't count towards WP:NSPORTS/footy. Jogurney (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must be missing something. I don't see any indication of "A" international, "B" international, or any other category. The only thing I can find is that the match is labeled a "friendly". Footy requires a "competition", so that this match doesn't count for automatic notability is not "sudden" but standard procedure. We are already very lax for people from such minor football countries as San Marino or the Faeroer, in that one minute in an official qualifier is sufficient. Going even further would be unwise, particularly since e.g. this AfD is a prime example of someone playing in a fairly recent friendly and lacking all significant coverage anyway. Fram (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • FIFA doesn't list "B" internationals there. They only list "A" internationals. While I agree that this particular footballer seems to be non-notable, I'm worried that we are changing policy (in the past, play in any FIFA-recognized "A" international match was considered sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE). Jogurney (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in past AfDs, one minute of play in a fully pro-league was viewed as sufficient to establish notability. Why is this case different? Jogurney (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because he hasn't played a single minute in a fully pro league, but only in the fully amateur (not even semi-pro) San Marino premier league? San Marino has a population of 30,000, which is obviously insufficient to maintain a full professional football league. His club Domagnano has a 500 person capacity only. The only professional team in San Marino is San Marino Calcio. Fram (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refering to the population and the status of its league begins the WP:SYNTH theory. But, let's accept that theory that San Marino does not have a fully professional league. In essence, their "highest amateur league" is then the highest amateur level of soccer by that theory. Ergo, to further the syth theory, the individual has played at the highest amateur level available to him in his country. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not an accepted rule to include someone. Highest level of a sport internationally, not nationally. As for SYNTH, I just provided logical arguments in a discussion, not content to an article. But if you can provide evidence that the San Marino League is fully professional after all, be my guest. I won't hold my breath. Fram (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you suggest that we change WP:ATHLETE from "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." to "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships or San Marino Football League"? Please don't make thgis debate completely ridiculous... Fram (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a rewrite, I would agree. NSPORTS cheapens IMHO the notability of all sports because then the argument of WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. If an athlete is deemed WP:N for one minute of play by that criteria, then actors should be noteworthy for one minute of onscreen airtime. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, when I quoted NPSPORTS in my Keep argument, I directly quoted its criteria, which I will do again: "Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition". I accept your debate items without a questioning attitude. I have stayed on-topic and used acceptful debate items. Please don't suggest otherwise. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Fram, I understand now. WP:NSPORTS has a different notability threshhold than WP:ATHLETE did before. I think this is unwise (someone with one "A" international cap for most nations is quite likely to pass the GNG). While Sanmarinese internationals are a likely exception (along with Andorra and some other low-ranked nations), I don't think that change was made with concensus. I won't vote to keep this article as I doubt it will pass GNG, but I think we ought to be careful about the new wording of NSPORTS. Jogurney (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)And, I am willing to accept it as a Friendly match as per the suggestion offered. Friendly matches are sanctioned matches with referees, time keepers, scorers, etc. Red cards can and will be enforced at such matches. Goes to NSPORTS. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is the higher requirement. Unfortunately, NSPORTS becomes the qualifying criteria for notability in this article's debate. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, Wikipedia:NSPORTS#Football_.28soccer.29 the soccer criteria is the tripwire. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -seems to meet requirements and is well sourced. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which requirements is it supposed to meet? It doesn't meet WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, or Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Football (soccer). Fram (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Struway2. WP:NSPORTS wording is unclear and under discussion. WP:ATHLETE has been understood to include any competition in FIFA A-internationals, and Celli satisfies that requirement (even if he only played once). Jogurney (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe A-international games to be notable - representing your country at full international level. Subjective, maybe, but I don't believe there is a higher level one can play. Satisfied he played per article refs and this to back it up. Celli may not get a whole lot of coverage in England press, however the same argument could be applied to 4th level England players - they never get a mention here. As for the wording of the latest NSPORTS, A-internationals are officially sanctioned by FIFA, the governing body of the sport, results count towards international ranking, international ranking counts toward seeding for international tournaments, therefore, international competition. And anyone who thinks friendly is an alternative term for non-competitive should pull out a video of some recent pre-WC internationals.--ClubOranjeT 01:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see all people citing either WP:NSPORT or WP:ATHLETE, but not WP:GNG, which is far more important indeed, and actually may overrides any other notability guideline around. Failure in meeting WP:GNG would result in the subject being deemed as non-notable, regardless of the fact he has played 45 minutes with a San Marino jersey, and I do not see anyone showing evidence this subject has actually received significant coverage from independent, reliable, third-party sources. --Angelo (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2010 (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.

I have restored the AFD to the text at the time of closing. It should be noted that the socking block against Inniverse was later reversed, and the suspected relationship to Azviz has been determined not to exist.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Weiss (author)

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

Author of non-fiction who does not meet WP:N or WP:AUTHOR. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, and his works, as opposed to the series in which they have been published, have had little reviews. Claritas § 07:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2010 (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 5 albums on indie labels does not convey notbaility.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Thurston

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

This rapper unfortunately died at a young age but he doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO (not to mention WP:MEMORIAL). I couldn't find any reliable Ghits (not even the MySpace page listed in the article), and the article even says he wasn't signed. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2010 (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. — Scientizzle 13:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tämä Ikuinen Talvi

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Comment - this AfD is illegitimate and should be closed as "moot" because the nominator used a rationale that is not applicable to the album at hand. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? How is this rationale not applicable to the album at hand? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:54, 1 June 2010 (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. Though the debate has not been open long, there's not a snowball's chance that the outcome will now be "delete". Bold NAC by—S Marshall T/C 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

List of public art in Washington, D.C.

List of public art in Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very little content, and is any of it notable? I would speedy this, but I'm not sure if it is a valid topic for speedy. delete UtherSRG (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Hi there. I'm quite surprised to see this. This is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art, and if public art - such as the Washington Monument and the Albert Einstein Memorial are not notable, than all public art lists should be deleted, such as: List of public art in London or Outdoor sculpture in New York City. There is sourcing on each page, and the basis for this list is from the Smithsonian's SIRIS database, and keep in mind, this is a skeleton to be built upon. Thanks for the consideration. Missvain (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with this as a topic for a list. I'm sure the individual artworks have been covered in the media or guidebooks. I don't quite understand the editor's plan. Why not just list them by alphabet and give Google-map locations for each? Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Definable scope, clear selection criteria. Not every item on a list is required to be notable, merely clearly and unambiguously within the selection criteria. See WP:LIST. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Borderline WP:Almanac, but it's done quite well, although I do have some concerns about ongoing maintenance. A close case. Shadowjams (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to being clearly within the scope of Wikipedia Saves Public Art, this list also falls under all three categories for the Purposes of lists: Information, Navigation and Development. Wikipedia should be a place that users can come and find information on a public artwork that they've come across, one that very often may not have a label or name. Lists are a great way to find that information. Especially if they know little about the work (usually just the location), they can easily navigate a list in order to find the work. The list also is helpful in development, as it includes red links illustrating articles which need to be created. Until they're created, the list should remain in mainspace so that others can see a comprehensive list of all of the public art in DC. HstryQT (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very puzzling. It appears as if UtherSRG didn't even bother looking at what this list is before suggesting it be deleted. Questioning this list with unsubstantiated claims is at minimum unproductive. Also, I don't understand the maintenance claims made by Shadowjams. This list seems to be ideally suited and constructed for the topic. --Richard McCoy (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and, perhaps, trim down to just 8 internal links with no filling. But, given that wards of DC have no articles about them, some explanation is OK. East of Borschov (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful and well-constructed list. Needs to be wikified for individual articles. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You do know we have a GLAM push on, right? And that we're an encyclopedia, and cover this sort of thing as part of what we do? I don't question your good faith, but that you would actually consider this speedy material means that I do have to seriously question your judgement on this one - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, obviously (It drills down to very detailed, very notable sublists). This is a typical problem with WP content split over multiple wikipages. Best duck-tape deletion-prevention solution is to add some kind of wikiproject template, so people see that it belongs somewhere. The belonging isn't entirely obvious from the page itself; I can see how UthurSRG might have failed to figure out how the page was organised whilst on patrol. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I think maybe the nominator didn't realise that the article was actually listing sub-articles where the main body of the work is being collated and that this article is created to make the sub-lists a more managable size. This might explain the "very little content" description. Witty Lama 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list is not a list of "Public art," but of the neighborhoods contained in each ward. Then when you click on the Ward, it takes you to a list of random art works, 95% of which are redlinks and probably nonnotable. There would be a place in Wikipedia for one list of the notable (non-redlink) public art in the city. Organization by Ward is very strange. That is a local political boundary system quite unknown to the tourist or artlover, and there is nothing special about "1st Ward Art" versus "2nd Ward Art." Edison (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, but merge from the sublists. The overall notability of the topic is evident—the success of the Wikipedia Saves Public Art venture is undisputed, and this is clearly in that vein—but the content of the article per se (as it stands) doesn't seem to justify the importance of the topic: it doesn't contain any of the relevant information! {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 18:37, 1 June 2010 (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. JForget 02:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Zacchiroli

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

Only claim to notability is leadership of the Debian project. To me, this alone is not enough. No independent references are given. But I have reversed my CSD deletion in order to give this a chance at wider input into what I see as the key question, whether that one position is enough to grant notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2010 (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 Poodle#Poodle mixes. Tim Song (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pugapoo

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

Non-notable dog cross. Not a real breed. Suggest deleting or moving to List of dog hybrids.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JoKing (talk • contribs)

  • Delete and then maybe Redirect to List of dog hybrids. There are no reliable sources on this cross, except to confirm that that it is a cross of a Pug and Poodle. "Not a real breed" is not a valid reason for nominating articles for deletion; lack of secondary sources is the only valid reason. "Moving" is just renaming, I think you meant "Redirecting" or "Merging". Abductive (reasoning) 06:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed with suggestion to add this as a simple listing to "List of Dog hybrids" as per above. All made-up crossed dog types really belong on this page unless they become recognized as a breed by recognized breed associations like AKC, CKC, or the BKC etc. or are an unrecognized naturally-occuring breed. Mercedes Cordoba (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not in the business of "recognizing breeds." All breeds are "made-up" by humans, as are such things as "numbers", "political parties", "countries", "species", or "corporations". There are examples of AfD debates about all of these topics, even countries (micronations), and some are deleted. The debate is decided on the basis of quality of the sources, not on some outside organization's notion of propriety. Abductive (reasoning) 20:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the point of that little digression was about since it doesn't seem to relate to what the poster said, however if it was that she called you on calling the "Pugapoo" a breed, she's right. Standards organizations are taxed with setting inclusion standards for everything from nails to foodstuff to wiring. In the case of dog breeds it is the various National and International Kennel Clubs that set breed standards. Whether we like it or not is moot. The fact that a cross is cute and trendy, and people are cashing in, doesn't make it a breed. JoKing (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2010 (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. After a relisting, the consensus seems to be for keeping. Merge can be discussed separately. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McIntyre

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

Only indication of notability given is the debian project leader position. For me, this by itself is not enough to meet WP:BIO. No independent references are given. TexasAndroid (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2010 (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. Tim Song (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri State University Ice Bears

Missouri State University Ice Bears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable club sports team. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

  1. ^ http://www.cfpmidweek.com/weeks/IssuePDFs/vo5i19web.pdf
  2. ^ http://media.www.the-standard.org/media/storage/paper1059/news/2008/11/20/Sports/Silent.Leader.Paves.The.Way-3554426.shtml
  3. ^ http://springfieldmo.org/ttd_listing_page.asp?ID=723&Company=Mediacom+Ice+Park
  4. ^ http://www.the-standard.org/home/index.cfm?q=ice+hockey&event=displaySearchResults&buttonPushed=1&client=testing-testing&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23666666%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BLH%3A37%3BLW%3A310%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en
  5. ^ http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/01/23/ice-rink-backers-set-sights-on-2008/
  6. ^ http://alumni.missouristate.edu/46496.htm
  7. ^ http://www.usahockey.com/mediacomicepark/
  8. ^ http://www.springfieldmo.org/sportscommission/1208_SC.pdf
  9. ^ http://www.cfpmidweek.com/weeks/IssuePDFs/vo5i21web.pdf
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Williams (basketball, born 1988)

AfDs for this article:
Sean Williams (basketball, born 1988) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to establish notability. I would like to point out the argument made in this article's first AfD nomination that he plays on an NCAA Division I basketball team and therefore is inherently notable for playing at the "highest level of amateur competition." That is a guideline that still leaves us (the editors and Wikipedia readers) to use common sense when determining if something/someone is notable, and this player is most decidedly not. He never led the nation in any statistical categories, he never played on a National Championship–winning team, and he is certainly nowhere near an NBA prospect. The creator (GoCuse44) is a Syracuse fan and this article screams WP:CRUFT. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2010 (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. NW (Talk) 03:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Snyder (animal trainer)

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

Delete per WP:ANYBIO. No deep coverage in secondary sources, only passing mentions. Simply falls short of significant. Gattosby (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article cites several relevant historical mentions in the New York Times, which can be supplemented by this article which deals with him in depth and mentions here and here. Note that the images in the article are from the Library of Congress, which can be considered significant coverage in and of itself. In the event the article isn't kept it should be merged to Hattie (elephant) who has significantly more notability. Commenters please note that the author is User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), whose articles and images have been recently mass-targeted for deletion (admittedly often for good reason), so there is reason to suspect that in the context of mass nomination less care than normal has been taken in the selection of this article for AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2010 (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. as A3 by User:UtherSRG Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil–Japan relations

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

Article contains no material information. Non-notable bilateral relations. Gattosby (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2010 (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 The result was speedy procedural keep - Wikidemon (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard Farms

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

No assertion of notability under WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dreyer_Farms_(2nd_nomination). Gattosby (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2010 (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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sun connect

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

Short, unotable, no refs, conflict of interest. ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 02:25, 1 June 2010 (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. NW (Talk) 03:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Durward Corley

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

Per WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, trial judges are not inherently notable and this article demonstrates nothing the subject has accomplished to warrant notability outside of being a trial judge. See also WP:POLITICIAN. Gattosby (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2010 (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 The result was procedural keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs) 05:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dreyer Farms

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

Subject of purely local (small town) press coverage. No reliable sources. This article most likely will never be able to grow beyond its current state. Gattosby (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - considering the nominator nominated every article this editor made prior to being blocked as a malicious sockpuppet, it should be given opportunity to be developed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proc Keep WP:ILLEGIT Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections. {Otherwise I'd say delete for not meeting WP:CORP}--Savonneux (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2010 (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. Opened by abusive sock, no delete votes at this point.—Kww(talk) 04:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Thompson Dodge

Article does not show what this woman accomplished that was "notable," pursuant to the guidelines of WP:ANYBIO. Gattosby (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A bit of research suggests to me that Anna Thompson Dodge was a famous socialite for many many years, garnering frequent press coverage. Since notability is not temporary, I'd say this should be kept and expanded.--Milowent (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am also irritated to find that the nominator here is a blocked sockpuppet, a continuation of the childish tormenting of the article creator, who is a prolific contributor to the project. I'd propose the AfD should be procedurally closed as keep.--Milowent (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources in article are sufficient to demonstrate notability. WP:ANYBIO is subservient to WP:N, which requires merely significant coverage in reliable independent sources (such as those in the article). Commentors should note that this is one of a large number of articles created by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) which have been nominated by User:Gattosby, and while this one should be evaluated (as all AfDs) on its own strengths and weaknesses, the others appear to have been nominated without sufficient care or regard to their merits and some have been speedily closed as a snow keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Levitt

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

Minor candidate for the office of California Lieutenant Governor with no significant press coverage; fails WP:POLITICIAN – Zntrip 01:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chautauqua Playhouse

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

Contested prod and prod2 by author. Article is about a non-notable organization. Fails WP:N due to lack of reliable sourcing. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:34, 1 June 2010 (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. Tim Song (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of upcoming films

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

The title is pretty much self-explanatory. In contesting the prod the creator stated that this is a repository of films once included in 2011 and beyond in film. That's where it belongs. There are numerous precedents for deleting time-sensitive lists such as this one, in favor of static timeless lists like 2011 and beyond in film, which can be renamed at the end of 2011. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Covenant

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

Film does not appear to be notable. I first checked imdb for a page but found none. Afterwards, I googled the title and found several youtube videos that appear to show a video game with non-notable actors providing voices to create a story. Looks to be put together by a group of fans. IndulgentReader (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2010 (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. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Stambaugh

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

I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.Nand.R

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

I can't find significant coverage for this sculptor. Joe Chill (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2010 (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 Bloodlust and Perversion. Tim Song (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journey Through the Cold Moors of Svarttjern

Journey Through the Cold Moors of Svarttjern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC, Google shows nothing special. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2010 (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 Bloodlust and Perversion. As the titles are so similar, I'm going to redirect this for two reasons- 1) it is a logical search term, 2) to allow a merge if any editor finds anything they believe should be in the target article. Courcelles (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodlust & Perversion

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Comes to Your House

Hell Comes to Your House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this compilation album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper-Insomnia-Para-Condroid

Hyper-Insomnia-Para-Condroid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable song. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2010 (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green (Ray LaMontagne album)

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC, and Google shows nothing significant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2010 (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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang blum

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

Contested BLP prod, the reference added was from an associated act's official website. The one assertion ofd importance that saved this article from speedy deletion (he frequently contributed guitar and vocal tracks to several top of the charts records of the decade) is unreferenced and not specific enough for inclusion. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live in NYC August 18, 2001

Live in NYC August 18, 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this bootleg. Joe Chill (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2010 (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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities

Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N and WP:ORG (note that it's an organization and not an academic institution). I can find no significant coverage by a reliable and independent source (see here and here). Also, please note that some of the sources in the Google search are posted on behalf of this organization. OlYellerTalktome 18:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would but I'm not getting all of those in my searches. Add some links and I'll check them out. If I'm wrong, I'll close the AfD myself. OlYellerTalktome 00:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to see references and add them myself but again, this Google news search provides nothing, this Google search provides self published info from what I can find, and this Google Books search has lots of mentions that it exists but no significant coverage from what I can find. Please help me if you find something. OlYellerTalktome 03:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, take a look at [60], [61], [62] and [63]. Also, there might have been a name change. Abductive (reasoning) 08:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Ok. I'm headed out now but I'll take a look later this afternoon. I'd appreciate any help others could provide in adding references. OlYellerTalktome 15:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Week Keep : I think that the Times Higher Education shows clear coverage, the others are less so. But the article it's self is poor, and if it stays the list under The a typical CUMU member institution has several characteristics: should go as un-sourced, possibly OR and just un-encyclopaedic. Codf1977 (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2010 (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. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews University Press

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

Fails the notability guideline for organizations and companies as well as the general notability guideline TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 04:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article about press that published quite a number of books already, an article like this can only grow. Also, although independent references might be hard to find about the publisher itself, we can find a number of sources on its products, as well as mentions of its employees. [64] [65] Mentioned towards end of article, (behind pay wall): [66] Republication of product in Christianity Today: [67] There are probably more, this is just from a quick search of Google News Archives. WikiManOne (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the publishing arm of Andrews University which has been in existence for more than 100 years. It publishes the PhD theses for the University and other works which number in the hundreds per year. This is just a Stub. Allenroyboy (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. No independent secondary sourcing. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2002 Demo

October 2002 Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and Google doesn't show anything substantial. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2010 (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. This is *just* on the side of deletion. Should future significant coverage is available (or the album enters a reliable chart as a hit) then it can be recreated (should this happen, I would not be averse to restoring the article) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mechanical Renaissance

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, non-notable album —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I do not disagree with with the potential WP:COI issue with Psyborg Corp. (talk · contribs) does that change the fact that the album passes WP:NALBUM? -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 01:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Hopley

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

Unreferenced BLP. Weak claim of notability, but no significant coverage provided or found. SummerPhD (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2010 (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 IGN per consensus and per WP:BLP. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Harris (journalist)

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

No sign of "significant coverage in reliable sources" and little or no claim of notability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two links are perfect examples of what the GNG calls trivial mention. How are we supposed to write a reliable article if we have close to zero information on him? Not to mention that they are both blog posts. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a smerge or redirect. –MuZemike 02:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to IGN. No real coverage, but he is as notable as average reviewers get. Some information is more or less useful, so WP:USEFUL aside, it can live in IGN with some possibly primary sourcing.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  19:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to IGN - To merge this one editor would end up requiring a paragraph on the staff at IGN. Not a big deal, but it just doesn't seem necessary. There's not much in the way of notability here, so aside from making the entire staff a section of the IGN article there's no need for a merge. --Teancum (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Federation of International Students

Australian Federation of International Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declining speedy A7, speedy contested. Elevating to AFD for a better discussion and judge of references. UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2010 (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. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social Liberty

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

Dictionary definition. That's it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article will be expanded. Bburgersjr (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think there is possibly an article to be done on this topic, but this is a very weak stub, a rather unhelpful-but-wikified dictionary definition. I suspect that the info could easily be merged under "Liberty". If this is deleted, I hope that it is without prejudice against a future effort — somebody might be able to construct a good article on the topic and should have that opportunity. Do we delete bad stubs just because they are bad? Carrite (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2010 (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. Despite two relistings, there is still no consensus -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Orp

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

Speedy contested, is a valid article on de:wiki. Elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2010 (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. Tim Song (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa M. Dietlin

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

Declining speedy. Certainly there's some notability here, but I'm not sure if there's enough to justify keeping. Elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2010 (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. Enough demand for a second chance. Non-admin closure. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 18:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jungil Hong

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

Declining speedy as notability is debatable. Elevating for a fuller discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2010 (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 Super Star (Arabic television show). Redirecting per WP:BLP. Please do not revert without sourcing the article. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yusra Hamzawi

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

Subject does not pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, finishing in 12th place in Super Star appears to be her most notable achievement. J04n(talk page) 13:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Value

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

Fails to meet the guidance of MUSICBIO. With no relevant matches in Google News there is little likelihood of reliable sources being added to address this in the near future. Fæ (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion Nobody wants to discuss anyway... --TylerDurdenn (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (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. enough consensus for deletion JForget 02:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Eyre (activist)

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

I do not think that any of this amounts to notability. Since possibly controversial, I sent it here instead of using speedy A7 for no indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 10:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm happy to jump into this poisoned well. Forget about the rules, I've read this article a half dozen times and I'm still trying to figure out why he is notable. He has worked at all these different places, yet the article doesn't assert what he has actually done as an activist that is important. He sponsored a scholarship, confronts police officers for parking illegally, and refuses to attend Washington Nationals games? Is that it? He uses YouTube to spread his message. For real?! I'm sure he is a pleasant fellow and a smart guy, but his resume sounds exactly like a dozen people I know. If the Motorhome Diaries project was notable and his being "involved" with it was significant, I'm OK with him being mentioned there. Location (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to inclusionists I'm glad that in the USA (and Canada) there is freedom for people like Mr. Eyre to make their verbal and symbolic statements. And really we need people like him. However to make an encyclopedia article worth reading there needs to be some in depth coverage of the person and his effect on society (from reliable sources of course), not just reports of the things he has done. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Motorhome Diaries project is nifty but it isn't the subject of the article. There's very little, perhaps just enough in the way of reliable independent secondary sources to write an article on that project, but Eyre (IIRC) is just one member of that team and isn't mentioned in many of the articles involved, even less given biographical information. As a result, I don't believe Eyre meets WP:N. --Joe Decker (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Blundell

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

Declining speedy A7. Looks borderline non-notable. Elevating to AFD for a better review. UtherSRG (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romesh and Lakshan

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

No sophisticate evidence of the coverage required to meet notability requirements. This is personal promotion.Wipeouting (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Tirone

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

Self-promotion page for non-notable author of a self-help book 7 Steps to a 720 Credit Score, which is also currently up for deletion. Cites appear to be from paid promotional services or are non-notable. DMahalko (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If it smells like self-serving hype by somebody selling something, and it looks like self-serving hype by somebody selling something (True photo caption from the article, which has to be seen to be believed: "Philip Tirone kissing the hand of Mother Theresa"), it probably is self-serving hype by somebody selling something... Carrite (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. I actually thought Carrite was joking, but there it is, right in the article, "Philip Tirone kissing the hand of Mother Theresa". Wow. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be self-promotional article. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_June_1&oldid=365532394"