Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 9: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:44, 9 September 2010

< 8 September	10 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Bean

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

This is a procedural nomination per request by Dialectric after the page was speedily deleted. I am Neutral. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 19:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage e.g. Google Books results to establish notability.--Michig (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article was speedily deleted as 'Unambiguous advertising or promotion'. I created the article several years ago. There has recently been a revert-war issue with commercial links, but the bulk of the content is and has been neutral and non-promotional, and the subject is notable. Dialectric (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a guitar maker, getting the likes of Slash, Jerry Garcia, and the Rolling Stones use your guitars is a pretty big deal. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the only part of the article that establishes notability is the "guitar players" section which associates travis bean guitars with famous bands and people. the only reference i find on google which supports the claims is the website for travis bean guitars itself. but this seems irrelevant as most people would like to keep the page. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

changed my mind, found the google books entries for travis bean. maybe the article creator would like to insert some references? WookieInHeat (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The guitar is used by a large number of notable artists, so I'd suggest is notable enough to be kept. Certainly needs work though. hellboy (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 11 September 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuum Excavation

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

Doesn't seem encyclopedic; sounds like the results of a study. Access Denied 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and improve - I think there could be an article on this subject, even though it is somewhat obscure and specialized topic, there are plenty of references on it. (see for instance [1]) HOwever, several parts of this are probably copyright violations and appear to be copy and pasted from other websites. I removed one major copy/paste, but the rest needs a complete rewrite. Unfortunately, I don't have the time for such a task. However, I don't think it warrants deletion on the basis of being poorly written, it just needs to be fixed up a lot. And seeing that it was created only a few hours ago, this AfD seems somewhat premature, since not enough time has elapsed for potential improvement. Danski14^(talk) 22:25, 9 September 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, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the information is correct then this is a notable topic. Article should be rewritten to avoid copyright problems and cite sources. Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article passes WP:N and WP:RS and REALLY needs to be wikified. - Pmedema (talk) 02:23, 23 September 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 N-Dubz. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best Behaviour

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

Too early; no indication that this is notable. I would suggest converting the article into a redirect to N-Dubz. I did this myself but was reverted so I'm bringing it here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to N-Dubz - Dwayne was here! ♫ 19:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to N-dubz. Per WP:CRYSTAL. There is no indication of sufficient notability yet to warrant an article at this time. Danski14^(talk) 22:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to N-Dubz as article fails notability criteria for songs and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Best Behavior appears to be on the same subject; if possible I would like to add this to the nomination, if not already too late. If the result is Keep, the two articles should be merged. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Fails WP:NSONGS, WP:CRYSTAL. - eo (talk) 16:53, 15 September 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Shuqul

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

Notability, verifiability. No independent, third-party sources via Gweb, Gnews, Gbooks under either name given that provide anything more than a passing mention of the individual (wikimirrors excluded) can't verify the position claimed. I've gone AfD rather than PROD to get more eyes on it because foreign-language bios are always tricky with respect to transliteration, etc. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. EnabledDanger (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this 2010 source appears to have a chapter on the subject: [2]. Unfortunately I don't have access to the source, so it is not really a solution. Apologies. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Books.2C_LLC leads me to think that that source is a likely wikimirror. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC) PS: No apologies, I always consider these sourcing expeditions like puzzles, always happy to follow up a new thread. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you might be correct in saying it is a wikimirror. In which case, it would not be considered a reliable source. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of reliable sources allowing any of this to be verified. There are things in the article that if they could be sourced would likely be enough for notability, but notability is not enough by itself, we also need verifiability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are there any Somali-reading editors who could evaluate these potential sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:21, 13 September 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) 20:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Noël Gobron

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

Not clear how this person meets WP:CREATIVE? The "references" in the bibliography section are primary (point to the websites of the subject, Alcyonfilm.com). no third-party, substantial sources that indicate why he is notable. Spatulli (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No reliable source citations other than user-generated Imdb content. EnabledDanger (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think it is possible to compile an informative article about this filmmaker. I found several reviews of his works: [3], [4], [5], [6], unfortunately I can't speak French or Dutch. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an argument to avoid, see WP:INTHENEWS, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:SOURCESEARCH , etc. finding sources for the name of the person doesn't mean he meets WP:CREATIVE. That's what happens to be my deletion rationale. Spatulli (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - All I'm trying to do here is providing possible sources/evidence for consideration of others. In this particular case I think there is a chance to enrich this project with a piece of verifiable information on a filmmaker. I admit, my editing skills for translating French and Dutch sources are limited, and G-translator is weak. It is just my opinion. Should I avoid doing that? Btw, WP:CREATIVE, #3 says: the person has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it says the person must have been the subject of the article, which is not really the case here:[7] (it's an article that reviews his film, without giving a clear assertion of its significance; for example, no awards are mentioned) . [8] [9]and [10] merely mention him in passing while the two latter ones are about some film of his, without mentioning how significant this work is. Neither of them are specifically about him. Spatulli (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the online review of his films about his parents indicates some 3rd party attention, that is hardly enough. And if notable in Europe, one would expect to be able to look to articles in other Wikipedias. But he has no biography in the French, Dutch or German Wikis. The nearest is a mention as a distributor of a particular film: [11]. It may have been worth informing the creator of the article to seek references demonstrating notability, though her account activity seems to be limited to the 9 days during which this article was developed. AllyD (talk) 18:56, 16 September 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Church, Secunderabad

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

Non-notable church. I wasn't able to find any third-party sources covering this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The oldest Catholic church in a major city, not to mention the Cathedral of the arch-diocese of the gigantic city of Hyderabad is most certainly notable. It is confirmed it is one of the oldest churches in the city.[12] And nominating an article that asserts its notability for deletion within an hour of creation [13] is bad form and only serves to discourage new editors as well as seasoned ones from editing and improving articles. --Oakshade (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment would it be possible to hold this for a longer period. At first glance, this church looks notable, but in order to see this, I need access to subscription only services which have broken down and may not be restored until sometime during week commencing 13 September 2010 (Cambridgeshire Library Services) --Senra (Talk) 11:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment see also positive and sympathetic notice placed on inexperienced user Jgittins (talk · contribs)'s talk page --Senra (Talk) 12:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The church (former Cathedral) was built in 1847. I think we can safely assume that some kind of coverage is available. I know we need reliable sources, but sometimes sourcing for historical subject is not an easy task. --Jmundo (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some links - [14] [15] Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The historic importance suggests keeping. ~~However, the serious copyvio needs urgent attention~~. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ongoing copyright violations are a concern; it may be necessary to delete if that continues. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The copyvio situation seems to be resolved by my re-rewriting. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. this search finds plenty of sources such as this. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Googles search that finds no reliable sources appears to be more an claim of no notability then a reason to keep. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "finds no reliable sources"? What's unreliable about the book that I linked? Or this one? Or this, this and this?

Keep as the church is of historical importance. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per.User:Oakshade AMuseo (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources so far found after considerable research are [16] [17] and those don't amount to notability. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly other sources, this, for example, and a brief mention in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It's also apparently a heritage-listed building. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:45, 16 September 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) 02:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Church, Clock Tower

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

Non-notable church. I wasn't able to find any third-party sources covering this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment would it be possible to hold this for a longer period. At first glance, this church looks notable, but in order to see this, I need access to subscription only services which have broken down and may not be restored until sometime during week commencing 13 September 2010 (Cambridgeshire Library Services) --Senra (Talk) 11:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment see also positive and sympathetic notice placed on inexperienced user Jgittins (talk · contribs)'s talk page --Senra (Talk) 12:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find any suitable sources. Can confirm it exists however there is an issue with the article as either the name is incorrect or the image is because another church only around 50m away called CSI Wesley Church also in Secunderabad and that according to Google maps is the one that the articles image shows. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Google Maps shows two churches, but it's seems to be an error on Google Maps. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources establishing notability. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and maybe find someone in Secunderabad to work on this. Keep, because most churches of this age and size are notable. The photo verifies a major building. The problem with sourcing may line in a variant name, or spelling, or with sources that exist but are not in English, or not online. The article needs the attention who knows their way around Secunderabad or Christianity in India.AMuseo (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete the photos on this page appear to be photos of Wesley Church, Melbourne.AMuseo (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That problem is now fixed. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment My archive access is back and I ran a very quick scan (ignoring spelling of city/town name) of The Times archive with Keyword search (in entire article content): "church in india" Limited by: date: 1/1/1865 to 12/31/1912and returned 138 articles which I need to go through. More to the point, the objective here was to encourage the new editor to do this; a process which has failed as he/she appears to have been blocked] --Senra (Talk) 13:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- comment if the concensus here is for this article to be deleted please do not delete; instead Userfy to my own user-space where I will have time to investigate this further. Leave a note in this deletion discussion that you have done this. I owe other editors an apology here. I need time to investigate a suspicion of systemic bias, although I am leaning heavily towards admins on this one --Senra (Talk) 16:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- NOTE TO Jgittins (talk · contribs) if you see this message please make yourself known on my talk page BEFORE editing any other articles using any other user-names --Senra (Talk) 16:45, 15 September 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity Church, Bollarum

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

Non-notable church. I wasn't able to find any third-party sources covering this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment would it be possible to hold this for a longer period. At first glance, this church looks notable, but in order to see this, I need access to subscription only services which have broken down and may not be restored until sometime during week commencing 13 September 2010 (Cambridgeshire Library Services) --Senra (Talk) 11:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment see also positive and sympathetic notice placed on inexperienced user Jgittins (talk · contribs)'s talk page --Senra (Talk) 12:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. Commissioned by Queen Victoria and visited by Queen Elizabeth II. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources indicate this is a significant historic Christian church in a very non-Christian region, enough to have strong connection to two historic British monarchs. --Oakshade (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has a history, is a tourist attraction, and would be worth keeping under the title Holy Trinity Church, Bolarum. ~~However, the serious copyvio needs urgent attention~~. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio fixed, so ~~rename to Holy Trinity Church, Bolarum and~~ keep. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of boldly renaming to Holy Trinity Church, Bolarum, for consistency with the town. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the church has historic validity. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. obvious notability.AMuseo (talk) 12:17, 15 September 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, WP:SNOW. Mandsford 01:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soft sell

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

Original synthesis, original research and whatnot. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable concept... Google search yields thousands of relevant hits. Tag with improve refs instead. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Jim says, it's clearly a notable concept with plenty of research available for citation. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. If the nominator had done simple online searches, he would have found many good sources. This is a notable term in marketing and political science. AfD is not for clean-up of valid stubs. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletionist nonsense. So notable that band Soft Cell is a pun of the concept. Antonym hard sell is also well-known. They should be expanded, not deleted. A number of soft sell techniques have been developed, all of which should be discussed. Jokestress (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Name-calling is not appropriate. Uncle G (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that this was a good faith but misguided attempt to contest a Proposed Deletion rather than to nominate an article for deletion for the reasons stated. Because if it was the latter it was an amazingly poor nomination, given that this is a valid stub that cites sources written by credentialed experts (professors at UCB and the University of Cincinatti for two) from which it can be expanded — citations that were in the very first revision of the article — and that even the most minimal of research on the nominator's part would have turned up more sources (such as, for example, one written by the now professor Barbara Mueller at San Diego State University and professor Charles R. Taylor of Villanova University: doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367390201) addressing this subject. Per Wikipedia:deletion policy, keep. Uncle G (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The nominator doesn't have to do research, ever heard of WP:BURDEN? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You need to read that properly. It doesn't absolve you of the burden of looking for sources before nominating articles for deletion, nor does it absolve you of the responsibility of even simply reading an article before nominating it for deletion to see sources already in the article from its very first revision onwards. Our verifiability policy is not a licence for you or any other person to go around tagging things for deletion and then claiming that WP:BURDEN absolves you of the responsibility of doing any actual work yourself while you create work for others. Working on the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem for one to burden-shift one's way out of. Go and read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. Uncle G (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough to have been the subject of multiple books, and that's good enough for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments and P&G noted by Uncle G, and the other keep arguments. Meets WP:V and WP:N. I would have contested the PROD also, as it isn't a dicdef, but the AfD nomination rationale of SYNTH and OR is not supported by the references. — Becksguy (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though the article is currently a WP:DICDEF, the concept is immediately notable and by any standard passed WP:GNG. Suggest that this AfD be WP:SNOWed. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 21:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chromancer. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:08, 13 September 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Api

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

This non-notable company is just a subsidiary of Taj Pharmaceuticals, which was itself recently deleted as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taj Pharmaceuticals. This article was created by one of many confirmed sockpuppets involved in an organized effort to promote this group of companies on Wikipedia. See this WP:ANI report for additional details. Deli nk (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Astronaut (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources are self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 15 September 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12oz Prophet

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

No reliable sources found. Redlinky, lacking in sources, tagged for sources for four years now. Last AFD was four years ago and resulted in no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. When they've had 4 years to find sources and STILL haven't come up with anything, the only reasonable conclusion is there simply aren't any to find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it seems to be an interesting website, it doesn't appear notable. Unless it's relisted, I'm afraid that 12 ounce is no match for 10 pound. Mandsford 01:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Starblind/Andrew Lenahan - it appears to have been a flash in the pan. Not all fanzines (or websizes for that matter) are per se notable. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 16 September 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Moss

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

Trivial roles, no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep in view of the work done on the article. Dreamspy (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Solid Keep While the nominator's concerns are reflected in the article's easily addressable (former) current state, and with respects to those above... a little WP:AFTER goes a long way. This individual's career does indeed surpass the notability criteria for actors and the person is covered directly and in detail in multiple reliable sources.[24] There is a quite reasonable presumption of notability for her named roles in 10 different films and recurring or major support roles in numerous television prductions... such as she playing Tara Marks in 7 episodes of Beverly Hills, 90210 or as Hayley Cartwright in 2 episodes of Baywatch Nights, or as Veruca in 3 episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or as the lead Maddy O'Neil in 20 episodes of It's All Relative... and many, many more.[25] Yes... WP:ENT is met, as well as WP:GNG. While fixing up an improvable article might take a little work, a lack of overdue effort is not a proper rationale for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per Schmidt's note above. Nymf _hideliho! 21:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Speedy not quite applicable, as the nominator was simply addressing its then current state. Article is now undergoing expansion and improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:31, 11 September 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DiskDigger

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

Unnotable software. One reference is the download link, the other two are both the same reference linking to a blog on PCWorld. Article seems advert-like. Burpelson AFB (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article only describes the software, but does not indicate how it is notable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have downloaded, and it is not even freeware. The software says after lunch: "Unregistered Copy - buy a license today!". Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication in the article that this is a notable product. My searches did not produce significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:55, 11 September 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBS Wheel Library

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

Well beyond Wikipedia's scope, we're not a specialists guide to identifying BBS rims nor is a listing of every rim built by the company relevant to a general interest encyclopedia. Belongs on a specialist website. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a catalog for rims or a place for advertising for BBS. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is here for informative purposes only, which is the whole idea of Wikipedia. BBS no longer produce 95+% of wheels listed and no prices are listed for wheels in production, so is not advertising. All in all the article is an extremely helpful resource. Hipwell (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As pointed out in WP:NOTCATALOG by Armburst, we are not a resource for consumer products, no matter how helpful some may find it. Simply being informative does not make it relevant to an encyclopedia. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So all articles containing any information on consumer products need deleting? 100's perhaps 1000's of articles? Why are articles like this List of Canon products not deleted and kept when it comes to nomination for deletion? and sections like this.. Canon lenses. Quote from the discussion page of the first.. "Encyclopedias are to learn facts and product lists are factual" What is different with this? Hipwell (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may be instructive, here - we're not looking at those articles, we're looking at this one. If you feel that those other articles do not meet our policies, you may wish to nominate them for deletion. But their existence doesn't impact the notability of this subject either way. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability , and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." Merely saying that this article has the same concept as the List of Canon products, which is kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipwell (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canon products isn't a great precedent, since it is more than 5 years old, predates the AFD process entirely (it's a VFD that was later moved), and lacks a worthwhile deletion rationale. But citing previous AFDs as precedent is, in general, a fine way to make your point - it wasn't clear that that was your intent, though, which is my bad for not reading your point correctly. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would agree that List of Canon products should be nominated for deletion for the same rationale as this article, but that has no bearing on this discussion of the merits of BBS Wheel Library. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe this has advertising value, but the informative value is limited; knowing the particular model numbers for rims on a certain model of car isn't that useful of a piece of information to have. If you're searching for a particular model, this list is great - but that's not our purpose here. A discussion, in prose, on the company's article, that touched on some of these models (maybe highlighting popular, unusual, or top selling models) might be worthwhile - but this list is a bit overboard for that purpose. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:41, 15 September 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Festival (2011 film)

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

Not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (films). Given sources are not reliable sources. Evil saltine (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable film, not even completed. Hairhorn (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines for films. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, or userfy with our thanks, back to the author. The film is apparently in post-production, so this 2-day-old article is simply WP:TOOSOON. Allow it back once it gets coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:42, 12 September 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) 16:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ila kumar

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

Person of questionable notability. Has been given an award, but I haven't been able to figure out just what that award is, or if the award itself is even notable. It would be helpful if someone who can read Hindu could go to the person's website and read the articles there to see if anything there helps establish this person's notability. -WarthogDemon 16:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - from the current sources given, i don't think subject meets WP:AUTH or WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article doesn't demonstrate notability at all. My Google search turned up only her personal website and stuff about other people with similar names. Specs112 t c 13:03, 16 September 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Whales in popular culture

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

Unsourced OR, terribly written. Search for sources found none. Had prodded this without realizing it was previously prodded. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything savable back to Killer whale. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or (better) Merge sourced material back to Killer Whale. I hate having these articles spun out as separate unless it is an animal with a huge history of symbolism such as lion, cat, dog, horse etc. The article was split out arbitrarily. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep however, I would rather see a separate article, rather than a merge, since these "In popular culture" discussions tend to get really long-winded and it would probably be an eyesore on the Killer whale page, which is already quite long. Also, the OR issues should be fixed, but OR issues by themselves are not a criterion for deletion. Danski14^(talk) 22:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Killer whale#Modern Western attitudes. That section is already fairly long, so I feel a sub-page is warranted. Danski14^(talk) 22:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Danski14. The community has been all over the place in the past three years with these "animal X in popular culture" articles. This one is a keeper, based on what's already there and its possible sources. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UGLY is no argument for deletion, therefore merge back into Killer whale. This content was moved out of the article in this edit by User:Mintrick, who apparently (according to user page) thought of "in popular culture" sections as some kind of otherwise useless playground for new users, that are better moved out of sight. This is a stupid view in my opinion, "bad" content that is just hidden away in orphan articles is unlikely to get improved. --memset (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the addition of sources by Casliber; it's been improved since 10-# nominated it. Unlike many i.p.c. articles, this one is about the depiction of the subject in popular culture, rather than a list of mentions (e.g., "in the 15th season of The Simpsons, Lisa sees a killer whale"). The depiction of whales in fiction has changed a great deal between (make your own joke here) Moby Dick and Free Willy. Mandsford 18:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 11 September 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 Nomination withdrawn, needs cleanup though. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindu temples in Poland

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

My prodding and the subsequent deletion of this article has earned me an accusation of WP:COI by the creator, however this is a clear violation of WP:NOTDIR. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know the reasons for proposed deletion of my article. I can't see any, besides religious discrimination. SETI3 (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'm curious to see where's the discrimination, considering that List of Christian churches in Poland doesn't belong here either. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't see any serious reasons for proposed deletion of my article, besides religious discrimination. My article is a simple equivalent of numerous similar articles with an almost identical title "List of Hindu temples in..." (e.g. Canada, Germany, Nepal etc.) Why you have repeatedly nominated my article and not a similar article about for example Canada? It's simply unfounded. Additionally, my article has three links to other articles. Anyway, you are free to create List of Christian churches in Poland, although it would be probably better to create more detailed lists about this topic. Sorry, I don't know your word "beling", maybe it's a Canadian slang. Keep SETI3 (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- That was "belong," not "beling." Thanks. Anyway, I'm a French Canadian Evangelical. And I don't know a single Evangelical church in my hometown that is worthy of mention, even in a list, in Wikipedia. :-) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious fanaticism has many names. But I'm still waiting to know serious reasons for nominating my article. Besides, I agree with you that in Canada there are certainly not many religious or other buildings worthy of mention in comparison to Poland with its much more rich architectural, cultural, and religious heritage due to much longer history of this country. SETI3 (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hinduism in Poland. Not enough entries to warrant a separate list. Renata (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the material was taken from this split of List of Hindu temples. Each entry was expanded to include trivial information. I have no prejudice against merging the material back to the main article with the trivial information removed (in fact I just became aware of that "main list's" existence), but Wikipedia should not serve as the Yellow Pages, and four entries, none of which are notable enough to get their own article, certainly doesn't warrant a separate list. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep with the possibility of merging as Renata says. No argument presented for deletion.--Kotniski (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists are a recognized part of Wikipedia (see 1, 2), there is no word on limitations or deletions due to their length (shortness). ilmari (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep child article of List of Hindu temples. Similar lists like List of churches in London, List of mosques in Singapore do exist. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the article does not break any of the wikipedia rules. Similar articles exist.

Note to Blanchardb: if you want to contribute to wikipedia, consider expanding the short articles instead of deleting them. Niky cz (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Normally, when I see that an AfD nomination of mine is headed for a probable keep, I withdraw my nomination. Not this time. It appears that my comment about comparing this list to an eventual List of Christian churches in Poland was misunderstood, and it's partly my fault. Of course, a list of notable churches belongs in Wikipedia, but not a list of non-notables ones, and I would have nominated such a list for deletion had I come across one. Both of the articles cited by Redtigerxyz contain a significant number of entries that have separate Wikipedia articles, in fact List of mosques in Singapore contains only entries that have articles. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Here, we have zero entry with its own article, and the fact the list contains a picture of a building that looks more like a barn than a Hindu temple lends credence to the fact this contains only non-notable items. (Also, I have a hard time believing there are only four Hindu temples in all of Poland, but that's another matter.) So that's why I'm sticking to my guns: WP:NOTDIR. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep *Comment: -- Blanchardb , please stop trolling. DNFTT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.56.188.9 (talk • contribs) — 178.56.188.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's simply disgusting. - Blanchardb didn't even bother to read the article New Shantipur Temple in Czarnów. This temple looks like a barn because it had to look like this in the 1980s during the Communist rule in Poland, when ISKCON was an illegal and persecuted organisation and simply couldn't build true beautiful temples. From historical point of view New Shantipur is certainly more important than any other temple in Poland. It's really so hard to understand? SETI3 (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on the existence of articles. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:21, 13 September 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 List of Dad's Army characters#Captain Square. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Square

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Captain Square probably isn't a significant enough character for his own article. I'm therefore going to merge some of the content to the list of DA characters and put this as a redirect. Neelix - before nominating any other Dad's Army character articles, can you drop me a note of any concerns beforehand, please? I know they're not great, but I'd prefer to merge them rather than going through the whole deletion process. Bob talk 15:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now merged the useful, non-duplicated content from the page (one sentence) and redirected it to List of Dad's Army episodes. Bob talk 15:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait to see how the discussion goes before merging. PatGallacher (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, redirect to ~~List of Dad's Army episodes~~ List of Dad's Army characters - the useful content has already been merged, and a redirect will avoid the redlinks that deleting the page will create (and preserve the page should somebody want to come along and reference it at some point). Bob talk 16:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you mean List of Dad's Army characters. PatGallacher (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, haha, yeah. Bob talk 20:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to character list per Bob Castle and WP:BEFORE, which means a net redirect since the content has already been selectively merged. I suggest closing this AfD as moot. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant section of the character list. Someone another 06:35, 11 September 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.

Norbert Basil MacLean III

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Brantford

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

Article appears to be solely an extended personal essay based on original research. Although it's been around for over three years, its present references appear to be dead in-line external links and links to a historical architectural website that do not support what's being contended in the article. I'd suggest merging it into the main Brantford Ontario article; but because the material this article contains is completely unsupported, I'm unsure exactly what should be safely "merged". Deconstructhis (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although quite a bit of effort has gone into writing it, it does appear to be a reflective essay more suitable for a magazine rather than Wikipedia. Passages like "Bands from across the country would pack the bars with Brantford's more aggressive youth. Some of the more well known musicians, like Steve Goof(BFG's), Anus (Dirty Bird) Jimbo (Dayglo Abortions) have fond memories of playing in Brantford's seedy bars" seem to confirm this. Because most of the bands have no articles on Wikipedia, one can only assume that they're not particularly noteworthy. Bob talk 08:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After an online search for references, I believe that the subject lacks verifiable notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Accordingly, it is my recommendation that the article should be deleted. Cindamuse (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contravenes WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY. PK T(alk) 00:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really reads like an article someone wrote for something else (perhaps a local zine?) and decided to stick it here instead. Unsourced and likely unsourcable, not to mention really POV ("great bands" etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 17 September 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. Consensus is that he doesn't meet WP:N, and WP:POLITICIAN does not apply. Mandsford 01:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Blythe

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

Delete. Bio on person known for one event, running (and losing) the vote for one office in 2008. Not otherwise notable. Not a bad fellow, just not notable! Student7 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Autobiographical article that was probably created for the campaign. No indication that he meets any notability guideline. ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is based on a person known for only one event, thus non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 11 September 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. Article is now semi-protected, which should take care of most WP:BLP concerns. Mandsford 01:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Phelps-Roper

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

Fails WP:Notable. None of the secondary sources cited gave any substantial information on her. She was just mentioned in passing along with her father, the highly notable (and noted) Fred Phelps. (My mistake. One source has some material, and seems to have interviewed her. However it is not neutral, more like gonzo journalism--not that that's always bad. But still there is not substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources as required by WP:N.) Wolfview (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hundreds of thousands of Google hits. Not sourced well-enough now? Fix it. Grsz¹¹ 15:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:BLP advises us to delete rather than fix. Wolfview (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No BLP issues in current form. She's the second-highest figure surrounding WBC, has appeared on national and international news a number of times. Grsz¹¹ 15:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many members in the entire group? Wolfview (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This info was added to the article on it, around 71 members. Do we really need articles on the two top leaders of a group this size? Wolfview (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to suggest here is to just mention her in the article on the organization as the number 2 leader and redirect this article there, no information would be removed from Wikipedia. Say the Republican or Democratic Party had 71 million members. Would we have articles on the top 2 million leaders? Wolfview (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No we wouldn't have articles on that many people of an organization unless they can all be shown to be notable. There is though, a good possibility that the top 2 people in most notable organizations are notable themselves. It all comes down to what coverage that #2 person has. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that if a group has 2 leaders and 69 other members the second leader is not such an important figure, especially if she (or he) is just following the direction of the number 1 leader. The information in this article could be expressed in one sentence in the main article on the church itself. Something like "Since... Phleps's daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper has been the secondary leader of the group and has taken on the role of spokesperson." Wolfview (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No BLP issue that I can see. The question here is whether this is a high-enough ranking official in a notable organization headed by her notable father, or not. My initial impression was that this was a "Delete" situation, under the theory that notability is not heritable and if this person had some other surname other than "Phelps" this article would never have been created in the first place. On the other hand, this is one of the higher profile hate groups in America, in my opinion, and if this is the heir to the throne, one could make the case that the biography should stand. It's a pretty tough call either way. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - The bit about her first child having been born out of wedlock, while sourced, is gratuitous and should go. The source in which this information appears has Shirley Phelps-Roper as the subject of the article, which lends weight for the "Keep" perspective, I note. It does seem that this is a top figure in the extremely vocal "God Hates Fags" movement... Carrite (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Just a note that I opened a discussion related to this line at the BLP noticeboard, linked here). — e. ripley\^talk 17:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No recommendation at this time. Wolfview is incorrect above, WP:BLP does not advise us to delete rather that fix articles. It actually says just the opposite, articles not complying with the BLP policy should be rectified and improved if possible. It goes on to say that page deletion is a last resort. ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of these two statements from WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." and "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, and which may disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to." This article seems to be poorly sourced to me. The only secondary source giving much coverage is negative in tone. There are a couple of news stories from major sources, but they only mention her and her father together, or are about their group and don't mention her at all. Then there are a couple of primary sources, like the group's own website.Wolfview (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those quotes apply here. About contentious material, it can be, and has been, removed from the article without outright deletion. And the article is not an attack article filled with only negative information. Given how much negative press is out there about her, it's actually pretty positive in tone. Grsz¹¹ 19:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Okay, the gratuitous shit is cleaned up now. This is pretty clearly a notable individual in Wikipedia terms as a leading activist who is the subject of reliable independent media coverage. Carrite (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although Fred is the founder, Shirley is the functional leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, and their spokesperson. She's more the public face of Westboro than Fred is, and in my opinion, Wikipedia needs an article about her. p.s. she is a terrible, awful person. not relevant to the discussion, but i mention it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is accurate. For evidence of her functional leadership, here's a breaking news story relating to Shirley Phelps-Roper calling out the Florida Quran-burner for insufficent zeal: "Shirley Phelps-Roper Calls Out Florida Preacher." Carrite (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lest someone WP:HAVEACOW about my citing a blog to make a point, here's the same info from the Kansas City Star, a mainstream newspaper: "Attention Might Fan Quran Flames." Carrite (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a BLP problem here. Seems notable enough and article is well enough sourced and supported. Some work needed still but definitely not a delete situation. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 00:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Presence on the Home Office banned list seems to further bolster claim of notability. Carrite (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see enough significant coverage of her to say she meets our notability guidelines. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, amply satisfies WP:NOTE, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add more about what she specifically has done rather than what WBC as an institution has done. Roscelese (talk) 01:16, 15 September 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) 03:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behrooz Gatmiri

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

Delete doesn't seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC Markiewp (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The citation record isn't strong enough to convince me of a pass of criterion #C1, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: never properly included in the deletion logs. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. Ray^Talk 19:01, 10 September 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farooq Azam

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

The subject in the article is not notable to have a Wikipedia article. There are no references provided to except 2 very unreliable web links [26], [27], where anyone can edit the information. It appears that the person who created the article and most of the edits to it may well be the subject of the article. AllahLovesYou (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. GS cites 2192, 815, 682, 455 .... h index about 40. ISI highly cited researcher, honorary doctorate etc. This is the most inappropriate AfD nomination I have seen on these pages. It is worth looking at the nominator's talk page where he is accused of vandalizing Islamic articles. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep and a WP:TROUT to the nominator for such a spectacularly bad nomination. Essentially every single statement in the nomination is incorrect. The first link[28] is to the official ISI Web of Knowledge site and the second[29] is to Azam's faculty profile at the USCD Scripps Institution of Oceanography official site. Both are perfeclty good reliable sources and neither one is a site "where anyone can edit the information". The article was created by User:Mustihussain - this might have been a postdoc or a grad student, but there is no evidence that it was created by the subject of the article. As Xxanthippe said, being on the ISI Highly Cited list is already essentially enough to pass WP:PROF#1. Holding a Distinguished Professor rank at USCD also qualifies for WP:PROF#5. It took just a few minutes of searching to verify that the other awards listed in the article also check out - I have added a bunch of references for them. Clearly passes WP:PROF on several counts. Nsk92 (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Me bing accused of vandalizing Islamic articles is irrelevant to this, if you pay attention to my edits you wouldn't mention something like that. The one who accused me of that was completely removing top academic and government sources such as Pew Research Center, Oxford University, CIA World Factbook, and others and replacing them with his own POV by claiming that Shias in Pakistan are over 30%.[30] However, the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, states that Shias in Pakistan make up 5% but I've added the numbers given by all academic and government sources which estimates 5-20%. Now how is this vandalizm on my part? About Farooq Azam's page, it was written very poorly at the time when I added the deletion tag but someone now decided to re-write it. Anytime someone writes an incomplete article about someone who isn't well known is usually nominated for deletion so I think my judgement was ok in this particular case.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that whatever dispute you have been involved in on Shia related articles is largely irrelevant to this AfD. However, you are quite wrong in relation to what you say about the Farooq Azam article. The basic principle of Wikipedia's deletion policy is this: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion", see WP:ATD. It is only where a page's content is unsalvageably bad that deletion is appropriate, but that was far from the case here with the version of the article that you listed for AfD. The awards listed in the article at the time you tagged it already provided a strong indication that the subject is notable and if you had done a few quick google searches (GoogleScholar, GoogleBooks etc), you would have been able to quickly confirm that the subject is notable. As I said, it took me just a few minutes of googling to find sources verifying the various awards listed in the article. Plus what you said in your nomination about the two sources, cited in the article at time you AfD-ed it, is blatantly incorrect. Both of those sources definitely pass WP:V and a listing in the ISI Web of Knowledge Highly Cited database is a strong indicator of academic notability. If you did not want to edit the article yourself, the correct thing to do was to add to it various clean-up tags, again see WP:ATD, not list it for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep per WP:PROF #C1, #C5, and possibly also #C2 and #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: This is a BLP, and it seems to never properly listed in the deletion logs, so it hasn't attracted the usual level of participation. As a participant I can't close. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. Ray^Talk 19:00, 10 September 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FSN Baseball Report

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

Originally prodded with "A search for references did not sufficient content to meet the requirements of WP:N, I was not able to determine if the show is still aired. Fails WP:V and WP:N". It was deprodded to encourage a larger debate at AFD (see User_talk:Djsasso#FSN_Baseball_Report) as "A nationally televised show is very likely to be notable", Research shows there is no indication that the subject meets WP:NRVE. A search on gbooks shows 3 hits and one "Books LLC" is wiki-mirror, another is TV guide from 2005. I am not seeing this article passing WP:N. There are a number of blog and similar hits on the web which appear to fall under mere "flash in the pan", or a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nom voting delete, I usually don't vote on my own AFD's but in this case there has been no voting. This article was brought here from prod, for a larger community review. The subject seems like it should be notable but no support for the notability can be found. Several days on the AFD list with no independent support of notability given on a subject that should be easy to find support for if it existed speaks volumes. Jeepday (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The bar for notability of national TV shows is a low one. This is a pretty pathetic stub and it's difficult to waste more words in a rationale than somebody was willing to put into the original article, but it seems that this is pretty much a keeper on a per se notability basis. I don't think anybody is gonna cry if it goes away with no prejudice against future recreation though... Carrite (talk) 22:48, 13 September 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, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absent a list of some kind to redirect it to. It seems there isn't much one can say about it within an encyclopedic context. It's true the bar on TV stuff is low, but not this low. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm looking at this and just seeing that it really is one of those low-tier shows that never established itself real well. It is also more an optional show for FSN affiliates to carry (meaning that they can choose not to carry it or put it at 3am in the morning if they wanted to), and compared to both Baseball Tonight and MLB Tonight, cannot be considered competitive by their level. This article, or even the FSN article itself would not suffer any loss by a deletion, and sources are few and far between except for 'it exists' hits in TV listings. Nate • (chatter) 05:17, 23 September 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Brigade

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

Non-notable DJs (?), cannot find any sources besides MySpace page Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, suggest redirect to Brigade (disambiguation). Also note that the other AFD in 2005 was about a completely different topic and is irrelevant to this discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for bands. Support redirect to Brigade (disambiguation) after deletion. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:17, 9 September 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest Catholic bishops

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

I have nominated this page nearly two years ago for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest Catholic bishops), and the result then was no consensus. Since I still don't see any notability for the subject of this list, I am renominating it now. Basically, this list, while verifiable, fails WP:NOT as a "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization". Being a catholic bishop is notable: being one of the hundred oldest catholics bishops is not notable. The age of bishops (apart from their retirement age) is completely inconsequential to their notability or work. We could produce "list of oldest living X" for any kind of profession or title, and almost all of them would be failing WP:NOT as well (and I am ware that similar articles exist, like List of oldest living Major League Baseball players or List of oldest surviving professional wrestlers: I have the same reservations about those). Fram (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The level of detail moves this page from the trivial to the useful. Limited to 100 names, so not open-ended and unwieldy. A useful source of in-links for standing articles. All in all, a well-done page which adds to our information pool. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ANd why is it useful to have these 100 links to bishops, instead of 10O others? What makes this selection useful? Fram (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. A good example of how it is possible for information to be fully verifiable but still not encyclopedic. Unclear what the point of the article is, if indeed it even has one. Why not a list of bishops by shoe size? Or oldest pastry chefs? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Follows all guidelines for a wikipedia list. Maybe topic may not be important as other list but is still more useful than a list about video games or something as trivial
- But it violates WP:NOT, which is a policy. Fram (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator fails to convince that the members of a "for life" (per se notable, for that matter) religious office are an unencyclopedic cross-characterization. No policy-based reason for deletion articulated by any delete !voter so far, and I don't expect any to materialize. Content is verifiable, useful, and cannot be replicated by categories. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument has nothing to do with the reason for deletion. The members are notable, yes, no one denies that. But why are the oldest of them a special group that should have its own list? While it could just as well be replicated by categories, it would be just as bad, so that's not an argument either. You don't argue what the usefulness is of this list, or why a specific list solely for the oldest members is an encyclopedic characterization. Your arguments, basically, are irrelevant. What's the difference between this list and a list of all bishops born in January? The latter would be just as verifiable and probably just as useful, and should be deleted on sight as well. Fram (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful and verifiable resource. Not trivial. JASpencer (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Useful how? No one has indicated how it is useful, or given any verifiable evidence that it has been of use, or that the same type of listing is a typical subject in reliable independent sources. Just claiming that it is useful is as empty as claiming that something is notable: without explanation of the why and how, it is an empty argument. Fram (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot see any purpose of this article. The information are nicely referenced, but it does not mean that the article is useful. Niky cz (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful information. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useful for what, exactly? Fram (talk) 06:47, 15 September 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. Per improvements. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChinaJoy

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

I tagged this article for speedy deletion under criterion G11 and although that speedy-deletion was declined, I stand by the statement - it "'does nothing but promote some entity" and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic - If that tagging was not correct, please let me know.

It was created by now-blocked China JOY2010 (talk · contribs) on 15 August.

The CSD tag was removed by Extransit (talk · contribs) rm csd, not spam, some good content here, will edit

I explained my rationale for the tag on their user talk page, asking for further input, but they have not, to date, responded there. User talk:Extransit#ChinaJoy

I proposed deletion on 23 August [31], and the PROD was removed by DGG (talk · contribs) please look for sources, & if not findable, use AfD. This was discussed, User_talk:DGG#ChinaJoy.

So the main issue here is that yes, perhaps this might be possible to write about the subject (ie notability is possible, because there is no current independent referenced content, it serves merely to advertize. There might be sources in other languages, but I am not able to rewrite it myself. Chzz ► 14:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11, would require a full rewrite to remove the spam, and it isn't even coherent spam. Actual quote: "ChinaJoy is a great platform for communicating in different field." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per G11 (and maybe also A7?). Shearonink (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Clearly a notable event. AfD or other way of deletion is not a good solution. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've trimmed the article substantially, removing spam and unreferenced claims. I also added more refs. It is now a decent stub with a possibility of expansion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current version. The CNN , Guardian, and China Decoded refs in the current version are RSs for notability. Yes, I made an error: I did not look myself earlier, because I doubted there would be anything in English. I see three other editors, all of them good editors, made the same error. The point of WP:BEFORE is that you cannot know till you look. I consider this article a good demonstration that rewriting and referencing were in fact possible. I admit I made a guess for that, but my guess was right. I'm not saying it always is--I know I've make mistakes in both directions, both in deleting and in not deleting. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, WP:HEY. It is good enough now, and is well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we happy with those table contents? They are primary sourced, and I'd think they are WP:NOT; somewhat promo, too; just listing sponsor orgs, etc. Chzz ► 10:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 11 September 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 05:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waking Rose

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

I think this novel fails WP:NB. The book appears to have been published by the author's own publishing company. More importantly, there are some reviews, but the only ones I can find are on blogs and other non-RS websites. There are zero hits for this book's title in the Google News archive. The prod I had placed on this article was removed with the removing editor claiming that the reviews then linked to on the author's website from the EL section of an earlier version of the article meets NB prong 1. Based on these reviews on the author's website and what I have found, coverage of this book does not come close to meeting WP:NB #1 or any other prong or notability guideline. Novaseminary (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-published book, fails WP:NB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable novel. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author fails WP:AUTH, book fails WP:NBOOK, no WP:RS to be found (zero nontrivial hits on Google Scholar, Google Books, Google News Archives). — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 02:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chomancer, Sadads (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does the book get any credit for being a self-published best seller per Lulu. Just asking? VASterling (talk) 17:53, 14 September 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occitan Republican Left

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

Contested WP:PROD. Proposed deletion reason was "A very recent local (some 7,000 inhabitants!) section of a larger party? How is this notable?." ProD removed because "I assume that both your proposal and rationale are far from being serious"[32]. However, the party was founded in 2008, has no representatives (will cmpete in the 2011 elections), is only active in the Val d'Aran, which has some 7,000 inhabitants... So this is a local, recent party without any electoral success so far, without any notable members, and without any reliable independent sources apart from one (now no longer accessible) local article from before they were even founded[33]. That the article has two interwiki links is in this context irrelevant, Wikipedia article are not reliable sources and don't count towards notability. The fact that also the unreliable sources are extremely limited[34] is an indicator of the small scale and lack of notability of this party as well. Fram (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aranese parties, acting practically (or on "pacts") with Catalonian parties are considered at least nominally as separate structures, which has been the case for UA for about 30 years. I can't understand what makes the case of ERO distinguishable in this sense. Furthermore, the politics of Aran had been dominated by two parties and ERO was founded as the sole political force with the claim for a breakthrough in many years. This is yet another rationale for notability. Besides, two sister Wikipedias that may be considered referential for notability (ie. Catalan and Occitan) maintain corresponding articles. Additionally, as for the argument "is only active in the Val d'Aran, which has some 7,000 inhabitants...", well, Aranese parties are expected to be active in Val d'Aran, as a matter of fact. Behemoth (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Aranese parties are active in Val d'Aran, but this is a very small region, which may not be immediately apparent to a casual reader of the article or this AfD, and is quite relevant (parties which are only active in such a small region have generally much less chance of being notable). As to why the ERO is distinguishable from e.g. the Unity of Aran: the latter has been active much longer, and has won seats in elections. It may still be a non notable organisation, I haven't checked this any further, but it certainly has a stronger claim than the ERO. Fram (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're ignoring Val d'Aran's sui generis position in Catalonia and the relevant political scene. Behemoth (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since these have no impact on the notability as defined on Wikipedia, yes, I am ignoring them, just like apparently every reliable publication in Spain / Catalonia. Fram (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Am I correct in interpreting the article to mean that this is a political party that hasn't (yet) participated in an election? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's how I read it as well. Fram (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, for an Aranese party founded in 2008, the next election to participate shall naturally be the upcoming General Council elections in 2011. Behemoth (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all political parties participate in elections. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not totally convinced that a political party operating exclusively in a locality of 7,000 people is notable, much less a brand-new party that hasn't even run in (much less won) an election yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we then assume that what makes a political party notable is essentially the population of the locality it operates in? Is a Chinese political party more likely to be notable than, say, an American or Belgian one? Behemoth (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, we can't. We can assume that e.g. a party that operates nationally has more chance of being notable than a party that operates locally, but what in the end makes a party notable for the purposes of Wikipedia is what is described in WP:N: in general, indepth, sustained coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Everything else may be indicative of notability or the lack thereof, but is not sufficient on its own. Fram (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The lowest of all barriers for inclusion of political parties and their leaders. If it exists, it should be covered with a Wikipedia article. Notable per se. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITEXISTS? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inherent notability. See: Secondary schools, major highways, towns, major transportation companies, etc. Carrite (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can start a political party, and many of them have zero impact, unlike schools, highways, towns, ... And even all these categories, with the exception of towns, have still to provide evidence of their notability. Fram (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that "everyone" can start a political party? Is your presumption universally verified by relevant legislation of various states and subnational entities? Behemoth (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can start a political party, at least in democracies. Not every political party will be able to or allowed to participate in elections though. But even that is generally a small hurdle. Apart from that, while you are free to nitpick other people's arguments, it would perhaps be more fruitful if you brought forwards some arguments that would to establish the notability of the party, instead of claiming some inherent notability (which is, per WP:ORG, not a reliaty on Wikipedia). Fram (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Are you trying to teach me how to behave? Behemoth (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am trying to indicate what kind of arguments and discussion are probably more useful in trying to convince other people that this article should be kept. You are free to continue this discussion any way you like it, but I am free to point out that I don't believe this to be useful. Fram (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's what makes supposed inherent notability tricky, if it's to be assumed at all it must be done considering all factors. "All towns are notable" sounds like an almost inarguably true statement, but what about a child's milk-carton 'town'? By the same token, "All political parties are notable" appears to make sense at first, but surely doesn't apply to a party confined to a small local area, with no candidates in office and not even having participated in an election yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seem to be sources, which is sufficient. That the sphere of action is a mall region does not prevent notability . DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A press release, their own website, and some very local websites? Since when are these sufficient to meet WP:ORG? Fram (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an additional source from vilaweb. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:15, 16 September 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 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) at 20:52, 9 September 2010 ("Wikipedia is not for stuff made up one day."). Non-admin closure Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ball Tap (Game)

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

Non-notable and WP:MADEUP game. Article placed by game designer. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nomination, and WP:SNOW --Korruski (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 14:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A made-up game with no coverage in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable topic, seems like a self-made game, and has no sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 18:44, 9 September 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vogel Ski Resort

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

Article fails WP:CORP. I found no sources on Google suggestion that this is notable. Derild 49 21 ☼ 13:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of significance in the article and Can not find significant coverage to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is a dedicated page at Official Slovenia's tourist portal good enough? There are numerous mentions of the resort in reliable Slovene-language sources as well, but the author hardly had time to put them in, considering that the article has been nominated for deletion 30 minutes after creation. Jumping the gun a bit less eagerly wouldn't hurt anybody. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of the most visited ski resorts in Slovenia. Plenty of reliable sources available. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are loads of readily available sources even in English.[35] Phil Bridger (talk) 13:34, 13 September 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

නිරිපොල

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

nonsense Nilüfer7 (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense. If I am reading the page history correctly, it's being suggested that this is translated before it is determined as nonsense. I can see the argument there, but given the length of the article and the lack of sources/context, I would go for a speedy delete as nonsense all the same. --Korruski (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1. ~Nerdy Science Dude 13:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral for now It cannot be deleted as patent nonsense just because it is in another language, but since I couldn't translate the article (I know zilch Sinhalese), I cannot say whether it meets any other CSD criteria or fails notability. It's possible to delete it as G1, although I wouldn't recommend it, although feel free to tag it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to weak keep as it has been translated and inhabited places are usually notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until translated Does not qualify as G1 simply because it is in a script we do not understand. If translated, it may prove to be a worthy article... maybe. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even google can't translate Sinhalese. Given the length, lack of source, and the untypable characters, there is no reason to keep.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This is the English Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on basis of per se notability of villages — now that it's in English. Carrite (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I earlier speedily deleted this article under G1, that was only because I was unable to recognize the content as a foreign language rather than patent nonsense. Since we don't speedy delete articles just because they are not written in English, I think it would be reasonable to wait for at least some knowledge of the content before deciding on its fate. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy - If we were to simply remove the Sinhalese text, and renamed the article to Roman characters, we'd be left with a legible stub. I don't think deleting the article for containing non-English text would be necessary. However, just going by our usual notability standard, I can find zero coverage of this location. I'm convinced that it exists, but I can't find even the most basic information about it. It could have a population of 20 as far as we know. -- Atama頭 20:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - G1 does not apply to a foreign language. Derild 49 21 ☼ 23:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Now that it has been translated and is notable. Derild 49 21 ☼ 14:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cities and other such populated areas are de facto notable; translation has already begun. Even the one meager sentence should be able to save this because it is a village. —fetch ·comms 02:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Fetchcomms' arguments. Starting articles in foreign languages is allowed, as long as they are not just copies from other Wikipediæ. That's why we have WP:PNT. Favonian (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Sinhalese Wikipedia. No reason for keeping article noone can read. Text not lost, translation still possible after that. Dummy74 (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fetchcomms. ~Nerdy Science Dude 19:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTENGLISH applies. It's a town, so it's notable. (X! · talk) · @148 · 02:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Sinhalese Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia, articles should be in English, if they are not in English, they should be swiftly transwikied to the Wikipedia for that language, if such a beast exists, if not, it should be put up for translation. 70.29.210.72 (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is now an all-English, sourced stub, so I guess the language-based arguments are moot. Favonian (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the redirect, but Keep the article - places are inherently notable. Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any reason to delete the redirect. Redirects are "cheap" and assuming they are not offensive or spammy, they don't get in anyone's way. They may help someone (with the right kind of keyboard in this case) locate an article, and as such they are useful. There are lots of redirects from foreign names to articles bearing English names—in fact there is a whole category full of them: Category:Redirects from alternative languages. Favonian (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fetchcomms. Villages are inherently notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fetchcomms. Now we can understand it, this looks like a valid article. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:41, 13 September 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 Franklin & Marshall College. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schnader Hall

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

A very minor college dormitory. No evidence of notability. GrapedApe (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any coverage in sources that suggest this hall is notable enough for a stand-alone article. We had a discussion about this some time ago. I believe the consensus (a weak one at that) was that, if appropriate, dorm articles could be merged into a collective housing article for each campus. However, for a small college, I doubt such a collective housing article is warranted. And there isn't anything in the article that warrants merger anyways. It's pretty run of the mill. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge to Franklin and Marshall College. MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability given. It dosn't seem there is much worth merging into Franklin & Marshall College. However, as mentioned above, perhaps an article on the campus as a whole could be made, and they could be merged there, but I don't see that happening at this time. Danski14^(talk) 22:54, 9 September 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 Fuel economy-maximizing behaviors. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eco Driving

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

Unencyclopedic, no real content. I can't find any verbatim google references, but I don't think it's notable. Shadowjams (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Poor article at the moment, but plenty of potential here. I think this is a notable issue, and on a very quick search I found this article. I know I will be able to find more. --Korruski (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fuel economy-maximizing behaviors - Wasn't aware of this article before. I agree this would be a better option, as eco-driving seems to me to be more or less synonymous with it. --Korruski (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Fuel economy-maximizing behaviors (as with Eco-driving already). Title doesn't conform to MoS, reads as an advert rather than an encyclopedia article, would need a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. Even if it were rewritten, it would probably just duplicate information in that article. -- Smjg (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTHOWTO. The topic is properly covered under the encyclopedic subject of Hypermiling. Fuel economy-maximizing behaviors should be deleted on the same basis. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Non-encyclopaedic article. Not worth redirecting, unless there ate links to it. If kept it should be renamed to Eco-driving, since Eco is not a word on its own. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 13 September 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 both. The list of villages in Rewari district has been incorporated to the district article; the list of villages in the Barwala municipality is not substantiated by any source and no arguments have been made in favor of keeping; the list of villages in Panchkula district has not formally been nominated. Mandsford 23:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Villages in Rewari district

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

No need for a list, and no articles for each of these villages. More importantly, no indication this topic, as a list, has any references to vouch for its notability. Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding List of villages in Barwala block to this nomination. Same reason. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decapitalise, columnize and merge into Rewari district. Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOTLINK. I'd also like to suggest adding List of Villages in Panchkula District to the nomination for the same reason. andy (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few of these. I'm not sure if the creator understands the process. I left a message, and others might too, but I think this is difficult because I don't want to scare off the editor but I don't think any of these ~~topics~~ lists are notable in the least. I'm Ok with Blofeld's suggestion of a merge, but obviously I don't think all of these individual redlink villages should have a dab page. I'm very open to ideas about how to proceed. Shadowjams (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I think you are mistaken if you think populated places are not notable. You haven't done the research to be able to say this. Obviously some are more than others but I think you'd be surprised at some of these places which seem utterly unnotable in this list if multiple sources and info and photographs of some of the locations were presented to you. Some of the villages in the list undoubtedly have several thousand people living in them and are settlements of encyclopedic note, not all maybe but a considerable amount. The list granted are an awful mess but just googling Bhoj Balag at random reveals http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bhoj+balag&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a potential source which would not only support a list but some decent stubs too. I see some government reliable sources covering civil works taking place in this random village etc. As long as each village is verifiable then I think this list should remain and be moved into the district articles and fomratted properly. As long as this editor doesn't create tons of unreferenced short stubs on these villages then having them red linked is not a problem. Dr. Blofeld 10:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been unclear... I only am referring to the list, not the villages themselves (I think most geographic things are inherently notable, although there is some threshold at which a merge is better... but that's another issue). Shadowjams (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the notability of the places that's at issue, just the list. A list of places with notable temples, for example, is definitely worth having, but these lists are of no more value than a telephone directory. And anyway there's no point in a list that purports to be comprehensive and yet where 90% of entries are redlinks and probably always will be. These are telephone directories where most of the people listed don't have phones! andy (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a group of editors working on Indian villages I think. Maybe the lists would be better compiled in the workspace. But red links ar enot a bad thing, not pretty but invite people to develop the encyclopedia. Unfortunately a lot of editors interested in rural India are not fluent english speakers. Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even a completed list would be of little or no encyclopaedic value. WP:NOTLINK states "Wikipedia articles are not... Mere collections of internal links, except for... lists to assist with article organization and navigation", and WP:STANDALONE makes it clear that a list should provide an encyclopaedic context for inclusion and notes that "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value" . And then there's the issue of verifiability - without a reference to a gazetteer these lists all fail WP:VER and must be deleted. andy (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed that some maintenance work needs to be done but that should not be a reason for deletion. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rewari district. When the villages have their own articles, a category will take care of such information. utcursch | talk 20:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Rewari district. Dr. Blofeld 10:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete villages merged into Rewari district and this article no longer serves a stand-alone purpose.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:26, 16 September 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. Mandsford 01:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010 Solomon Islands earthquake

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

I originally created this article back in June, thinking it may turn out to be a notable event. However this was not the case. No damage, casualties or anything particularly out of the ordinary. Justmeagain83 (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable event, no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This could almost be deleted A7 since the only real contributor to the article is the nominator. One editor added a single reference but no text and other editors only tagged, corrected spelling or categorized the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ 09:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Why not blank the page and tag db-self? You appear to be the only author to contribute any significant material to the article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable earthquake, like most earthquakes that happen everyday. Also, it could be speedied as G7 as author seems to be requesting deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the informal "Rule of 7," to which I subscribe. Please stop creating articles on earthquaks with a magnitude of less than 7.0 unless they squish lots of people or break lots of shit. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 September 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.

Motto Candace!

The result was SPEEDY DELETE G3. Alexf^(talk) 13:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clear hoax, not a single hit on Google. BOVINEBOY2008 09:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing about this. ~~ GB fan ~~ 09:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and feed to the wolves. Tagged as G3, as I could not find anything for this article. Even if it wasn't a hoax, I would still say delete it per WP:CRYSTAL. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also can't find any sources, so deletion per WP:CRYSTAL is warranted. I agree with the G3 as well..."Dr. Boobypoos"?? P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:23, 9 September 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 Sunn O))). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La Mort Noir dans Esch/Alzette

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

An album of which only 1,000 copies were reportedly pressed,the sole source is a user-edited directory. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with Sunn O))). The limited number of pressings was a deliberate marketing tactic, which has made it a very highly sought-after album. WP:ATD Keristrasza (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 11 September 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt International

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

I can't find the significant coverage needed to prove notability Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a bit of sourcing found: The Mirror, Taipei Times, Ghanaweb, Manila Standard, etc. Search is complicated by the fact that there was apparently a TV show by the same name about hunting for fugitives, as well as an unscripted show for Bravo called "Manhunt". Still, this pageant seems notable enough. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 15 September 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, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems like there's enough reliable sources out there to warrant an article. And as a bonus, it was an interesting read. — C M B J 06:07, 16 September 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of hip hop groups

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

Procedural nomination. I just found that this had been arbitrarily redirected to Category:Hip hop groups (which, as a cross-namespace redirect, we're not supposed to do, and given that most bands are diffused by nationality, the category isn't actually functioning as a list anyway.) Given that I then spent 20 minutes moving misfiled entries and deleting individual rappers, redlinks, non-hip hop bands like The Clash (?) and promotional links to the MySpace pages of bands that aren't notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia at all, I can certainly see why the desire to kill this existed — but a cross-namespace redirect isn't the appropriate way to pursue that. We could delete this, or we could impose a "no listing without a reference" rule (though those do tend to be hard to enforce properly on lists.) No !vote from me. Bearcat (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. It is just a simple list of groups. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Needs to be retitled to something like List of notable hip hop groups. This is a navigational tool, all blue links, not an effort to create an impossibly-broad universal list. While Wikipedia veterans understand the concept of categories, very many casual users do not and this list has a real function as a navigational tool. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a standing practice of not using the word "notable" in the titles of list articles; our notability policy already dictates that only notable topics can be included in the list anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly acceptable subject for a list. Could usefully be expanded with further information on each group. e.g. where they're from, active years, etc.--Michig (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. Clear inclusion criteria for a notable topic. And per Michig, no reason why this can't be expanded to include a table for info such as location, years active, etc. Lugnuts (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list is way too broad. I would support lists on hip hop groups or other music groups meeting notable criteria. Dew Kane (talk) 23:26, 12 September 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 05:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billux

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

Non-notable software, little or no third party coverage (I can only find a handful of mentions, mostly places to download, or one liners) WORM MЯOW 08:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article lacks 3rd party references to establish notability for this software. Dialectric (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 11 September 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. Unfortunately, she still does not appear to be notable after the improvements. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Staff Nurse Ella Kate Cooke

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

The subject of the article fails the notability standards. I had originally tagged the article for CSD. Since then, some links have been added to the article, but those also fail to establish the notability of the person. Shovon (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ not notable, POV Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfied with improvements Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The auckland war memorial museum does user-uploaded content. The author should take their efforts there. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. There may be references, but there are no assertions of notability. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find enough reliable references to this article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arguably a borderline A7. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the rules are clear, but it's a shame. Soupy sautoy (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have made significant improvements to the article from what it once was. Previously it was this, and now it looks like this. From the sources that I found and the different coverage, including what the subject was involved in, I feel that this article meets the notability standards. Silver seren^C 01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite improvements, there still is very little to nothing that asserts notability. AniMate 01:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does the article not pass the GNG? Silver seren^C 01:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kudos to Seren for the hard work, a massively improved article. I'm a bit confused though. The sources mean this article passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC but Nurse Cooke didn't do anything actually notable. I'll sit on the fence for a bit. Bigger digger (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm with Bigger digger on this. The article is much better than it as. It has references and sources. What it doesn't have is a claim for notability, something of the form Cooke is notable because... Was she the youngest nurse in the war? The first to be sent overseas? Famous for her sense of humour? I'm happy to give seren more time on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on notability, as there appears to be a desire to see a reason for notability beyond just references, I put forth two possible notable facts. Cooke was a "Native Health Nurse" while in New Zealand, which, as described here, is a position that was held by relatively few people in the region. Indeed, for the entire Waikato Region, she was the only nurse available. A single nurse doing all of that would seem to be important to me. Furthermore, or separately you might say, she achieved the rank of "Sister" before she died, as referred to in many of the references. This rank, as described here, is equivalent to a Lieutenant in other military structures. I do not know how much notability this rank confers upon her, but I think it gives something, at least. Silver seren^C 03:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but I still don't see a sufficient claim to notability (but then I am definitly at the stricter end of the scale in this regard). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even after my comment above yours? Silver seren^C 04:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Creating an online biography of someone doesn't make them notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete reworking an article isn't always enough to save it, especially when the topic is simply not notable. Apparently the "rank of 'Sister'" is the second-lowest rank, and the title of the article says she was a staff nurse, which was the lowest rank of all in the same table. In other words, she had a job. And while it's great to be gainfully employed it's hardly a claim of encyclopedic notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She was a Sister, not a Staff Nurse. The article should be at Ella Cooke anyways. Please look at the first point I made as well. Silver seren^C 04:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my point. Staff nurse is the lowest rank, sister is the second lowest. Neither is anywhere even close to being something one might get into an encyclopedia for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Lieutenant rank isn't good enough by itself, but I already knew that. But added with the fact about the Waikato region, I think it gives enough combined notability. Silver seren^C 04:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, it's still a delete for me, although the improvements and and finding of sources reduces it to just weak delete. Unfortunately, despite the sources, I just can't seem to see just what is this person's claim to notability. Should it be kept, I would support a move to "Ella Kate Cooke". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my "Comment on notability", everyone seems to be ignoring it, for some reason. I'll reiterate though. Cooke received the rank of Sister before she died, which is equivalent to the rank of Lieutenant in a military structure. She was also given the rank of "Native Health Nurse" while she was in New Zealand, a rank given to relatively few people. Furthermore, she was put in charge of the Waikato Region as the only nurse in the entire region, which is 25,000 square kilometers. Silverseren^C 14:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And how exactly does being the second-worst ranked nurse and being the only nurse in the area a claim to encyclopedic notability? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No serious claim to notability, lieutenant is a fairly junior rank. PatGallacher (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment on notability, I guess, under WP:BIO, she would have to fit under Creative Professionals, as that's the only one that makes sense. Under that one, I would say she fits under #4, "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums," in terms of the movie, In Memory, that features her as a large part. Silver seren^C 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to put forth, though it is OR right now until I prove it, but I believe she was the only New Zealand nurse to die during WWI. Still searching for info on that. Silver seren^C 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what planet is nursing considered a creative profession?!? Did she make Band-Aid sculptures or something? I get that you really, really, really want this kept for some reason, but your reasoning is getting progressively more silly because you're not getting your way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was the closest thing I could find on WP:BIO. She doesn't count as any of the others, so creative professional was the only one I could find. Truthfully, as i've said before, since she doesn't fit in it, as stated in all of the notability areas, her notability should default to the GNG or the Basic test. And, as i've already shown, she meets that by far, but all of you seem to want something more. Please direct me to the notability guideline that she needs to meet, because I can't find it. Silver seren^C 19:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nurses are creative professionals? Silver has done a good job of adding a lot of refs to the article, but I'm afraid that none of this actually establishes the notability of the subject. What started off as a school assignment is now subject of a big debate. :-0 Shovon (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As i've said above, I don't necessarily believe that creative professionals is the right criteria to apply, but it's the best one that fits. Please direct me to the correct criteria to use for this article. If there is none, then do you not agree that we much default to the GNG, which this article certainly meets?

Everyone above has been going on about needing a more explanative notability for the subject and I have tried to give examples of her notability, but they were rejected. Instead of being vague about needing "encyclopedic notability" without any basic in a policy, could someone please direct me to the criteria that Cooke needs to meet so I can try to go about to meet them? Silver seren^C 15:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GNG - "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article.

Yes, this woman has been written about in some reliable sources, but she still appears to be a run of the mill nurse during WWI. You seem to want everyone who is saying she is not notable to help you prove she is notable. If notability were black and white, we wouldn't have AfDs. In this case, consensus appears to be saying she doesn't merit a stand alone article, nor is she guaranteed one. AniMate 19:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking others to help prove that she is notable, I am asking others to tell me what criteria I need to meet to do so. If I don't know what I need to meet, I can't go about trying to meet it, now can I? I've given reasons for notability above, but they don't seem to be enough. This would all be much easier if there was some sort of notability guideline for nurses, but there doesn't seem to be one. Silver seren^C 20:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no notability guideline for nurses because as a general rule nurses aren't notable unless they do something extraordinary, and your efforts with this article haven't shown anything extraordinary. AniMate 20:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on this article, but she is far from the only NZ nurse to have died during WWI. In one event alone (the torpedoing of the "Marquette" in 1915) nine NZ nurses were lost: [36]. Daveosaurus (talk) 00:59, 12 September 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 as the rough consensus indicates. –MuZemike 08:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Hurst

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

CV of a finance executive somewhat lacking in notability. The bio is inadequately sourced and was created by a single purpose account and apparently in conflict of interest. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While he's been involved in productions, he isn't getting to the level of notability to deserve a Wikipedia article. He's getting incidental mentions in a couple of articles, but there are no articles about him. We don't really know anything about him, besides his credits (and lots of people have credits in some production).--Lester 08:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the resume appears quite extensive, nothing within his career actually establishes notability. None of the references pan out. Among the television productions, the only one he appears to have received credit for is directing an unknown number of episodes of Another World. The regional professional theatre work doesn't establish notability per WP:CREATIVE OR WP:ENT, although there appears to be several archived pay-per-view articles from his regional theatre days that apparently are about him specifically. (If notability can be established through these sources, the article will need a complete, fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic.) There are snippet mentions in passing in theatre profiles and playbills. He served as a lecturer and adjunct professor at UNC, Rutgers, and Duke, but doesn't meet notability criteria per WP:PROF. His board memberships and financial advisory work does not establish notability. Subject has clearly led a well-rounded and full life, unfortunately, notability lacks verifiability through reliable, independent sources. Notability has not yet been established according to any specific criteria that I can find. Cindamuse (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I loathe the CV-style layout, pretty obviously a case of sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion as a director of plays and television shows. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I totally agree regarding the resume format. However, the only television directing credit he received was on Another World, date and episode unknown. No other credits or references. So that rules out notability there. The resume presents a lot of impressive claims, but an exhaustive search resulted in a complete lack of references to support the claims. There MAY be sources to establish notability regarding directing in regional professional theatre, but the online sources are pay-per-view and I don't have access to the hard copies. It's a hard call (in my opinion), since the resume is so comprehensive, however, it appears that there is a lack of verifiability on all counts to establish notability at all. Cindamuse (talk) 03:28, 10 September 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 consensus was that this was somewhat interesting, but not notable. The image is available at [File:Watermelon House - Logan Circle.jpg]. Mandsford 01:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watermelon House

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

Fails WP:Notable. Some folks paint their house to look like a watermelon. The local paper (Washington Post, which is more important than the average local paper, but still this is just local news) does one story on it to amuse their readers. No other coverage in any media. No claim in article as to why this is important or has any effect on anything else. Wolfview (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC

Keep - The Washington Post piece is significant coverage, despite the nom's personal opinion that its "to amuse their readers." It in fact was also feature in the web series Orange Juice in Bishops Garden [37] --Oakshade (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I don't think amusing their readers is a bad thing. :-) Wolfview (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought about this for a while, but that Washington Post article is simply not significant. If that counts then any mention of any address in a major newspaper counts, and that's simply not Notability. Anyone who's interested, look at the short article and ask whether or not it satisfies notability. Even mainstream papers can mention non-notable things. Shadowjams (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not all newspaper articles are equal, especially given the enthusiasm with which newspapers cover 'novelty' stories of local interest. In this case, I don't think the story is sufficient to establish notability. --Korruski (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's a great idea, and although I believe that the Washington Post is a reliable source, there isn't much anything else. There's the Washington Post, which is reliable, but that's about it. The house looks tasty though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was cute too. The article is very well-written as well. Too bad about pesky WP policies. Wolfview (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW there is a little bit of original research to give more information on the 3 people than can be strictly found out from the source. This is not a reason to delete, lack of notability is enough for that.Wolfview (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 September 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 Borden (company). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borden Food Corporation

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

This article is largely a word for word duplicate of the article Borden (company) and is redundant. All the information can be found in the more comprehensive parent article. -- Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Article is not "largely" word-for-word duplicate. Article talk page has already laid out many important, substantive differences just by analyzing the lead paragraphs. Additional analysis will show even more substantive differences. Article may require improvement, but that does not justify deletion. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- Agree with Tim1965. The atricle can use improvement, and thats why were all here isnt it? The free encylopedia that anyone can edit. So, lets have some people edit it and make it satisfactory! Flightx52 (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order, and this may be me being dense - why do we need two articles on the same entity? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Borden (company) article listing the subsidiary and expansion of the company. There is not an analysis provided on the talk page, but rather a simple copy|paste of the ledes of the two articles. A more thorough comparison clearly shows that there is substantial duplication of information. Either speedy delete per "A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic" or merge into the parent company. At this point, Borden Food Corporation lacks notability independent of the parent company. Notability is not inherited per WP:INHERIT. Cindamuse (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the two entities have different histories, but their relationship is not clear. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - After review, I think merging with Borden (Company) Is the better idea. Flightx52 (talk) 01:01, 17 September 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 per the consensus of everyone. Mandsford 01:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sutor, ne ultra crepidam

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

Looks like a dictionary entry to me, I think that it should be transwikied over to Wiktionary. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 04:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gives the history of the expression, which seems to be in itself notable. Not a dictionary is usually not enforced so strictly to exclude this kind of article. There are many articles on proverbs, etc. here.Wolfview (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (biased - I contibuted it). By all means transwiki Ultracrepidarianism which is undeniably sort of like a dictionary entry but not this famous remark of Apelles recorded by Pliny. As Wolfview remarks there are numerous proverbs and sayings in Wikipedia and it would be much the poorer without these. For example the splendid Habent sua fata libelli which I've just expanded and note that Libellus itself has an entry. Rinpoche (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

incidentally Sutor, ne ultra crepidam isn't recorded in the 20 volume or so Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.) which should be a pretty exacting test of whether something is sort of like a dictionary entry Rinpoche (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus another thing Wikipeida does have a category 'Category:Latin words and phrases' which is what it most sort of looks like to me all things considered (for example 1 it's a phrase 2 it's Latin) which you have to admit is pretty much a reductio ad absurdam (whatever) though that one admittedly is in the OED which is just an Exception that proves the rule and nothing personal honest. Rinpoche (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask for some remarks from Bobby122 clarifying why he/she sort of marked this for deletion (that would be courteous) so we get some consensus here and move on? I am frankly at a loss to understand why it's been marked like this (and that if you please within minutes of it going up like totally predatory or what) and I do feel he/she should sort of explain himself/herself. Rinpoche (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I placed it here not for it to be deleted, but to get others opinions on whether it should be transwikied or no because it was a close call for me. I had no intention of it being deleted. Also I don't understand your remark about being predatory. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 14:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you merely wanted to get opinion you could have done that by discussing it on the article's talk page or by adding a notability template. Of course this page should be reserved for articles you want deleted if you are not to waste our time. With respect there's no close call involved. It's a celebrated and notable Latin phrase, one of the great put-downs of history, and it absolutely belongs to one of the established Wikipedia categories. I took the time to contribute it because I quoted it in a teasing reply to a blog by Harry Mount, a classics scholar, in the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph and noticed then that it didn't have an entry. If you had sort of read the article instead of merely sort of like looking at it you would have noticed that indeed there is an issue with Ultracrepidarianism which arguably should be in the Wiktionary. On my talk page you comment: "I'm a new page patroller who looked at the article and thought it looked like a dictionary entry so I submitted it to AFD to get a consensus on whether or not it should be transwikied. There I saw the reasons why the article should by kept at the English Wikipedia". Can we assume now then that you agree the article should be kept and that I may now remove the template you have disfigured the article I spent an hour or so of my time selflessly contributing?

You are surely being disingenuous (if you are not to be accused of being actually stupid) when you say you don't understand my predator remark? What I sought to suggest if it really is not clear to you is that this was a case of some self-appointed Wiki zealot overstepping his authority. I gather the exalted role of new page patroller is indeed a voluntary self-appointed one and I do commend you to your lonely work but ask only that you reflect on your task more carefully in future if you are not to continue to waste our time and efforts.

To aid you in your further notable efforts I note for you that a good test of whether an article should sort of be in the Wikitionary is that it offers several definitions of its title. Hope that helps.

Unless I further hear sensibly from you or others over the next few hours I shall assume consensus is reached and remove the template. I hope and trust the community will accept that as a satisfactory resolution. Rinpoche (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really wouldn't recommend that. Assume good faith, leave the template and allow the AfD to run its course. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Accept your advice. Rinpoche (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the reasons given I switch my vote to keep. It is notable enough for an article entry. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 11:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite a significant phrase and notability shown. Let justice be done though the fuckin heavens fall. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, significant. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep famous phrase, and appropriate for an encyclopedia . Might be appropriate for a dictionary also, but in general they do not consider phrases within their scope, though some give phrases like this in an appendix. DGG ( talk ) 07:50, 15 September 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. Concerns about describing the subject in a more neutral tone are a continuing concern in any political article. Mandsford 23:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Bangladesh

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

Non-notable fringe theory concocted out of synthesis of material that relies heavily on unreliable sources. Looks like a coatrack to push a non-neutral point of view Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question I don't quite see what that alleged POV/agenda would be -- what is it? Please explain. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article related to Category:Irredentism - the article reports the existence of a concept, not reported as a fact, related to irredentism. There is no POV agenda in the wording or subject discussed. Shiva (Visnu) 13:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There may be some possible justification for not putting this article on T:DYK, but there is no doubt in my mind that this article is legitimate and should remain on Wikipedia. These are my points:

The coinage/usage of the term is clear from the sources, which include a report from the then-Governor of Assam to the then-President of India. In the same report, the Governor reportedly uses quotes prominent political leaders Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The term is again used in the sources provided. Terms are usually coined from exact such sources as government reports, publications, etc. The article reports that the term exists and has been used.
The article is written in accordance with WP:NPOV. There is clear usage of the words "claims", "alleged", "some Indian politicians and scholars" on numerous occasions. Nowhere is it reported as a fact. The only points that emerge as facts is the concern and reactions in India over the illegal immigration issue - this is true enough, that there have notable reactions. That reports the reactions from people who believe, but that is not presented as proof of the existence of this claim. The Bangladesh point of view has been simple - they deny such a concept exists and deny illegal immigration in India of any kind.
Reliable sources: there was apparently a discussion questioning the legitimacy of books published by [Gyan Publishing] - while several editors expressed their concern, there was no consensus whatsoever to declare this source as inherently unreliable. This company has existed since 1984, long before the conception of Wikipedia. The report from the Governor of Assam is a reliable source - not as evidence of the legitimacy of "Greater Bangladesh", but as proof that such a concept/theory exists. It has been said by the detractors of this article that the Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam is a fringe terrorist group - they have participated in terrorist attacks in India already, and I don't think they need to do a 9/11-style attack before becoming notable. The northeast has been a hot-bed of separatism in the recent past, and I don't find reporting any terrorist group that has carried out attacks as non-notable. In the statement of Ragib, it has been asserted that the authors of books talking about Greater Bangladesh are not "well-known political theorist", and also a number of political analysts are not "reputed" in Bangladesh - I replied that a number of reliable political analysts, respected in academic circles, can fall in this category. How can you arbitrarily disqualify the authors (as well as publishers) of the books used as sources? In regards to Google hits - it may substantiate the existence of a topic, but certainly does not serve as evidence denying its existence. In the same segment, Aditya Kabir quotes part of the data in one of the sources, which identifies the term and that this concept exists as a feared irredentism, not recognized as existing by official sources. I offer this part of the quote that illustrates just what this article is saying:

“

At the same time, there were many in India who assumed that the state of Bangladesh itself was pursuing an evil territorial design; seeking Lebensraum for its teeming population and ultimately usurping Indian territory in order to establish a Greater Bangladesh.

”

- Willem van Schendel, The Bengal borderland: beyond state and nation in South Asia - this same source on page 234 says here that the Bangladeshi response was complete denial of the whole issue of illegal immigration, which the author condemns using terms like "callous" and that the Bangladeshi reponse "annihilated" the victims, found it "inconvenient to acknowledge" the citizenship of fellow Bangladeshis. If I were trying to push an anti-Bangladesh POV, I would have written a whole para importing using this author's passage, inculcating his personal/scholarly POV. The pages 233-234 written by Wllem van Schendel describes both the Indian and Bangladeshi POVs, pointing out the flaws in their POVs. I am not attempting any critique of any POV, but using van Schendel's work as evidence that the concept exists.

That is precisely what I am trying to report - the existence of such a concept and its reactions. I am not offering evidence that their claims are legitimate. The article describes some Indian politicians and scholars and a report from the Assam governor to the Indian president as proponents of that such a scheme exists.

The context of the sources may be complicated, but the article is not attempting any complicated assertions about the legitimacy of the concept - it simply reports that it exists and describes what it is.

Finally, I find that another article, Greater Nepal underwent an attempt at deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Nepal, which failed for precisely the same reasons that apply in this article. There are other articles like Greater Armenia, Greater Serbia, Jinnahpur, which are all in the same classification. A look into the Category:Irredentism (which I guess I should add to the article) will provide many related examples. Each of those articles may be written in varying degrees of quality, but do they deserve deletion? No.

This article can be improved, no doubt about that. Any recommendations for improvement will be adopted. But in my mind, there are no grounds whatsoever to brand it as a WP:HOAX, WP:COAT and have it deleted. Shiva (Visnu) 13:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - a prior discussion can be found at this link, where the doubts about this article first emerged. Shiva (Visnu) 13:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Seb az86556, the article says - "Greater Bangladesh ("Brihat Bangladesh") is a political concept calling for the territorial expansion of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to include the Indian states of West Bengal, Assam and others in northeastern India" which according to The Bengal borderland: beyond state and nation in South Asia by Willem van Schendel, an highly notable academician and an expert in the field (see [38], [39] or [40]), is a case of "demonization" of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants to India by some "influential Indian politician". The book is selectively used as source for the article. The other source - Illegal migration from Bangladesh by Braja Bihari Kumara mentions such a claim as part of the discussion in a politician-heavy seminar in India (an annex to the book). The third book - Terrorism in India's north-east: a gathering storm by Ved Prakash - mentions it as an agenda raised in a conference of minority radical groups of India and Myanmar. Putting together such passing mentions and ignoring the academic commentary available doesn't represent a non-neutral POV. But, more importantly, the subject is not notable enough to warrant an article. Zillions of political rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and urban legends are born every day. Certainly an encyclopedia can't or shouldn't accommodate all that. The only remaining source is a report by S K Sinha, an Indian politician and ex-army officer, which apparently cited no source of information.

@S h i v a (Visnu), this has nothing to do with the DYK, and the whole mention of the DYK irrelevant here. Let's rather focus on the problem here - this is primarily not notable, and secondarily not neutral. While neutrality can be fixed, notability is a basic requirement for existence of an article here. Mentioning Gyan publication serves no purpose either, as it is not an issue here. Also other stuff exists isn't a valid argument. If we are discussing this article, we are discussing this article. I still want to mention that the Nepal article quoted is mostly about the Sugauli Treaty, and no fringe political assumption.

Thank you both. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya - it is a courtesy to provide a link to where the discussion of this issue began - what's wrong with that? Several of the points associated with this AfD have been discussed there - that is where this debate originated. Apparently the reliability of Gyan Publishing was an issue raised by Ragib as part of the problem with this article. Why would Sugauli Treaty be the only factor for Greater Nepal? It wasn't just about that in the article and AfD and it has an article of its own anyway. It serves as a root of the irredentism yes, telling us what is the basis, as does the illegal immigration issue here, and to an extent the partition of Bengal and Bengali nationalism. As for WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I personally don't think the other articles are "CRAP" that exist as examples why this one should not exist. Thank you, Shiva (Visnu) 14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Comment I'm concerned that the first reference that the article cites is a book by Gyan Publishing House, which has been reported multiple times (1, 2, 3, 4) for plagiarism and circular referencing from Wikipedia. The publishers seem to have been, as a result of these discussions, flagged as unreliable. Unless the authenticity of this source is verified, the credibility of the information in the article (which would only have two sources to back it then - one being an unsourced report) would take a beating. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do note that one of the editors commented that a generalization cannot be made and each one has to be evaluate on case-by-case basis and that not all publications from this company are problematic. But if this discussion establishes that the source should not be there, that will be duly enforced - I would see it as an improvement, not evidence that this article is a hoax or something. This article will still have 2 credible references and the notability and deletion/non-deletion of this article can be weighed through those. Shiva (Visnu) 14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the following cannot be offered as direct links or for quotes, here are some other books that according to synopsis, discuss the term "Greater Bangladesh" in their subject matter: Bangladesh: A Silent Security Threat by S.K. Mishra, Bangladesh: Treading the Taliban trail. Shiva (Visnu) 14:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the extent of the Gyan Publishing problem. Then WP:RS is an issues here as well. Anyways, this isn't an article about irredentism, rather it's an article on a fringe conspiracy theory that was mentioned by sporadic sources passing, and was identified by an academic study as such. I would like to point out that Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. The non-neutrality comes from the way this fringe theory was presented as a fact. Relying on your good faith, I am not accusing that the article is being used as a soapbox, though it clearly can seem so. The best refuge for the theories put forward here may be the article on Illegal immigration in India. The new citations are advertisements for the book. What was the actual content? A mention of another politician making grand claims? Another government seminar that discussed Bangladeshi immigrants from multiple perspectives? If we are trying to establish that the term exists, we must admit that it does. But, unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. It's an encyclopedia.

BTW, I just googled my own name, and it returned a number of mentions in books and newspapers. I sincerely don't think that can be a reason for an existence of an article on me. And, you got the other stuff policy wrong. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking of the existence of a political concept in scholarly and political circles, admittedly mainly Indian, about possible expansionist ambitions from various groups and potentially the government of Bangladesh. "Grand claims" of a politician? All forms of irridentism involve such examples, but also note that the Governor of Assam made an official report, not merely a political speech or interview. It is really a separate subject matter, especially since there is terrorism involved here. The link between Sugauli Treaty and Greater Nepal is actually pretty close to what we are discussing here. However, it is certainly a good idea to note the data about "Greater Bangladesh" in Illegal immigration in India, especially if consensus here determines that a separate article is not justified. Shiva (Visnu) 15:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya - ah, but googling hits don't prove that there shouldn't be an article about you :) If someone writes a scholarly work about something notable you did, then why not? A lot of notable things are done which are not put up on enough websites to score a lot of Google hits. Shiva (Visnu) 15:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya - as for misunderstanding policy, it is clearly possible that both/either you and I may have gotten it wrong or else we would not be in this debate. I don't claim to know it better than others or not be mistaken in this case. I don't have a problem honoring the consensus here. Hopefully we'll all improve our respective knowledge. Shiva (Visnu) 15:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast. Anyways, we haven't seen a reliable and verifiable reference made to scholarly circles yet. But, "possible expansionist ambitions" and "potentially the government of Bangladesh"!!! Wikipedia is definitely not a crystal ball, my dear. And, please, stop mentioning that other stuff exists, it's just not a valid argument. And, yes, offline sources are most welcome, as long they are reliable, verifiable, appropriately in context, and don't just mention the subject in passing. BTW, is the "Strong Keep" position moving towards "Merge"? I hope whatever the consensus is we shall emerge as friends from this debate. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alrite, now there has been too much of unnecessary sarcasm and condescending behavior from certain editors. I do not wish to aggravate tensions, hence I am not going to comment further. I have already stated numerous times that I will honor the consensus opinion - if my current understanding is flawed, I will learn and improve. Shiva (Visnu) 15:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - Pretty staightforward and neutral encyclopedia-type discourse on a religious/nationalist movement. Beaucoup Google returns on a search for the phrase. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Struck through accidental duplicate comment. —SpacemanSpiff 18:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pretty staightforward and neutral encyclopedia-type discourse on a religious/nationalist movement. Beaucoup Google returns on a search for the phrase. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you go through the referenced material before taking a position? If you have not, please do. It doesn't pass through notability guidelines. The existence of the phrase is not good enough for an article. The only academic reference clearly states that the term was an attempt to demonize hapless illegal immigrants by some influential politicians. An unverified theory of some politicians doesn't make a religious/nationalist movement. And, putting forward an unproven or unverified claim as a fact is not neutral. Please, check WP policies for that. And, finally an encyclopedia is not a place to have a discourse, there's nothing called an encyclopedia-type discourse. I hope you have noticed the peacocks and weasels here.

@S h i v a (Visnu), dude, there was no "sarcasm and condescending behavior" from any editor here. Please, don't get hurt so easily. Wikipedia can only survive if we can collaborate. My proposal to be friends still stand in all sincerity. Please, assume good faith. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. The concept is not a well known one ... other than the allegations of a few right-wing Indian politicians' rhetorics. The references provided in the article do not provide the concept any significant coverage.

Courtesy of Google Books, I checked out ref #1,[41], where "Greater Bangladesh" is mentioned only 4 times in total. (plus once in the glossary). Among the 4 mentions of this, 1 quoted the phrase from a petition filed in a court of India.(pg 368). Pg 335 is about allegations from BJP, a right wing political party.Page 180 claims the concept to be an obscure militant group's "aim". Finally, page 520 mentions one Sadiq Khan and Abdul Momin to be the advocates of the idea ... none of them are well known political analysts or columnist at all. Ref #3 quotes Sadiq khan's 1991 article on Holiday, where the Khan talked about population and manpower exports and migrations, rather than creating a "Greater Bangladesh". Once again, Khan is not notable at all in Bangladesh as a "intellectual", and misquoting a 1991 article by Khan in his own weekly magazine does not indicate the concept of "Greater Bangladesh" is anything other than the imagination or political rhetoric of right wing Indian politicians.

I will add more justification of my comments later. --Ragib (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasons given by Ragib. Shyamsunder (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:V. The concept of a Greater Bangladesh is not well known in either Bengal. Neither Bangladeshi Govt. nor Govt. of the West Bengal ever discussed on this issue. This issue was not even a subject of discussion in national media of either country. I can remember one similar concept called United Ireland, that became Wikipedia article. If you go through the article, you'd see the reason why it became a WP article. It is because of its background and well-established history dated back in 1916-1922. Since then both Irish and British Govt are actively involved in negotiation and it was a subject of several public referendums in recent years. This issue is also a highly covered topic in both British and Irish media. But Greater Bangladesh lacks in all sorts. (Please note that I am not comparing two articles, rather just showing the depth of reference and coverage is required to establish such an article in WP.) -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 22:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If it's a fringe right wing ideology, that's fine and dandy — make a note of it in the article. Existence of an article on a topic does not constitute endorsement, obviously. Carrite (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the main problem, ... the main problem is that it fails WP:N. Even in the books in the references, it is mentioned in only a few places, and only in the passing. Besides van Schendel's book, none of the others are really RS. --Ragib (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing an ideology here, right wing or not. We are discussing a fringe conspiracy theory. If you want the article to be appropriate it would probably read something like - "Greater Bangladesh is a rhetoric coined by a few politician in India to demonize illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. The governments of India or Bangladesh never discussed the concept, and it was never reported by mainstream media as a reality. One regional Indian administrator though wrote a report on the subject and sent to the central government, the report was covered by a few mainstream news outlets. Once a regional minority radical group and in another time a security analyst have discussed it as part of various discussion issues. A couple of military writers have used the term at least once in one book or other, a fact that was used in the digital advertisement for the books.". The neutrality adjusted and verified article would look like a joke. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking at the Google books result, the term "Greater Bangladesh" does seem to be notable. But, I'm not sure whether these results are for the concept this article talks about: "territorial expansion of the People's Republic of Bangladesh". utcursch | talk 06:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question there. The Mikey Leung book discusses it as a 7th century notion. The Zakia Soman book describes it as a funny allegation. The Bardwell L. Smith book uses the term to describe the geographical concentration of Bengali people. The Aijazuddin Ahmad book launches the term to define a co-operation treaty between Bangladesh and West Bengal.The Mohāmmada Hānanāna book refers to a pre-1947 proposal to divide the Raj into three parts: India, Pakistan and Bengal. Yes, the term has many flavors and connotations. Could make for a nice entry at the Wiktionary. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mar4d (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A re-look at some mentions of the term does make it a phenomenon. Therefore, I vote keep. Mar4d (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that "greater" and "Bangladesh" used in succession to make a phrase that defines many different and unrelated notions makes it a phenomenon? What exactly is this phenomenon? Or more fundamentally - what defines a phenomenon? Surely not random use of two different words to make a variable meaning (and that too not too common). Please go through the reading material. Enough links has been provided here alone. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question "Cheap Artist" seems to have 150 book hits, more than 50 news hits, and almost 50,000 web hits. "Fucked up" has nearly 270,000 book hits, nearly 6,500 news hits, and almost 7,500,000 web hits. "Small dick" has more than a thousand book hits, more than 250 news hits, and almost 7,000,000 web hits. All these seems to be "phenomenal". Do we suggest that these are encyclopedic enough enough to have articles about? Wikipedia looks for encyclopedic stuff, not phenomenons. I believe a more encyclopedic article can be created for any of these than the article we are discussing. Check for the neutrality adjusted version of the article posted in this discussion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1)See WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST 2)We have smelly socks (Yes, it survived AfD). Fucked-up and small dick are redirects to synonims of these same notable concepts. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a term that relates towards an ongoing political battle between Indian nationalists and Muslim nationalists and I strongly advise the closing administrator not to merely count noses in determining this result. Think of it as a highly contentious Israel-Palestine article that must be carefully examined. There is not a doubt in my mind that "Greater Bangladesh" is a term which has scholarly currency as the "vision" of Muslim nationalists. For this use, see for example: Braja Bihārī Kumāra's book Illegal migration from Bangladesh, page 223, which summarizes "In the light of demographic aggression of our country [India] by Bangladesh; arrival of 20 million illegal aliens and large number of refugees; ...its denial to accept its own citizens and even to accept their presence in India; the motivated claims/opinions of Bangladeshi individuals about "lebensraum"; their desire and dream for greater Bangladesh, and continued unfriendly acts towards India..." (emphasis mine). This is a hot topic for Indians and we must be sure the summarization of the debate here is based upon the real issue at hand — whether the topic is worthy of encyclopedic coverage — and not a facile count of I DON'T LIKE IT votes... Carrite (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The expression is used properly in the academic literature (see some of the results here). It has also historical connotations (cfr. [42]) and it is strongly and properly present in news sources (see here) where it is treated as a defined concept. This book makes use of the concept reasonably often, for example. It seems a definitely notable expression. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already commented on the book, which, written by a non-notable author, makes false claims based on comments attributed to "Intellectuals" who are virtually non-notable in Bangladesh. (the same attribution is repeated in multiple sources, but on reading the actual article by the NN intellectual, I found the book's claim unfounded). The "news reference" you point out are from obscure news sources, or op-ed/interviews, rather than actual news items (save for a few). I'd really like to see some credible and significant news coverage from mainstream media on this. Unfortunately, your news link does not show that. --Ragib (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not if the claims are true or false. This is a matter for the NPOV and accuracy of the article. When establishing notability, what is important is that the expression is indeed used and discussed in sources. You say that there are a few news items and "multiple sources" that repeat an attribution: this is enough for us. Wikipedia covers a lot of notable hoaxes and notable misconceptions: what is important is to make sure that they are marked as such (if they are -I have no opinion on this). --Cyclopia ^talk 23:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: You say above about the book that the concept is the imagination or political rhetoric of right wing Indian politicians -This may well be true, but we're not discussing that, we're assessing if it's 'notable imagination or political rhetoric. See Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for an example of notable wacky right-wing political rhetoric. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon this relisting, I would like to re-emphasize the example and precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Nepal, which is very similar to this one. The nominator made a similar argument, and it was declined on the basis of similar arguments being presented here. Shiva (Visnu) 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very existence of the article probably violates most of the WP:5P, especially WP:N. It really doesn't matter how much I like it and how much you don't.

"Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is." WP:FRINGE
"Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." WP:GNG
"Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. WP:GNG
"Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide." WP:NOT#DICTIONARY
"Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." WP:SOAPBOX
"Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." WP:ASSERT
"Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views." WP:ASSERT

It really gets tiring to see the arguments twisted around

@Cyclopia 1: This isn't about other stuff exists or not. This is about the existence of two English words sequentially. This is what shows up in most of book, scholar, web and news hits. Instead of trying to prove the examples wrong, you can try out any two words to generate google hits.
@Cyclopia 2: A passing mention in a book by for a supposedly 9th century notion without a source for that information? 22 news hits that include unacceptable sources, letters to the editor and assorted trivia? 27 scholar hits that are either by Braja Bihārī Kumāra or quotes Braja Bihārī Kumāra or is mostly inconsequential? Are we seriously taking this as a defined concept?
@Cyclopia 3: Why pick the unimportant part of Ragib's comment, when clearly he said in verbatim "the book, which, written by a non-notable author, makes false claims based on comments attributed to "Intellectuals" who are virtually non-notable in Bangladesh. (the same attribution is repeated in multiple sources, but on reading the actual article by the NN intellectual, I found the book's claim unfounded)." If you want to counter his argument counter his argument, not his writing style.
@Carrite: Great quote, but would you please read a few more pages of the book to find that it was a part on an annex on a seminar where it was mentioned once among hundreds of other stuff? I had already mentioned that earlier on this very thread. Sometimes repeating the obvious becomes necessary.
@Shiva: Please, stop that WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. You have done that more than necessary. And, it's still not a valid argument.

Sorry, if I sound rude. That's not my intention. Probably that's my crappy writing style. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya - it is humorous and poignant that your final words to Carrite were "Sometimes repeating the obvious becomes necessary" just before you ventured to tell me to stop repeating an argument that I've "done that more than necessary." If you are aware of sounding rude, then please take more care in your comments. Shiva (Visnu) 04:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya: I am sorry but if there is anyone twisting policy, it is you. You for example are getting WP:GNG completely upside down: it need not be the main topic of the source material. Not, you see? It does NOT need that.
Now, WP:FRINGE is a matter of how content is presented, not of content existing here or not. It's a matter of keeping NPOV. But it has nothing to do with the suitability of the subject for an article. Nor WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ASSERT etc. have any bearing. They have bearing on how to write the article, not on if to write it or not. What can be solved by editing is not going to be solved by deletion, per our deletion policy. Notable fringe theories are covered by us.
And yes, we are seriously taking this as a defined concept. I don't know who this Braja Bihārī Kumāra is, but if people cite him and use his concepts in papers (you say yourself, "quotes B.B.K."), then it is a notable concept. Accept that.
About Ragib's comment: The point is that the book making false claims or being written by a non-notable author is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the concept is discussed outside of here, it's verifiable and it has been cited here and there in publications. There are dozens of false claims written by non-notable authors that are nonetheless notable, because they are repeated in sources. Also, I don't understand where I have criticized his writing style (which is fine, for what I can see):I was answering to arguments.
I suggest that if you care about this problematic concept, you should spend your energies in making this a NPOV compliant article, instead of simply trying to get a notable concept deleted because you don't like it. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I see you above write "it's an article on a fringe conspiracy theory that was mentioned by sporadic sources passing, and was identified by an academic study as such." - If it has been discussed by an academic study, it is most probably notable. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Twisting policy"? I said, in verbatim "twisting arguments". See what I mean? By the way GNG says it need not be the main topic, but it needs to be mentioned more than in the passing (i.e. not a quick mention in an annex, and forgotten). Even the academic study mentioned that fringe theory only once, and went on to discuss other things. on Please, Googling isn't definitive measure of notability. Anyways, if you like it you like it, and I really can't change that. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am deeply suspicious of the possibility (likelihood?) of a political agenda behind the nomination of this article for deletion. Personal political objections to the concept discussed in the article are certainly insufficient grounds for deleting that article. Otherwise, all manner of disputed political ideals would be deleted, and that would be absurd. (Caveat: I am a New Zealander who couldn't care less about the political issues implicit in the topic of this article and the commentary above). BlueRobe (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but I strongly doubt it. Whatever personal POV is involved, its inadvertant and unintentional. According to their contribution histories, Messrs. Ragib and Aditya Kabir are distinguished editors in good standing; Ragib is also an administrator I note. I doubt they would do anything so contrary to Wikipedia's basic rules. Shiva (Visnu) 11:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BlueRobe, you made a nasty personal attack here. You should apologize. Even though I don't agree with Shiva on the notability of the topic, I never indicated any bad faith or hidden agenda in his part. Strongly disagreeing on a topic based on my evaluation of the subject's notability and the reliability of supporting sources does not indicate any political ideals, and by attacking me and Aditya personally, rather than our arguments, you are simply being incivil. I urge you to withdraw this personal attack, and I am open to hearing any logical argument from you in support of your keep opinion. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "lack of notability" arguments are clearly nonsense - the concept has widespread recognition in media (especially regional media sources), as a simple check of Google will demonstrate. This entire page is packed with people pushing their own political agendas. Thus, I strongly urge caution before deleting this article and playing into the hands of some behind-the-scenes political manoeuvre. BlueRobe (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that this nomination's reference to the "non-neutral point of view" is a misrepresentation of the WP guidelines. Wikipaedia does not prohibit biased points of view (POVs). POVs are rife throughout Wikipaedia whenever there is an article that strongly relates to one of the parties to a dispute or conflict. Wikipaedia's policy is that the article on the POV-topic should be written from a NPOV based on WP:RS. If articles that represented a POV were banned then Wikipaedia would have to censor out articles on Climate Change, Palestine and Terrorism - and that would be absurd. BlueRobe (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen - all of you are excellent editors - I have no doubt of the integrity of Ragib and Aditya Kabir, nor do I consider BlueRobe's comment to be an outright personal attack. If any of you honestly feels there is POV/agenda-pushing going on, the only way to fight it is through policy-based, logical arguments. Retaliatory remarks will not be of any help, so please be cool, calm and respectful. Shiva (Visnu) 22:56, 21 September 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.

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

May-december romance -- Add to this discussion?

dicdef; delete. Lupo 12:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And the title is misspelled too. Gdr 13:21, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
Might be a good idea for an article, but this one is just a definition and it should be titled "May-December romance". Delete this one for now. -- Stevietheman 14:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, nothing useful here. Darn, now I have September Song? running through my head... For it's a long long time from May to December/And the days grow short when you reach September/And the autumn weather turns the leaves to flame/And you haven't got time for a waiting game... Dpbsmith (talk) 16:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Which singer's version of the song? I actually like the Lou Reed one. Oh, the article? Um, delete for dictdef that can't be expanded without our heading into People Magazine territory, and there's no point in that. Geogre 17:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'm partial to the Walter Huston version, from the original musical, in which the lyric actually rather menacing. Rich, powerful old guy expects to win the body if not the heart of the sweet young thing. "And I have lost one tooth/And I walk a little lame/But I have a little money/And I have a little fame." All of the song seems to be analogies with money and power. The phrase "These golden days I'd spend with you..." "If you examine the goods they bring they have little to offer but the songs they sing," whereas Stuyvesant "has a little money." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Dicdef. I don't know how it could be expanded in order to constitute encyclopedic content. Skyler 18:51, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Wake up Maggie, I think I got something to say to you/It's late September and I really should be back at school... Sorry, couldn't resist. Oh, delete, btw. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. An important 20th century (if not earlier) phenomenon. Rewritten. Denni☯ 03:33, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
Keep; rewritten (consider disregarding previous votes). Many thanks to Denni for the rewrite; I moved the text of the article over to Age disparity in sexual relationships and changed May-december romance to a redirect. • Benc • 21:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I see you have, but sigh ... User 66.56.110.36 had then already created a new article Older women-younger men. I would nominate that one for deletion separately and suggest merging contents with Age disparity in sexual relationships, except that this is getting so monotonous, and moreover that there is not that much to merge, apart from the unsupported statistic that 34% of women are now dating younger men in the US. Otherwise it's all there already in Age disparity, in more NPOV form. Could somebody appropriate please just delete Older women-younger men on sight without further formality? I suppose putting the 34 % statistic into Age disparity first, in case a reference for the figure is forthcoming. Bishonen 09:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Sorry, I see now that Older women-younger men has already been put up for deletion under its own steam. And you say you've already moved it? See, when I go look, it doesn't look moved, and isn't carrying a VfD template either. Maybe I'm having a cache bug or something. Checking ... no, the same thing happens when I change from Mozilla to Safari. Maybe the proxy is messing with me. Is anybody else experiencing the same problem in viewing this article, please?Bishonen 10:21, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - Actually, it's Older men-younger women that is listed on VfD, not Older women-younger men. Thank you for finding this third page; I've moved its content to Age disparity's talk page and changed it to a redirect. No need to list it a third time on VfD. (By the way, 66.56.110.36 created all three of these pages. In fact, I don't think any of the three pages should've been listed on VfD... the nominator should've merged them and listed it for cleanup.) • Benc • 19:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      - Sorry, Benc, yes, I know I got confused there ....I just couldn't face writing in a third time, after boring everybody to death already. Thanks for working out which target it was that I was shooting wildly in the general direction of. Bishonen 22:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm happy with • Benc •'s reorganization of this content at Age disparity in sexual relationships and change my vote to redirect. (The phrase "May-December" is more likely to be a search query than "Age disparity"). Denni☯ 05:16, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mandsford 01:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Programs of EMU

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

Already merged data into EMU article. I don't believe a redirect is necessary as I doubt anyone will search for this article title (they'll instead search for EMU) Dondegroovily (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though I see your merger was reverted. There is little value in listing all the degrees and programs offered at a university - whether it be within the main article or a separate one like this. WP:NOTDIR. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. I don't see any merge possible. Danski14^(talk) 16:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm the one who reverted addition of this material to the EMU article, it's clear to me that it is not encyclopedic material, delete per NOTDIR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:12, 12 September 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) 03:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK Tour 2009

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

Just another tour by a singer. The article does not satisfy the guidelines for concert tours set down in WP:NM Keresaspa (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable tour, ambiguous namespace to boot Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - maybe merge into artist, but this article probably isn't even notable enough for that. Dondegroovily (talk) 04:11, 9 September 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 List of The Transformers characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Arkeville

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

Non-notable fictional character - fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 17:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, no reliable sources for notability. Derild 49 21 ☼ 17:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of transformers characters per my arguments on the other AfD. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Jclemens Dondegroovily (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the G1 character list if the character is a reoccurring character, otherwise redirect to the episode list entry that the character appears in. —Farix (t | c) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing notability - I just added a good third party book citation that should help establish notability. Mathewignash (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now that notability is more established, I think it's a keeper. Mathewignash (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Transformers characters or something. An official guidebook is not a "third-party" publication, considering that Hasbro and such make profits from sales of those. I guess it could work as a reference, but not one that establishes notability. NotARealWord (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the sake of building a consensus. No third-party sources to WP:verify notability, although I admit the official guidebook used to make more money might be able to WP:verify a few facts. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge looks like the right call in this one. He could go in the decepticons article even if he's not actually a robot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 15 September 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 Mandsford 01:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Rick Powell

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

Not (yet) notable per WP:POLITICIAN--no coverage indicating notability either. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, I assume that his first name is not Colonel, so for consistency, the page should be title Rick Powell (without the Colonel). Also, article violates NPOV, seems there to promote his campaign. Dondegroovily (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but don't move it yet--let's not waste too many electrons. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If removing the colonel's title would help make this entry copacetic, it's not a problem - the title is legitimate, as is his record. He is a repeat candidate. The incumbent has a similar Wiki, with a history of similar or lesser noteworthiness (Marty Block). The colonel's military record alone should be enough - in my opinion.DangerStick (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DangerStick (talk • contribs) — DangerStick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- But the incumbent is the incumbent, and therefore presumably passes WP:POLITICIAN. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:POLITICIAN or the general notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding much in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources. He fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate. Also fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People as a serviceman of rank colonel and not being decorated at the highest levels. Of course no bias against recreating the article if he wins the election. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm learning, thank you - new to this. I've contacted the colonel, and will secure further background info. He was involved in a host of offensives, and that's not including his operations with Special Forces. As for awards, he's got a pile, including the Bronze Star and Legion of Merit. I'm not sure how to remove "colonel" from the page title, though. Like I said, I'm new. Yes, he is running for an assembly seat, but he's also a noted counter-terror expert on top of his military history. There is plenty to note, including photos and documentation, I'm just not doing a good job of it yet. Please bear with me.DangerStick (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)DangerStick (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing this with us. As far as the medals go, as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People indicates, he would need to have been awarded the Medal of Honor or the Silver Star multiple times for his awards to make him "instantly" notable. So we are relying on WP:BIO here, which means he needs to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. So your best bet would be to find newspaper or magazine articles about him, or mentions of him in books. As far as the naming goes, if the article is kept, I or someone else will change it (for future reference, you can change an article name by moving it - notice the "move" tab toward the top of the article). One thing that concerns me a little is that, if you have a close relationship with him (you told us you contacted him and refer to him as "The Colonel"), you may have a conflict of interest. So please understand that guideline. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable candidate for state legislature; has never held office. No news coverage found except a two-paragraph item stating that he won the primary. Unless significant news coverage is found, he fails the standard set at WP:POLITICIAN. --MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight. I only use "the colonel" because I was raised in a military-oriented household and it's comfortable. I have only limited familiarity with Col. Powell, which explains why getting his info has taken this long. I have received several Vietnam-period photos. I'll ask for records of coverage of military service next.DangerStick (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "records." If they are some sort of documentation published by the military, then they will suffice to verify the content of the article. However, they won't do anything to demonstrate the notability of the subject. You'll need to find coverage in other types of sources. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 12:57, 14 September 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) 03:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maralyn Parker

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

This article is about a newspaper columnist that has no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. As a columnist, google news turns up articles by her but not much about her. [43], [44], and [45] are some passing mentions. That article claims she has written several education books. A google book search confirms this but I can find no critical coverage or indication that these books have attracted notice. She also claims a couple of rewards related education related journalism. However, I find no coverage to indicate these are significant awards. Whpq (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that Parker meets notability criteria for inclusion; no significant coverage in independent sources and the awards do not appear to be significant enough to cement notability. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 16:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Strange Passerby (talk) 08:45, 9 September 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of smartphones

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

Advertising. Spammy. Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports. Consumer product comparision ephemera is not the mission of an encyclopedia. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom (next time, give the rest of us a chance to bring a new reason to the table!) Bigger digger (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. You could have added "original research". Whoops....--Wtshymanski (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have found this article extremely useful for a research project I am doing. It has given me a snapshot of smart phone capabilities, which factor in my analysis. A similar article could be e.g the comparison of world war 2 tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_early_World_War_II_tanks). I recommend that the article stays. --( added 17:21, 5 September 2010 by 86.164.199.163 (talk) on the discussion page and moved here)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Well sourced with lots of information, but certainly has that Consumer Reports feel to it. Dondegroovily (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it's a basic list, and a well sourced one at that. I worry some about synchronizing between all of the various smart phone lists we have. I'd highly suggest a merger of them... but aside from that, seems like a decent NPOV list. Shadowjams (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. Useful comparison of notable information, I can see no reason to delete it. Why is this "advertising" or "spammy"? Just because it is about consumer products doesn't mean it is "unencyclopedic". --memset (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Feel like it's in a list format, and it's well sourced. Granted it does need aditional verification, but we can always work on that later. However, if it makes people happy, I guess we could always call the article something like, "Smartphone Technical Specifications" or something like that. The idea is we can all edit any article, for the most part, so lets edit this one and get it up to Wikipedia standards! Flightx52 (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: "up to Wikipedia standards" - is that "de facto" standards or our ideals? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful, NPOV, keep it current. -- Sitearm | Talk 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems an encyclopedic comparison. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:07, 16 September 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 Foreign Policy Research Institute. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable program; no independent sources given or found. Could merge to Foreign Policy Research Institute which at least does claim the program; I cannot find any connection to the University of Pennsylvania as claimed in the article. Was previously listed for deletion, received one !vote to delete and none to keep, and was closed as "no consensus" with WP:NPASR. --MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 27 August 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, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to FFPI. A news search for (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) show its reports are picked up globally. It is clearly linked to Uni of Penn, at least by postal address, but I can't find anything independent to sufficiently support notability for its own article. Bigger digger (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:01, 9 September 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. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music as a Weapon Tour

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

Non notable concert tours that fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. Where references are provided, they either only publicise the tour dates or do not provided "significant coverage" of the tour itself to warrant inclusion. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Also nominating[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Music as a Weapon Tour It's Disturbed's own festival tour with plenty of significant coverage. The article is just poorly written at this moment and may look non-notable, but based on the number of Gnews hits, I'd say it probably is. Delete Asylum Tour This is superfluous to Uproar Festival and what may become Taste of Chaos 2010. It's also not technically "The Asylum Tour," but rather two festivals Disturbed is participating in after the release of Asylum. Delete Indestructible Tour Zero third-party coverage outside of lists of tour dates. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 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, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Asylum Tour – The band are not only performing at festivals on this tour; the band are playing their own shows and the tour will continue in to 2011. It is a major tour by a band who just had their fourth consecutive number one album on the Billboard 200. I expect further coverage of the tour as it progresses. Keep Indestructible Tour – For the same reason. I expect to find additional coverage to add to the article. (Freak.scenery (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Expect to find is not what we are looking for. The article, as with the vast majority of tours, does not gain significant coverage in reliable sources and thus fails WP:GNG. I find it highly unlikely that sufficient significant third party coverage will be found to establish notability as per WP:GNG. If such notability is established, then the article can be recreated. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Although there are two Keep votes, concerns on notability have apparently still not been met. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 02:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The use of the word "vote" above is interesting... No evidence has been provided to establish the required notability, and so these "votes" are simply opinions, and until notability is established, they mean little. The fact that additional references are expected to be found suggests that such references required to establish notability as per WP:GNG do not currently exist. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established from sources here, here, here, here, here and here. (Freak.scenery (talk) 00:57, 15 September 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. Mkativerata (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southseas Film and Television School

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

No indication that this film school meets WP:CORP. No sources other than the school's website. The duplicate article South Seas Film and Television School was speedy deleted as advertising gadfium 02:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 02:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has been added as proof that the film school exists. The duplicate was set-up as a correction to the name as the school's trading name is "South Seas" not "Southseas" —Preceding unsigned comment added by KentNolan (talk • contribs) 03:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no inherent notability for PTEs - most are quite small businesses with fewer than 50 students. They need to pass the GNG with non-promotional material. dramatic (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - as per nom. I also note that User:KentNolan's only contribution to wiki is this article and its predecessor, which suggests a possible COI. A cynic might also note that those contributions only started after User:SouthSeasFilmSchool was blocked from editing. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. no indication of notability. proof of existence is not proof of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:39, 14 September 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) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-State Consumer Insurance Company

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

Non-notable company lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Article is supported by Press Releases. ttonyb (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - No indication of notability and I can't find any sources that provide significant coverage to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 04:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted more potential sources supporting the notability of the company to the talk page of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tri-State_Consumer_Insurance_Company

I also tried to make the case there that a google search for the company returns a number of discussion boards looking for information on the company, indicating its need for a page SamXMorris (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC) — SamXMorris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Wikipedia articles must meet the criteria for Wikipedia based notability using reliable sources. The sources do not meet the criteria for reliable sources, the majority are Press Releases. Wikipedia is not a venue to disseminate information about companies that do not meet Wikipedia defined criteria, the company should be able to do so using their own website. ttonyb (talk) 01:50, 10 September 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, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sufficient sources to establish notability. On the talk page, User:SamXMorris and User:Dsforeman (both WP:SPAs) argue "A search for "TSC Direct" returns a number of message boards with users asking for information about the company. In my opinion, having a wikipedia article that collects all verifiable information about the company fills an important empty niche." and "When searching on Google for TSC Direct you see posts on Q&A sites and forums with many people are seeking information about the company and asking specifically if it is a legitimate business. A local NY insurance company with 100 million in assets is certainly notable and a Wikipedia article would provide valuable information for people who would otherwise have few other reliable sources of information." On the contrary, if the sources are not already there to be readily found on a Google search, that is an argument AGAINST including in it Wikipedia. We only put things here that can be verified by independent sources. --MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 22 September 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. Given the discussions and even the nomination statement, despite this keep close, there is no prejudice to an early renomination for an AfD in case the article is not developed Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Western Wall camera

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

Non-notable webcam. There are several different webcams focused on the Western Wall, and this one isn't different in any way. Perhaps a distinction in the mid 1990's, but none now. Jmlk 1 7 02:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 14:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless further notability can be established. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not about a single wall cam, but about the idea of them. The idea of wall cams does meet the general notability guideline - there has been significant coverage on the topic in newspapers, books, and other reliable sources. Linda Olive (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep The article is indeed about Western Wall web cameras in general, not about a particular camera, so the nom's rationale is invalid. The cited sources establish a certain amount of notability, which seems just barely sufficient. Perhaps the nom can show why there is insufficient notability, or the creator(s) can bring more sources, deciding the issue either way. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve/expand a little googling under various keywords readily reveals that there are multiple cameras (as the article states), many news articles spread over several years, and even discussions in books on digital art, one of which I added as a source.AMuseo (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: improve&expand Lack of specific rationale for nomination on non-notability by nominator. Article needs a little work like a purpose section, otherwise deletion should be better rationalized.QuAz GaA 21:27, 15 September 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. While Kotniski does make a point, there is a clear lack of sources to prove notability. The consensus therefore that I see is for delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Adamski

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

Non-notable bodybuilder who has not won any major championships in his sport. The article lacks references and contains at least one dubious BLP reference. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:RS. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not sourceable to the level required by WP:NOTE . Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find anything nor is the anything currently in the article to establish notablity. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 14:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 14:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 14:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. :Huh? The guy's a national champion and sixth in the world (so it says). If that isn't notable, I don't know what is. (Plenty of hits on Polish bodybuilding sites - the Polish version of the article contains some independent sources.)--Kotniski (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although having competed at 2008 World Amateur Championships - I think he does scrape by WP:ATHLETE - but he fails WP:GNG. There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of him and/or his work. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see people's thinking here. Having competed in his sport's major world championship, he doesn't just "scrape by" WP:ATHLETE, he passes it confortably. (I don't know why being national champion isn't listed as a criterion under athlete, but it surely should be, and that would be another reason.) American athletes of far less significance are given Wikipedia articles - why the rush to delete someone who just happens to come from a country where the sources are written in a funny language?--Kotniski (talk) 12:19, 11 September 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 CSD G3, blatant vandalism. Founder of an extinct Indian tribe? Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph "Nanmankoi" Newman

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

Not notable. No Ghits to speak of that are WP:RS. Possibly a hoax, based on teacher and classmates listed. Supposedly founded an Indian tribe. No refs. GregJackP Boomer! 01:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no RS required by the BLP policy and notability guideline. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at best this is a biography that has no WP:RS and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Could be a hoax, but most definitely full of very trivial details that do nothing to show notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:17, 9 September 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 00:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GMV Nashville

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

No reliable sources found. Only sources are a blog and a primary source. Presence of notable artists on label doesn't mean inherent notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Nowyouseeme talk2me 06:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 September 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, 16 September 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 05:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USCG Station Montauk

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

Non-notable minor Coast Guard station; no assertion of notability in article; no WP:RS that are secondary; prod was contested on the basis that it was one of the units that responded to the TWA 800 recovery, however, notability cannot be conveyed by participation in a single incident, and so fails WP:GNG. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 01:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First of all, being a United States Coast Guard Station is an assertion of notability, hence nobody has even suggested this has notability issues since its creation almost 3 years ago in 2007. Secondly, it easily passes WP:NOTABILITY as it has significant coverage by very reliable sources such as the New York Times. [46][47][48]. The United States Coast Guard has a very long and detailed history of the station long before it moved to its present location in 1955.[49] --Oakshade (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ITEXISTS, WP:ARTICLEAGE, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES don't help.--S. Rich (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bunch of links from the WP:AADD essay (non-guideline) page? As you seem to value that essay, it also mentions WP:VAGUEWAVE. Care to explain how you feel there isn't significant coverage?--Oakshade (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What our colleague here means to say is that the bare fact that something is a Coast Guard station does not mean it has inherent notability, and neither does the age of the article mean it has encyclopedic value. As you might imagine, in order to keep this article, there's going to have to be some sort of assertion that it meets WP:GNG, and the sources you've put forward are of marginal local interest. Just because something has been covered in secondary sources doesn't mean it meets WP:N. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 06:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another option would be to merge and redirect to Montauk. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would think any official United States military establishment would warrant an article, especially one which is active and performing coastal navigation duties. -OberRanks (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a permanent US military establishment. I do consider such as intrinsically or necessarily notable, and even if someone does not choose to do that, there are sources for this one in particular . DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 15 September 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 a10, article in Indonesian about cycle rickshaws. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Becak di kota pahlawan

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

nonsense Xmoes (talk) 01:23, 9 September 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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crime scene getaway

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

Dicdef. No sources. Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Getaway car closed as no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:DIC and WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 01:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why was it moved from Getaway car? That seems like the notable term here. Surely there'd be scholarly forensic material on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back and keep - there are thousands of possible scholarly sources and literally millions of decent references to the term. See WP:BEFORE and WP:UGLY. 23:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously not a dictionary definition - not even close. As for sources, please see the The complete idiot's guide.... Colonel Warden (talk) 22:23, 17 September 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 05:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Gobran

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

fails WP:BIO . if the claim "Gobran have several times been nominated for the Nobel Prize" was true she would appear several times in the media. yet only gets 2 gnews hits. [50]. and no reliable sources to back the claim [51]. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 14:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While she appears to be doing noble work, the 4 GBooks hits seem merely to establish her existence, not her meeting Wikipedia guidelines for notability. No prejudice against re-creation should she later meet those guidelines. Edward321 (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant coverage. I should note that does not mean she wasn't nominated for the Nobel....over one-hundred people are nominated for the Nobel each year and the quirky nominating system means that some of them are far more obscure than Gobran Vrivers (talk) 10:51, 12 September 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 05:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Norwegians by religion

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

This appears as a fairly random list of people, listed by criteria which have nothing to do with why they are famous. I don't see the point of this article, and I feel it contradicts WP:DIRECTORY Barend (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what next? list of Americans by religion? that would be an extremely long article. Categories adequately cover this. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An irrelevant and randomly assembled list. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an informative, well organized list which serves as a valuable research tool concerning notable Norwegians. Per WP:BLP, any entries concerning living people without inline citations to RS would need to be removed, of course. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory and it is completely redundant to this category. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 14:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 14:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1) This is probably actually a legitimate example of an unencyclopedic cross-characterization. 2) Since this is BLP material, each entry needs to be reliably sourced in this list, which it's not. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An interesting idea and nicely rendered, but this particular list needs to be sourced out to avoid violating BLP policy, per J. Clemens... Footnote it A/O or lose it. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikpedia is not a case study. Dew Kane (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's stupid to have a list. I'd have no problem with categories, though. Roscelese (talk) 03:55, 16 September 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 no !votes for deletion, article was greatly improved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retail design

AfDs for this article:

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

Dicdef, unsourced OR. Last AFD closed with a keep based on "This article just needs some work," but once again, everyone expected everyone else to do the work and thus we just went around in circles and did jack squat. It's always somebody else's problem isn't it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator voted "strong keep" in the articles last AfD - what's changed since then? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I am no longer one of those people who says "keep but add sources" without making any attempt to prove that sources exist. Unfortunately, we have so many people who still do that same freaking thing, thus making a big Gordian knot of WP:SEP... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, you're one of those people who would have an article deleted rather than add some references? It's always someone else's problem isn't it? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 11 September 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, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From "Strong Keep" to nominating for deletion? Hmmmm. Actually, the correct answer is that it's hard to give a crap one way or the other. Certainly an example of a poorly sourced article, but that makes it one of about 500,000 sitting on WP. Maybe more. Carrite (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I seriously thought this was a huge joke on somebody's part, but apparently not. I am appalled nonetheless. Therefore, I have gone in and added a number of references to the article and have completely rewritten and expanded the history section of the article. This nomination seems to be, to me, an extreme violation of WP:BEFORE. Silver seren^C 02:30, 16 September 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. After 3 weeks, there still does not seem to be consensus in either direction. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Corriel

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

General notability not established / Poor sources - lack of sources for BLP Dawnseeker2000 01:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's some small level of news coverage, mostly trivial or dating from his college days. In my opinion, fails WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 04:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I cleaned up the article and improved the sourcing. Two of his musicals have won significant regional awards; I think that may be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Not a huge amount of coverage, but enough for WP:N. I added citations to articles in the Telegram & Gazette. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:17, 7 September 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, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A BLP with questionable notability and utter lack of community interest (TWO relistings!) is a pretty clear cut delete. -- ۩ Mask 00:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources. A mere lack of participation in an AFD is not, by itself, evidence of non-notability. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Too little coverage of him as a composer, and most of it rather local. Does not quite pass WP:CREATIVE, IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 06:18, 9 September 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha Bruin 350

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

Unreferenced / orphan article about a product that is no longer in production. Biker Biker (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; unreferenced does not mean references don't exist; it may take a little hashing out, but a quick search gives results indicating that the item is notable; keep in mind that notability is not temporary; the fact that the vehicle is no longer in production bears no weight. Aeternitas827 (talk) 08:43, 3 September 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, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, already has a citation to significant coverage in one RS; it's likely that more will be forthcoming. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:20, 9 September 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha Raptor 700R

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

Unreferenced, badly written and virtually an orphan. Biker Biker (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Those are bad reasons for deletion. Sources exist out there to establish the article's notability. Derild 49 21 ☼ 23:49, 2 September 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, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references meet the requirements of the notability guideline. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:21, 9 September 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) 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CD DVD printer

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 3 September 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, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising masquerading as article. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 9 September 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. The "delete" arguments are not as strong as the "keep" arguments. Just because the book might not be notable doesn't mean it's not reliable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puroshottam Choudhary

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

I have tried hard and have not been able to find reliable sources that back the notability asserted within the article. A previous prod of a similarly named article that covered more or less similar contents had resulted in a delete in January 2010. Requst AfD delete. Thanks and regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 09:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 09:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have an entire book written about him in English: Joseph, Ravela (2004), Bhakti theology of Purushottam Chowdhari, Christian Literature Society, OCLC 65517210. Reasonable expectation of further non-English and/or offline sources. Scant information online, but it confirms the basic outline of the article: he was Telugu and wrote hymns. I added what I could find to the article. Typical for a long-dead guy from a non-Roman-alphabet country, there's multiple transcriptions to look out for: Purushottam/Puroshottam, Chowdhury/Chaudhary/etc, in both orders. Died in 1880, so no BLP/self-promotion concerns. cab (call) 09:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Delete Ravela's book is found in only 28 libraries. No coverage in mainline publications. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 11:47, 2 September 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, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to discount the book found by CaliforniaAliBaba. We are discussing the notability of the subject, not of the book, so the number of libraries holding the book is irrelevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 14 September 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) 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hat Full of Stars Tour

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

Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Articles comprise of only an unsourced set list, not even a list of dates Nouse4aname (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following tours for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 3 September 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, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any references or sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines Nowyouseeme talk2me 06:27, 10 September 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. 14 days, no objection, and none had ever been prodded, so treat as an uncontested PROD going forward. Courcelles 05:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singles Tour

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

Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Articles comprise of only an unsourced set list, not even a list of dates Nouse4aname (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following tours for the same reasons

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 3 September 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, 9 September 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 14 days, treating as an uncontested PROD. Courcelles 05:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love Tour

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

Non-notable concert tour. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Sources fail WP:RS and do not establish “significant coverage” by multiple independent outlets. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 3 September 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, 9 September 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) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vokle

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

Video conferencing application. Lacks any substantial coverage from reliable sources (and I was unable to find any in a quick search). Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 2 September 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, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources and the information about the Tech Coast Angels, they are the one of the largest investment angel pools around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeksquader (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget the password to User:Sochill33? ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
No observed discussions, therefore I'm relisting again. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, passing mention in some reliable sources, but no significant coverage. Notability is not conferred upon software by the fame of people who use it, or who invests in it. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:21, 21 September 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 05:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sedley Alley

AfDs for this article:

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

Murderer who fails WP:PERP. There are general WP:ONEVENT issues with the article, and a previous AFD closed as no consensus in 2006. Claritas § 17:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I said in the first nomination, there has been an enormous amount of news coverage regarding the crime and his execution. The crime was notable (one of the most horrific in Shelby county history), the execution was notable (only the second one in Tennessee in 45 years), and the fact that there are still questions about his guilt or innocence is notable. The DNA evidence was never tested, and the Shelby County prosecutor's office still refuses to hand over the evidence for testing. The crime was a major part of the book "Journey into Darkness" by John Douglas (former FBI profiler). Furthermore, since Alley's execution his case has been repeatedly used as an example by The Innocence Project as case in which an innocent man was executed. At one time this was a lengthy and detailed article, however death penalty activists continue to butcher it and remove details of the crime, info about the trial, and Alley's life prior to murder. Martylunsford —Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. What we see in in this version, the most substantial version, there is a substantial block of unsourced text, and typically the sort of arguments used by anti-capital punishment activists to stay an execution. I believe it was inadequately attributed, and was rightly removed. Of course, if Marty can source it to reliable third party sources, we should have another look. As it stands, it should go. We don't have articles about all capital cases, and that is also right and proper. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm currently on the fence about this one, so I plan to wait a few days. I agree with Ohconfucius that material was removed due to unsourced text (which appeared to have been copied), not because of "activists", and that not every capital case is notable. On the other hand, this one does get a fair number of GBooks, GNews, and GScholar hits. Why? I'm not sure. It would be great if a better claim to notability could be made in a properly-sourced article. Some decision (redirect/merge/rename/delete) will also need to be made regarding the article of the victim, Suzanne Marie Collins. Location (talk) 19:55, 3 September 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, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Asswipe Murderer Who Got Executed is a news story, not an encyclopedia topic. Carrite (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some coverage around his death and almost certainly a whole lot more around his trial and sentencing (it's not on the net but is referred to in the current coverage). Stuartyeates (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ONEVENT maybe, but large enough to meet notability and with significant legal tentacles VASterling (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the book by Douglas. That seems enough to set this apart as a non-routine example. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per scorpiondollprinces's comments in the first nomination. Namely, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." per WP:BIO. Subject is the the focus of regional and national news stories in Nashville News, The Tennessean,Tennessee Independent Media Center, Eyewitness News (WPTY TV), WBIR TV News, WREG TV News, The Nashville Post,CBS News, MSNBC,WVLT TV News, and The Jackson Sun (just to mention a few). A google search seems to yield plenty of multiple, non-trivial coverage of Sedley Alley's crime, trial, appeal, and execution. Sam1174 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 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) 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xeltek Inc.

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

Highly promotional of what does not appear to be a notable company, only one GNews hit and first page of GHits are self published or the like. Codf1977 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are only GNews articles allowed for notability? Earlier I had written in the article about certain breakthroughs the company had in the device programming community, in particular Stand-Along programming (which i was going to write another article about after i got this article passed), which had been deleted by another user because he said it was promotional. I had this article reviewed by other wikipedia editors, at least a handful of drafts, and everything seemed fine. A lot of the text I had put in, which I believed gave more depth about the company in hand, had been deleted saying it was promotional or advertisement (which I don't agree with). An ex: Xeltek provides programming solutions... Solutions was deleted for being a peacock term? but I wrote solutions because they deal with solutions for programming needs other than selling programmers such as providing socket adapters to program different types of chips. Junjoon (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt have to be from google news, but it does have to be a source independant from the topic of the article and have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. see WP:RS. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 15:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The chief independent references seem to be to "Our Suppliers" pages, and to PRLog, apparently a host for press releases. Nothing about the references suggests truly independent and substantial coverage; nothing about the article suggests that this business's products have any historical, technical or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:53, 3 September 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, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, press releases are insufficient. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, I also STRONGLY suggest that the articles creator read WP:COI, due to his "suggestion" on my talk page here to delete a an article about one of his competitors. WuhWuzDat 19:13, 10 September 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) 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Cummings (martial artist)

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

Search revealed at best only trivial coverage in third party sources. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a request to delete this article, apparently made by the subject. SpinningSpark 12:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was about the only coverage I could find. Based on that and the fact that the subject wants it deleted I think it should go. Smartse (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found him mentioned on the IKF and USMTA web sites, as well as a mention in Black Belt magazine when he lost a Muay Thai world title bout. I think you can make a case for his being notable, although I wish I had more sources. I'm concerned about the amount the amount of vandalism on his page and don't know how much weight to give the subject's desire to have the article removed. Papaursa (talk) 00:36, 7 September 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, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not referenced to the standards of WP:NOTE and WP:BLP. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:23, 9 September 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. Unmistakable consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Profile Records

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

Non-notable record label with multiple issues...only has one source, which may I add, is only a quote from a message board on Yahoo! No sources whatsoever on the artists' that had recorded and released material on this label. Fails WP:Notability. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have a new metric for indie labels that merits consideration: does the label's artist roster include bands with WP articles standing? Profile Records is showing a fair amount of blue links and that's good enough for me... Enough notable bands makes a notable label... Carrite (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple sources can be found easily: New York magazine, Billboard magazine, Billboard again, and mentions elsewhere as well. Just being the label where Run-D.M.C. debuted and had their greatest success would seem to establish this company's notability, and they had other gold and platinum-selling artists as well: Rob Base and DJ E-Z Rock, Dana Dane, DJ Quik, and N2Deep. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BEFORE appears not to have been followed. Profile Records has an entry in The Virgin Encyclopedia of Dance Music, coverage in David Toop's Rap Attack, The Rough Guide to Hip Hop, etc. Clearly notable, just needs improvement.--Michig (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC) See also Google Books1, Google Books 2, Google News.--Michig (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Period. Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep warpozio (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passed the notability requirement(s). Jmlk 1 7 20:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was an important independent dance and hip hop label in the 1980s and it is interesting to read of its history, although the article could do with some improvement. Dubmill (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 11 September 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.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis Bean}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vacuum Excavation}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best Behaviour}}