Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 19: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:02, 19 July 2011

< 18 July	20 July >

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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. The nominator has had his chance to provide a valid reason for deletion and has failed to do so. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Horne (radio)

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

a number of inaccuracies Frdbr (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can those inaccuracies be fixed by normal editing? If not, why not? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. The reason suggested for deletion is not a valid reason to delete the page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have this discussion closed? The nominator failed to provide an adequate reason for deletion and has not edited Wikipedia at all since then. This probably should have been a speedy close, rather than keeping the discussion open indefinitely. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Default to keep I'm not sure if Horne's departure from Metro Radio ([1]) days before this nomination has anything to do with it, but this isn't a nomination that's given us anything to work with so.. Someone another 17:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. three relistings have brought us no closer to consensus. I have no personal opinion on the notability, but there just isn't consensus to delete. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudonym (band)

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

Delete due to lack of notability. Does not meet any of the topical notability guidelines for bands; local band plays weekly in a local nightclub, independently released one EP, which did not chart and article claims was not successful. Press coverage in support of local gigs. Does not meet general notability guidelines; references provided do not equate to significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, most trivial with some only barely mentioning the subject. Cind.amuse 10:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the band has been featured on the radio twice and performs an average of 120 concerts a year. According to WP:BAND, bands should at least have a single or an album but the band has an EP consisting three singles with one more single released later. The EP was not commercially successful but their singles were smash hit on their concerts. Lastly, the references present on the article are reliable, although there are not many newspaper articles related to this band. With regards, Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{10:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
- Comment. The band appears to have local popularity, plays in a local club, and has garnered local press. The press garnered is not significant. The band has not charted with any albums or singles on any country's national music chart. They have not released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels. No national or international tours, no awards, no successful songs or albums. While a claim is made that the band has been featured on radio twice, reliable/independent sources have not been found to lend support or define the appearance, (i.e., half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network). While I thought a couple weeks might provide opportunity to establish notability, the criteria unfortunately has not been met yet. Possibly in the future. Cind.amuse 02:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I agree that the band has not recorded an album on a major label, in India there are only a few major record labels, I know only one of them i.e. Sony BMG. Only Bollywood artists work with Sony BMG leaving a few exceptions. And, India does not have any music chart for bands although there are music charts for Bollywood movie songs. And that’s why only bollywood artists get popular while bands do not get much popular. The band (Pseudonym) has performed one show in Ranchi, Jharkhand, India on 31st January, 2010 according to their concert list, which makes it a national tour. Regards. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{04:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
    - Comment. I can't rationalize the band's failure to record on a major or important indie label or inability to chart in India. The charts that I am familiar with off the top of my head are the Indipop Top 100, Desi Rock 100, and Mirchi Top 100. I'm sure there's more for different categories, including for movies. On another note, one gig does not a national tour make. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. These are mostly (99%) for bollywood songs/artists (Indian Pop Music/Songs written in Hindi). India actually doesnot have any proper chart for Indian Rock Music/Indian Rock Bands. Also, you are considering this reliable but not considering the artilces on daily broadsheet newspapers of India. Regards. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{15:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete No evidence of satisfying any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, particualarly WP:GNG or WP:BAND. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree that it does not satisfy all the guidelines but it does satisfy most of the guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:BAND and the sources can be found on the article's references section and further reading section. Regards. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{08:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
  - Comment We've discussed the failure to meet the WP:GNG in great detail, but could you provide evidence that the subject meets just one of the topical notability guidelines for bands? Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. It does meet the first one - Reliable Sources. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{16:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Comment. This band was featured on the newspaper The News Today based in Dhaka, Bangladesh. You may check it out [2]. Regards. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{07:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
- I'm not sure what "featured" is supposed to mean in this context, but the band is mentioned in a few sentences in an article not primarily about them. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The write-up in the fifth paragraph is about them. Hopefully, the article now meets WP:GNG. Regards. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{14:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
    - Comment This source is not indicative of significant coverage to establish notability in accordance with the general notability guidelines. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. There is nothing wrong about it, its a media (a broadsheet newspaper) in Bangladesh, a valid reliable source as per WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{17:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep The band has done one national tour, and has managed to get a whole paragraph of coverage in a newspaper published in another country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no evidence to support that the band has had a national tour. And one whole paragraph in a newspaper does not equate to significant coverage to establish notability according to the WP:GNG. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A click through of the sources show the band has received significant coverage, perhaps not sufficiently detailed, but from multiple independent reliable sources. Way past GNG, IMHO, but not yet to WP:BAND. This page needs improvement, not deletion. BusterD (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. When sources do not "sufficiently detail" the band, this generally equates to a lack of significant coverage. In order to establish notability according to the notability guidelines for bands, the band must have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. The band lacks coverage meeting this criteria. The article existed for several weeks in an attempt to offer the article creator more time to improve the article by providing references to establish notability, to no avail. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080826/jsp/entertainment/story_9741501.jsp and http://www.ilovekolkata.in/index.php/Nightlife/Pseudonym-Music-with-an-alternative-twist.html have detailed information about the band, there are other sources in which the band is mentioned on a paragraph or on a few lines. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{04:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local covers band. Coverage is trival local interest stuff, not significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The band has an EP, and there are articles on daily broadsheet newspapers in India. Also, there is one article on a daily broadsheet newspaper based in Bangladesh. You can check out the references and the further reading section. Regards. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{04:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
  - Comment. Again, the album, containing three songs did not chart and was not a success. And the articles about the band are rather peripheral and not significant in nature. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I couldnt find any chart for Indian Rock Bands. Their songs were sucess during their live concerts. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{16:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Weak keep. Band has one article devoted to it. A couple more-than-casual mentions elsewhere. Seems likely to generate more. 78.26 (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Nominator's rationale is sound and there's no objections to deletion so I'm treating this as an uncontested PROD. Since it has sources this article can be restored upon request at requests for undeletion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel A. Jenkins

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

Non-notable musician: there's lots of little bits that might establish notability, but they don't quite do so. Having talents sufficient to meet and work with celebrities doesn't make you notable. The footnotes might suggest notability: the National Academy of Recording Artists - the people who put on the Grammy Awards, right? But working with NARAS to lobby the government doesn't make you notable in the same way as winning a Grammy does.

Google test doesn't bring up enough to establish notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 03:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Gonsalves

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

as per previous nomination. I see no reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biography of the person has a UN award and is the first Goan to be awarded by UN. It meets criteria WP:ANYBIO Sehmeet singh (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an awarded fellow, it seems to meet criteria --Ouaanaya1 (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Ouaanaya1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an aside, this closer also has an EN of 4. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anar Ahkmedov

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

A Mathematician. Received PhD in 2006. Is an Assistant Professor at the University of Minnesota. Google scholar comes up with 14 publications (minus the duplicates). Fails WP:PROF. Note: The article has his last name spelled wrong. Last name should be aKHmedov. Bgwhite (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I was in the middle of writing an almost identical Afd for Akhmedov when Bgwhite preempted me. GcSwRhIc (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS h-index of 8. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A recently appointed Assistant Professor, was a postdoc until 2009, does not pass WP:PROF for now. Off to a strong start, as already has two papers in Inventiones Mathematicae (which is one of the most prestigious math journals), so may well become notable in several years - but not yet. Nsk92 (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Premature, but probably meriting sometime in the future. Agricola44 (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. He has an Erdos number of 4. Voyager640 (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote from WP:PROF: "Having a small collaboration distance from a famous or notable academic (e.g. having a small Erdos number) is not, in and of itself, indicative of satisfying Criterion 1". This is a general consequence of the WP:NOTINHERITED principle. Plus Erdos number 4 is actually pretty large (I did a random check of a few people in my math department and everybody I looked at had Erdos number 4 or smaller; my own is 3 - it really does not mean anything). Nsk92 (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second the above. I have an Erdos number of 4 and I'm a nobody. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Erdos number is used in determining whether an integer's mathematical properties are interesting or not; see WP:1729. Voyager640 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:1729 is just an essay, with no policy/guideline standing, unlike WP:PROF, which is a guideline. Second, even taken on its own terms, WP:1729 is entirely irrelevant to notability of individuals, as WP:1729 deals with issues of notability (or "interest") of numbers, not people. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1729 is a joke page. See Interesting number paradox for another joke. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Ah yes, good point! I should have tried to read that page itself, not just its header. Nsk92 (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My own Erdos 2 doesn't make me notable. There's probably a stronger case for Erdos 1, but even then notability is probably established under some other more solid grounds. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. WP:Prof makes it clear that there is no case at all for Erdos 1. Notability has to be established according to agreed policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. It seems pretty ironclad. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Balagot

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

The references in the article either fail the standards for reliable sources or do not directly concern the subject (or both), and quick search did not reveal a sufficient amount of independent coverage. wctaiwan (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response: If this page is deleted it will break the composer link from 6 Days on Earth. As a transgender activist, Balagot's article on Gwen Arajo's death has been cited in two scholarly sources.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any significant independent 2ndary sources discussing this person. There are some passing references on the web, and IMDB does have some data ... but just means the person was credited for some job in a film production. --Noleander (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Courcelles 01:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzschlag MNIT Jaipur

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

fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. all I could find was 1 gnews hit [3]. LibStar (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete not passing WP:EVENT guidelines but it can be passed under WP:ATD which says If the notability of an event is in question but it is primarily associated with a particular person, company or organization, or can be covered as part of a wider topic, it may preferable to describe the event within a preexisting article, by merging content. Care should be taken not to give the event undue weight or violate our policy and If there is no suitable target for merging, a solution may be to rework the article to widen its context beyond a single event.Sehmeet singh (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur and merge after severely pruning its content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Hugunin

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

The article does not assert notability with independent sources, which I failed to find with a quick Google. There is also potentially a conflict of interest as the creator is a co-author of a book along with the subject. wctaiwan (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ——Bagumba (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ——Bagumba (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. A similar version was speedied before as A7. Hairhorn (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as an WP:AUTHOR as sources do not exist that are independent of the subject that establish his expertise as a writer. The current article relies frequently on original research and self published sources. It is possible someone can demonstrate notability based on WP:POLITICIAN. However, most of sources on Google are subscription only and I cannot determine if it goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage to determine if notability can be established by WP:POLITICIAN. Some quotations from identified sources could help to verify any notability claims. With the noted conflict of interest concerns, please ensure sources are reliable —Bagumba (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Emory University#Student organizations. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WMRE (Emory)

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

Non-notable local college amateur affair. No independent sources. No evidence that there is any coverage of it outside its own college. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I don't see a listing for WMRE in the FCC ULS. Some low-power stations are allowed to transmit w/o a license. A redirect to the Emory University page would be in order, but I wouldn't cry if one deletes this. Roodog2k (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Emory University#Student organizations No FCC entry or incoming links, sounds like a better redirect candidate than an article candidate. Nate • (chatter) 11:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I really chose my wording poorly above. I apologize for that, I had not finished my coffee when I wrote it. If notibility cannot be established, the article should be merged with the Emory University page. Roodog2k (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Emory University#Student organizations, and drop the unsupported claim of 'enjoying a worldwide audience' (not mentioned in linked source) in the main article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there a wikipedia policy on notability for radio stations. This is a radio station that has an actual frequency and braodcats. I am not sure if that matters or not, but it would be nice to know if there was a relevant policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Levine (photographer)

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

Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per the policy mentioned in the nom. Tarheel95 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article says that works by Levine have been exhibited at the NPG. This Levine should not be confused with another, far better-known Levine. However, the latter wasn't born in 1960. A David Levine born in 1960 is (minimally) represented in the NPG. -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Moore (actress)

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

Delete Disputed prod several years ago due to article being less than 24 hours old at the time. Actress had less than a dozen total appearances in film, and only one article about her that I can find. Not sure that one passes WP:RS either. Nothing with significant coverage found via Gbooks, Gnews etc. Doubtful that any exists. Fails WP:GNG, and additional criteria of WP:BIO. NOTE: This is the 80s Italian actress, not the current porn actress. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm in support of more porn stars on Wikipedia but this person isn't notable enough to have an article for herself.--Silent Bob (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rustington F.C.

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

Article recreated after deletion by prod and still no sources. Fails WP:FOOTY guideline of eligibility to play in the FA Cup and the FA Vase is not the same at all.No reliable secondary sources have been found to establish notability. The club is not even in the top league for the county. Charles (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Club plays at Step 6 of the English football pyramid, which has also been used as a notability guideline in the past (see here and here). By playing at this level, the club is eligible to compete in the FA Cup, but cannot due to lack of floodlights. Number 5 7 20:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can but it can't? You can't have it both ways. Clearly the club is not eligible.--Charles (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It can't play in the Cup because of certain conditions related to its ground, but it plays at a level at which clubs without this problem are eligible (the club could actually play in the cup if they really wanted by moving their home matches to another stadium like Durham City do (as they have a plastic pitch which is not allowed by competition rules)). Anyway, as noted in the two links to AfDs above (one of which subsquently links to many others), playing at this level has previously also been used to prove notability regardless of FA Cup playing. Number 57 22:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have also added a couple of references to the article. Number 5 7 10:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not eligible to play in the FA Cup, failing WP:FOOTYN. Giant Snowman 21:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The FOOTYN criteria is a nonsense, because it would mean 6,000 French clubs are eligible for articles because there is no restriction on entry. Number 5 7 22:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on further thought, this team plays at a notable level. Would still like to see the article improved though. Giant Snowman 14:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regardless of not being eligible for the FA Cup. Is a team that can't even get itself floodlights really notable? Delusion23 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Number57's rationale. --Jimbo^[online] 11:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments put forward by number 57. To delete this article because they don't have floodlights seems like a technicality. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Burning 2004

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

also nominating:

another sprawling series of non notable results that fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources listed are primary, and insufficient coverage in third-party sources. I am just shocked there are this many articles. Everytime I come onto AfD, I see about three or four new ones of these. I did a quick search for K-1 Burning 2004:

This newspaper article, half about the event, half about how the servicemen going to the event were happy about seeing it. I'm genuinely surprised it exists, and it's actually a halfway decent source for the event.
This page (translated from Korean) appears to an interview with an individual fighter, where the the fighter's injuries during the fight are mentioned in relation to a question about what fight was the "most difficult and best."

All that said, there's only one non-primary source here, and it's just not going to cut it. If there are more independent sources that provide significant coverage (which I was unable to find), I'll consider changing my vote. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These events are loaded with non-notable fighters and don't seem to be significant. The articles also lack good sources. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this is OR by SYNTH and therefore falls to deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group

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

This article is an amalgam of information contained in other, dedicated articles Robin S (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added this page to today's AfD log, because I forgot to do so at the time. Robin S (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the article’s creator and a substantial contributor. The article contains information from 20 authors regarding aspects of a 'Dominant group'. By reference number the authors information is found on the following Wikipedia pages:

1. Knowles - only 'Dominant group',

2. Bourdieu - Culture, Archaeology of religion and ritual, Sociology of education, Structure and agency, and 'Dominant group',

3. Spain - Kinmel Hall and 'Dominant group',

4. Moore - only 'Dominant group',

5. Hardiman - Christian privilege and 'Dominant group',

6. Blumenfeld - Christian privilege and 'Dominant group',

7. Lieberson - only 'Dominant group',

8. May - only 'Dominant group',

10. Reskin - only 'Dominant group',

11. Moro - only 'Dominant group',

12. Rosenberg - Rosalind Rosenberg and 'Dominant group',

13. Rothman - only 'Dominant group',

14. Young - Spatial justice, Iris Marion Young, Political freedom, Christian privilege, GIS and environmental governance, and 'Dominant group',

15. Johnston - Human geography, Imperialism, Outline of anarchism, Anarchism, Karl Marx, Libertarianism, Individualism, and 'Dominant group',

16. Gilmartin - Tropical geography, Imperialism, and 'Dominant group',

17. Ås - Master suppression techniques and 'Dominant group',

18. Andrén - Master suppression techniques and 'Dominant group',

19. - Master suppression techniques and 'Dominant group',

20. Benton - Evolutionary history of life, Paleontology, Extinction event, and 'Dominant group',

21. Van Valkenberg - Evolutionary history of life, Extinction event, Life, Cat gap, and 'Dominant group'.

At least ten of these authors are discussing dominant groups, which meets the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Further, seven of these authors' information is unique to 'Dominant group'. The last three sections bring in a broader view of the concept. Author 1. Knowles provides a definition of the term. No one article on Wikipedia specifically focuses on the concept of a 'Dominant group'. Marshallsumter (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My principal argument against disambiguation is that the concept of a 'dominant group' such as defined by author 1. Knowles has been modified somewhat and applied to areas outside Sociology, yet the concept is basically the same whether by simple numbers of organisms, biomass, power, or whatever. There are dominant groups in other species and between species.
With respect to synthesis or original research WP:SYN states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." Smerdis of Tlön is essentially correct that any synthesis perceived by the reader comes from the authors themselves.
As to merging, each of the subtopic articles either only mention a 'dominant group' a few times such as in Minority group (four times); Marginalization and Extinction event (twice); The Establishment, Romantic racism, Imperialism, Master suppression techniques (only once); Discrimination, Hegemony and Dominance (ecology) (not mentioned); or are articles in need of extensive revision such as Dominant minority, Elite, and Oppression. Each of these actually focuses on the article topic not necessarily on 'Dominant group' per se.
Concerning revision, the initial author content of twenty has been raised to forty-seven, hopefully adding clarity as well as content. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about 'dominant group', not about Cultural dominance/Cultural imperialism which is an article which has multiple issues. I've added a sentence within the introduction, "This numerical majority can be numbers of individuals, numbers of species, surface area, biomass, or maximum intensity, among many other applications of the concept." which should help clarify this point. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Your article doesn't address the definition of a dominant group either. You have synthesized information from many different fields using examples from these fields of dominance.Curb Chain (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge lots of useful sources, but the information would be better incorporated in some of the other linked articles. At present, this is a bit SYNTHy. Yunshui (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think this is a terribly-written article. It reads like a term paper, and is difficult to determine context unless your familiar with the subject matter. The problem is that it is an amagalm of information with not a lot tying everything together, but I can see how it could be useful if significantly improved. Just because an article needs significant improvement, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Roodog2k (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment It's a weak keep IMO b/c it does smack of original research...Roodog2k (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. "Dominant group" is a highly plausible search term, but there are lots of things the searcher might be looking for. No objection to the smerge proposed by Yunshui, which isn't an incompatible outcome.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I haven't looked extensively at the history, so I don't know if this has been edit extensively during the nomination, but it doesn't seem unsalvageable to me. It is rather vague in spots and contains synthesis, but most of the synthesizing seems to have been done by the sources rather than here. Move to Dominant group (sociology) if it is decided to make this a disambiguation page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable article topic. The material is to a certain degree related to other topics also and could be used there as well, but this quite specifically is acceptable in its own right. A little too much of an an essay in tone, rather than a summery, but still acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article and its links are mish-mash of several topics, including social dominance and ecological prevalence, which have nothing to do with each other. One editor has been linking this article from articles about such disparate topics as reptile evolution, soil geology, and ethnography. The "topic" covered in the article is Cultural dominance along with a variety of other meanings of dominant. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a place specific article masquerading as a general article. I was unsure of this until I got to the religion section. The specific mention of "non-Christian" as the marginalized population shows a total failure to consider reality. This would imply that there are no dominate religious groups that are other than Christian, which considering power stuctures in most Muslim countries, India and Israel, Sri Lanka is just hogwash. Beyond this, considering power stuctures in some other countries, it is a sub-group within Christianity that is in question. We cover this topic with adequate articles on the history and politics of various countries and do not need this article trying to synthesize these complexed facts and doing so while ignoring the vast array of reality. I might try to edit the article but the underlying assumptions about the methods and means of discrimination are questionable. Besides this the various statements should be supported with sources and they are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The whole article is riddled with assumptions that may or may not be correct. Statements like "minority groups do not discriminate" are hard to support as other than POV, and the article seems to assume a static understanding of the term "minority" without acknowledging that the way it is using the term differs from the way it is used in other contexts. The article also inadequately addresses the issues of context of dominance. The main problem is that is trying to describe as static and proscribed phenomena what actually are unique and cultural specific phenomena. The interaction of each group is conditions by its own unique attributes, a fact that this article is desgined to ignore.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The comment "minority groups do not discriminate" does not even occur in the article! Marshallsumter (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay-form synthesis of unrelated topics. Possibly there is an article to be written about any of the separate meanings, but this is not it. Sandstein 05:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted by others, the article puts together a number of totally unrelated uses of the term "dominant group". We don't have articles on ambiguous terms: we have a disambiguation page linking to specific articles. "Dominant group (sociology)" and "Ecological dominance" are just two of the meanings covered here. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I came here out of concern with Marshallsumter's edits in wikilinking all instances of "dominant group" to the article on AfD. It created numerous cases of overlinking where the concept(s) described in the Dominant group article have not been proven relevant in the respective topics. It is inappropriate and can be construed as original research by creating a semblance of importance in the Dominant group discourse. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Basically an unsourced BLP Courcelles 03:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franck Hermanny

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

Non-notable musician, no reliable sources, nothing in the article attributed to a source. My redirect to the (maybe also non-notable) band that he's in was soon reverted, so bringing it here. Michig (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability has been unaccomplished. I didn't see any notable mentions on both Yahoo! and Google aside from his MySpace and other trivial websites. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adagio (band) without judgment on that article's suitability for deletion. Lagrange613 (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic City Championship

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

local rivalry that is of zero interest and no coverage outside the town involved. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete high school football rivalries are normally not considered notable, and I see no reason to make an exception with this particular case. There really isn't even an assertion of notability in the article. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable high school football rivalry. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Rapaport (radio program manager)

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

General manager of a New York City radio station that rose to #1 in the ratings thanks to disco. Only found a few sources that are about the radio station with Rapaport adding some quotes. Bgwhite (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:EXISTENCE no significant contributions by rapaport or as per WP:PERMASTUB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehmeet singh (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Editors agree that although the coverage required for notability has not been demonstrated, it can be assumed to exist under the circumstances. That does not prevent specific unsourced content in the article from being contested per WP:V. Sandstein 05:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Saver

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

Contested PROD for a Super Famicom game (Japan-only release). After a frustrating and unsatisfying discussion on the article's talk page about the lack of coverage in independent sources, and assertions from an editor that discussing such topics are "waste of time," I searched for new sources and evaluated existing sources on the page that support notability. Many sources were wikis and discussion boards, which are not independent. Search results in English were lacking, so I searched for the title in Japanese, where reviews and such were more likely to be found:

sales information reporting very high sales in Japan. This is the only source I was able to find that supports notability.
A credits listing, which doesn't provide evidence for notability.
A listing in the online version of Famitsu magazine (translated from Japanese). No reviews or rating information.
this very brief description of the game and its sales on a site that appears to be a blog (translated from Japanese).

Finally, one editor of the page asserted the following in a revision summary: all SFC/SNES (Super Famicom / Super Nintendo) video games are notable. I know of no Wikipedia guideline that supports this statement. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - indeed this is frustrating. what kind of sources you want? I already added the "source" from super-famicom.jp which is the "official" SFC games site. this is a video game from 1994 and it was never released outside Japan, unfortunately there is no official web site like all these new generation games.

honestly, if an article like this (with cover art + info + sources + categories already added) is deleted, then I think we have a big problem in here, because then you would have to be COHERENT and delete 75% of the wiki video game articles out there.

I never played this game before, it means absolutely nothing to me, so I couldn't care less. I just think it's totally unfair deleting it just because someone thinks it should be deleted, plus I don't understand your fixation with the article. another funny thing is... the article was created at XX:54, two minutes later someone (YOU) already adds that Proposing deletion stuff. Chill out man, people (non-vandals) are not here having fun, give the creator some time to improve the article. it's because of this kind of behaviour that sometimes I think I should give up on Wikipedia. --Hydao (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about whether this game has an official website or not. It's about whether the game is discussed in-depth in third-party, independent sources. While I would normally allow more time for articles, I took a good deal of my time to search for sources on this game in both English and Japanese. I didn't just nominate this because the current sources were no good. I nominated it because I made good faith effort to look for sources on my own. And I didn't find any. Before I did this, you kept removing the notability templates I kept adding to the article because you didn't agree with me. I don't understand why you didn't just leave it on there until good sources were found.

Also, you should avoid arguments that declare that we must remove most video game articles if this one article is deleted. Articles are handled on a case-by-case basis. I know you guys are not vandals, but I nominated this because I don't think the article is supported by WP policies. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No wonder fewer people are volunteering on Wikipedia. With the guidelines becomes more strict for articles every month, people are giving up on Wikipedia. A lot of the older games don't have an official web site, but they're still notable because they were released in the marketplace and people were buying them from department stores. There are some "unofficial" references for older video games on the Internet, but there are also magazine and newspaper references that might be interesting to look at for some of the older games. GVnayR (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that guidelines are becoming more strict. WP:N and WP:GNG have been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed all that much in the sense that it has required third party, independent sources for a good while. However, I do agree that video games, especially old ones, can be hard to find sources for (compared to new ones), and that content about them can be encyclopaedic. But it's not impossible. Take the WP article for KiKi KaiKai for instance-- it's a Japan-only release. The article cites several reviews both in English and Japanese, and its notability is backed up by sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KiKi KaiKai is not Japan-exclusive. The arcade (first) version was released both in Europe and North America, plus, it was released for several home consoles, so the probabilities of having more info are much higher.

"Before I did this, you kept removing the notability templates I kept adding to the article because you didn't agree with me. I don't understand why you didn't just leave it on there until good sources were found."

I only removed it once at the very beginning I guess, and it was in good faith.

"Also, you should avoid arguments that declare that we must remove most video game articles if this one article is deleted. Articles are handled on a case-by-case basis."

Honestly, I didn't use it as an argument, really... but it's just the truth. --Hydao (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Lately (or since I registered on Wikipedia) i've been editing a lot video games articles, so I know what I'm saying. I'm here trying to improve the articles a little, not to destroy or delete them. --Hydao (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, Kiki KaiKai isn't a Japan-only release. My bad. This still doesn't change the fact that this article needs to fulfill WP:PRODUCT. Also, of course you used WP:ALLORNOTHING as an argument (why else would you write it here, then?) and statements like "it's just the truth," "I edit a lot of video game articles" and "I'm here to improve articles" are commendable, but unhelpful to your case. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already lost enough time on this. You're not going to change my opinion and vice-versa. I have more important things in life to worry about, I need to go for now. My opinion is simple, keep the article, that's all. --Hydao (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hydao and GVnayR. - Even though the game is unknown overseas, it is somewhat well-known in Japan and apparently part of a larger franchise called the Compati Hero Series (which tangentially related to the Super Robot Taisen series). Jonny2x4 (talk)

Then it can be merged to that series page, perhaps. Notability is not inherited from its larger series. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Most separate officially published and released video games are presumed to be notable, as someone back in the day had to have either reviewed or covered them in one way or another. As GVnayR pointed out above, most of these sources would be print-only as well as in another language (in this case, Japanese). –MuZemike 00:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 00:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have presumed there would have been reviews of this, considering the fact that it sold so well. I conducted several searches in Japanese and on Japanese video-game sites, so you can imagine my surprise when I was unable to find anything. You would think if game was notable, it might actually show up somewhere on Japanese websites aside from places to purchase the game. So no, I am not convinced of notability based on a presumption that reviews must exist. I also have yet to see a policy noting that all published and released video games are inherently notable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, Jethrobot... now you are having a point: "Then it can be merged to that series page, perhaps." The page doesn't exist yet (I think), so it's a good idea to create the page. As I said I never played Gaia Saver, but I played other games from the series and I can say that those games were (or are) very popular not only in Japan. I grew up in South Asia, this series was very popular back then. I wonder why no one created the page during all these years...

--Hydao (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect ~~to a new article on Banpresto's long-running "The Great Battle" series, from which this game appears to be a spin-off.~~ to Compatible Hero Series. There's already a page on The Great Battle IV which can also be merged. The games by themselves may not be notable, but there's enough content for a series page. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few games from that serie already have a page. It is better to improve or expand the existent articles rather than delete or merge them.

And by the way, here is the page: Compatible Hero Series. Feel free to help improving it. --Hydao (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the case of the majority of older console games, trying to show them the door because relevant sources don't jump out of the internet is a waste of time because they almost certainly exist but are unlikely to be present. I don't believe for a second that a crossover game starring characters from series as beloved as Gundam, Kamen Rider and Ultraman will not have received a torrent of attention from relevant sources in Japan. The magazine articles won't be on hand because a lot of these games predate the internet's widespread usage and magazines are the mainstay of sources for them, in fact magazines are still hugely influential in the videogame arena, even now. Even a system as popular as the Commodore 64 has a weak web presence when it comes to magazine scans available, but it's not because the magazines don't exist. Take Impossamole, you might look at that and wonder how it's notable, and struggle to find any kind of sourcing online. Search for it on a magazine scan database like World of Spectrum or Amiga Magazine Rack and it quickly becomes apparent that it's just the internet's limits, not the lack of sources. Someone another 18:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, the sales information for this game has now been removed per WP:VG/RS, as it appears that vgchartz.com is not a reliable source for this information. Now, there is nothing that asserts the notability of this game. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are the only user who insists in deleting the article. Go to the official website - http://www.banpresto.co.jp/ - maybe you'll find some uber lovely "reliable" source in there. Also, since VG Chartz is not "reliable", well, doesn't make much sense the existence of the wikipedia page about VG Chartz. Shall we delete it?

--Hydao (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:VG/RS:

In articles about video games, citing the game itself is often attractive. Wikipedia favours secondary sources, and the use of primary sources should be minimised.

Primary sources might be the place to go for plot info, but not for sales-- there are good reasons this should be obtained independently. The game has already been merged to Compatible Hero Series. Currently, the article is a description of the characters and plot. Is this really worth keeping, considering the game no longer has any sources provide evidence for its notability? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is worth keeping, for now. I was wondering, if you had played this in the past, during your childhood, would have the same opinion? I agree about merging the article, but first the page Compatible Hero Series should be improved. Until then I think Gaia Saver shouldn't be deleted or whatever. What do you mean "The game has already been merged"? I only added the video games of the series, there is a lot to improve... And btw, the term notability is subjective. Do you want to improve the article Compatible Hero Series? I guess the answer is no, right?

P.S. The page will be something like this: Kunio-kun.

--Hydao (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: It's unfortunate that I am alone in this, but several editors who have supported keeping the article are using arguments that are not grounded in any policy:

"Notability is subjective" per Hydao.

No, it's not. We have many, many guidelines that help us determine notability.

Because sources [should] exist, but are no longer inaccessible, per Someoneanother

This is an assumption and there really hasn't been any evidence that such sources have ever existed.

"Most separate officially published and released video games are presumed to be notable" per MuZemike.

I noted this above, but I have yet to see where this guideline exists.

"A lot of the older games don't have an official web site, but they're still notable because they were released in the marketplace and people were buying them from department stores." per GVnayR

Just being "released into the marketplace" and people buying them is not sufficient. Millions of product exist on the market and we don't need a WP entry for all of them.

"if an article like this...is deleted, then I think we have a big problem in here, because then you would have to be COHERENT and delete 75% of the wiki video game articles out there" per Hydao.

WP:ALLORNOTHING. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you for the most part, although notability is by definition subjective - that's what the guidelines are for. All the "Keep" arguments here boil down to, "Well, it seems notable to me." or "There are lots of articles just like it." etc. It seems like any article with a few external links as references can past muster these days. Eh. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment having an official website does not make something notable. That is an internally controlled source. It is like just having self-punlished an autobiography does not make someone notable. This is a source controlled by the thing. I have not figured out if this is notable, but having an official webpage is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ab-Soul

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

A rapper. He has released two mixtapes and just released one album on the independent label, Top Dawg Entertainment. Be careful of the references. For example, the reference titled, "Reputable source for artist interviews" is a blog site and "Music Record Label" is to a YouTube video. Only reliable reference is to a LA Times blog about the group he is with. Bgwhite (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable source to indicate notability. UncommonlySmooth (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Non-notable per lack of RS's, but there could be room for improvement. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 00:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I couldn't verify notability of Ab-Soul from independent secondary sources, but it may be possible to merge the articles for Ab-Soul plus the other members of his group (Black Hippy) into a single article with sufficient notability for the group as a whole. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athens Folk Music and Dance Society

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

fails WP:ORG. unreferenced for 5.5 years. gnews merely shows event listings nothing in depth. [4] LibStar (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LibStar; my own searches for sources concur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunshui (talk • contribs) 09:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary sourcesCurb Chain (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any sources that would help to meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found some sources but they're not enough to sustain the article: [5], [6], [7]. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 04:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete Danger (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary project

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

Refer to the original AfD discussion. The article is recreated again, and the new article is promotional again. I think the subject is not notable. The only two references are to cite GNOME-look.org statistics, and the rest of text is original research. —Fitoschido ^[shout] \\ 19 July, 2011 [04:50] 04:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete per G4: Recreation of deleted material The recreated page does not sufficiently address the concerns from the previous AfD. There is only one source on the page, though it is referenced twice in the article. I am adding the speedy deletion tag to the article now. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Night Mannheim 2006

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

a mere 2 gnews hits and one refers to an event in 2007 and not this event. [8]. this article merely confirms the event happened. google search merely confirms fighting websites and directory listing. having notable fighters or being televised does not grant automatic notability and does not mean at all strong keep. those wanting to keep must provide indepth evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the strongest events in Germany and promoted by K-1 (the world’s strongest kickboxing organization) and W.M.C (the world’s most prestigious Muay Thai organization) with the W.M.C. incidentally having a world title fight on the card. While not the strongest line-up for a K-1 event these tournaments are an important developing event for future fighters who can compete against European level opposition before moving on to international competitions (possibly with K-1 or the WMC). I would argue also that these events are all part of the bigger K-1 picture and deleting these pages would weaken Wikipedia as a place for people to come for knowledge. To all that say that Wikipedia is not supposed to be about everything – I would agree, however, a series of events for a notable organization does not cover every single kickboxing event in existence and I (and other members) have no intention of swamping the site with results from the Cornish Amateur kickboxing league et al. The amount of deletion nominations must also be taken into account, making it very difficult for a small number of kickboxing enthusiasts that work on the Wikipedia pages to actually defend their work. Also do not approve of nominator telling me what kind of keep I can use - this is down to my own free will. Thank-you. jsmith006 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2011

Wasn't the WMC fight for a European, not world, title? Astudent0 (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - my bad. I would still consider that an example of notability (although obviously not quite as much). Also a German title fight on the line. jsmith006 (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The relevant WP guideline is WP:Event, which requires (WP:INDEPTH) "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing." This event is rather minor, and has only 80 google hits, most of which appear to be Wikis. There appears to be no significant mention by independent secondary sources. Any important information in this article can be merged into a higher-level article on martial arts. --Noleander (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage of this event in multiple reliable independent sources, and as such this would not meet the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor event that does not have the reliable sourcing to suggest otherwise. Truthsort (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Winning Days. has already been merged so ... Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck the World (The Vines song)

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Winning Days, the album it was released on. The material is worth keeping, but that article is short enough to digest what's on the song page. Meelar (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, as said above. —Fitoschido ^[shout_{track] \\ 19 July, 2011 [12:34]}

Redirect to Winning Days. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The material from this article has apparently already been merged into Winning Days, and in the absence of anything independently notable about this song, there is IMO no reason for a redirect. Additionally, the edit history of the article doesn't appear sufficiently useful (a potential reason to keep a redirect, but not one that applies in this case). Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As Richwales says, it appears it has already been merged, but redirects are cheap and this is a plausible search term. Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Erevelles

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

Apparently non-notable academic, four passing mentions in local paper via lexis-nexis, nothing much in google books, everything I've found is a quote from him, works by him, or short bio-blurbs related to appearances at conferences. Seems to fail GNG and PROF --Nuujinn (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete although gets a GS h index of 9 with several hundred cites. Why did the nominator miss this? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still not finding sources. Xxanthippe, the nominator didn't miss the h index, the nominator just doesn't think it is a good indicator for someone who specializes in marketing. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the nominator miss the several hundred cites? Is he saying that they aren't important either? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I did not miss the cites. I'm not sure how you mean important, but if you mean do I think the cites and h index value indicate notability, no, I don't, else I would have !voted differently. As I am sure you know, citation rates vary widely with the discipline, I suppose I expect that rate to be high in the fields of marketing research. If you want me to consider something, tho, post links and I'll be glad to take a look. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Prof#C1 states the most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work -- either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. If you do not agree with this policy you should discuss it on the policy pages. Please adhere to Wikipedia policy until it is changed by consensus. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I believe I am. If you think I'm violating policy, there are a variety of noticeboards on which you can complain about me. Use of the h index as a criterion is, I believe, somewhat controversial and not universally accepted, and, as I have noted, citations rates very with discipline, and I believe PROF acknowledges that well. I took the time before nominating and again before !voting and again tonight to look over some of the publications citing him, and stand by my judgement. Now, if we can find some additional sources covering him, I'm happy to reevaluate. And I think we've talked about this issue enough, and we've wandered off the topic for this particular venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep The g factor is not a good discriminant except with in the fields with fairly high citation density, and marketing research is not one of them.. He has about 8 papers with 20 or more citations , which is a modest but respectable record. The total number of citations is a very poor discriminant for one can get that by publishing a large amount of thoroughly mediocre work. We need not look for additional sources covering him in the conventional sense, which typically do not occur for a scholar unless they take a pubic role in a major controversy, or after they retire, or are actually famous. Notability is less than that. Even so, I think its borderline at this time . A few very highly cited papers would make the difference. ?The record is typical for his rank, Associarte Professor, and in terms of the level we normally expect, they are only sometimes notable DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ervelles seems to be a dominant figure in his field, so that would fulfill one of the possible reasons for inclusion for academics. Academics only need to meet one criteria, and he seems to be a significant enough figure in his field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that he is a dominant figure in his field? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Finnegan (journalist)

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

Article had one reference, now deleted--and it was a dead link anyway. A Google search gave me no reason to think this person is notable. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This guy is definitely a writer for the LA Times (of pieces like this one), a newspaper which is large enough that it could signify notability for more prominent contributors. Several Times (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could, yes, but I see no evidence that it should. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I guess that's why you nominated it for deletion in the first place! Notability isn't always a one-man-show and can be directly influenced by involvement with some larger, more notable entity. I'm not saying that this is in any way a good example of that, just that some other editor may consider it sufficient evidence. Several Times (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR which pertains to journalists. Location (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references are added. I would have added BLP PROD. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 10:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is true that he is a published writer, but unless independent sources write about him, he does not rise to meet WP notability standards. --Noleander (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – has written lots of articles (search "Michael Finnegan" site:latimes.com) but AFAICS doesn't yet show up as a significant interviewer or notable commentator. - Pointillist (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonita Magazine

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. The only coverage that I could find about this magazine is the one hit from the scholar search [9], and it doesn't seem to be more than a mere mention - frankie (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vacuous, spammy, unwikified orphan article about a latina fashion mag which is not the subject of substantial independent published coverage elsewhere. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 22:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Rain Dance Maggie

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

Non notable song article. Does not fufill WP:NMUSIC. After disscussion amongst editors, it was agreed that the article should be turned into a redirect until more information (or chart positions) were available for it. This has been opposed by IP's. This is the problem. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 03:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect Per this and this. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The song is notable, as it's the first single off of their highly-anticipated tenth studio album. I've read WP:NMUSIC, and I believe that the song meets all the of the criteria. It has already been released, the single cover has been made available, and the music video is completed and set to air. Deleting the article now would be pointless, and redirecting it to the album will only confuse readers who want information regarding the song. Also, deleting or redirecting the article isn't a way to solve a problem on Wikipedia. It's avoiding it if anything. WereWolf (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why are we debating deleting an entry that will be recreated in a couple of days? What is the point? Francium12 04:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Requirements of WP:NMUSIC:
  - "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." → The article barely has any sources.
  - "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." → #1, That's why we redirect. #2, The song has not charted. #3, There isn't enough information right now for the article to be anything other than a stub.
  - Also to respond to WereWolf's argument, the existence of something (in this case let's say a Red Hot Chilli Peppers single) does not make it notable.
  - To respond to Francium12's argument, please read WP:CRYSTAL. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 04:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but we all know it is going to chart short of Western civilization being wiped out. I'd invite the Wikipedia community to exercise a little discretion :-) Francium12 05:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Common sense dictates that this will do well enough to justify it's continued existence on Wikipedia, most likely before this AFD is complete. The fact anything since One Hot Minute has charted mystifies me, but that's not what WP is for, is it...mores the pity! Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 10:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why should this article be deleted? This is article is notable enough to keep because it's the first single from the upcoming Red Hot Chili Peppers album. 76.191.133.247 (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously met the chart provision of music notability. Andrewlp1991 23:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. Is this serious? I just searched this on danotable... The song is mentioned on some many different news articles it would be listed here just off the recent events surrounding its leak.... I doubt notability is a real issue.
Keep: The single is already released and we have enough references. Whoever's idea was it to delete needs to get fired :) Maplejet (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

109.65.7.100 (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Keep. Austin Snake Boy (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too, Keep. --HC 5555 (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't hate.----dannycas (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I'm with You (album). All I see in terms of arguments for keeping it are that it will be notable in the future. Well, in that case, the redirect can be undone when that happens. -- Whpq (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well, Keep. Alex (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Keep, first single off a new album, and already charting. Killswitch Engage (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is to keep, although there is also an evident need to discuss the article title, so I would suggest that this be discussed on the article's talk page PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin's Hanging Order

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

This article has faced two AfD's in the past- one ended in no consensus, another ended in an overturned deletion. The document in question has no historical significance whatsoever, and the only sources in the article either provide background (i.e., the sources aren't related to the document) or provide a translation. I'm sure that Lenin sent many telegrams throughout his life. Sure, some of them were probably orders to kill some people- how is this one special? It isn't. Some will probably claim that it's mentioned in numerous sources, but these sources will not have the document used as a subject- they will just use the telegram as a source itself, just like thousands of other documents made by Lenin which are similarly not notable are also used as primary sources. Slon02 (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, same as before. Highly publicized document giving a good example of tactics employed by Lenin, sources seem to be reasonable. I still recommend moving the article to Hanging order, which seems to be more common (see searches linked in previous AfD).

P.S. Last AfD was overrun by a sock farm - even started by a sock.

--Sander Säde 07:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The title of this article is POV. The intent of this article is POV. The content of this article, whether it is encyclopedia worthy at all, well that we can debate. I'm not going to opine on that at this point; this is regarded as a "smoking gun" document by conservative historians conclusively proving that Lenin was a big bad meanie. Left wing historians regard it as axiomatic that there were summary executions and "examples made" by both sides during the bloody Russian Civil War. Is this one document "notable" because conservative historians at the Library of Congress have given it a catchy name? Does the fact that one document has been published in multiple sources excuse its use as a POV tool in a Wikipedia article? Might not this article be given a more appropriate name and broader scope? Lots of good questions. It would not be difficult to write and source a piece on White atrocities in the Russian Civil War. Or, for that matter, Bolshevik atrocities in the Russian Civil War. Why this one document? Carrite (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The document has huge historical significance as the first Lenin's order of the kind, which led to creation of the policy of Red Terror. Hence the specific name for the letter. It is quoted in almost any book about Bolshevik repressions. These books do not quote thousands of other letters by Lenin, maybe only one or two. Another similarly notable letter by Lenin was his letter to comrade Kursky that led to creation of famous article 58. Biophys (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it led to the start of Red Terror, wouldn't that have been mentioned in either the article on Red Terror or on the order's article itself? Could you provide a source that verify such historical significance, because clearly it's not mentioned in the article. --Slon02 (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is secret letter by Lenin most widely quoted in relation to the policy of Red Terror (see for example, Black Book of Communism, page 72; book Communism by Pipes, etc.). Why can't we have an article about this letter? What's the problem? Biophys (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, there is the blatant POV pushed by that book- the criticism of it takes up the largest part of that article! Carrite previously brought up how the title of the article itself is POV, as is its intent. However, the main point here is simple. WP:GNG is very clear that there must be significant coverage- "more than a trivial mention". If it's simply quoted as part of a larger picture, then there is no way that you can consider that to be significant coverage in that source. I stand by my argument that this fails GNG. --Slon02 (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It tells: "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" [10]. Yes, that's exactly the case here (did you read the books I mentioned?). There are many secondary RS (books) that describe and quote this letter in detail. Biophys (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and maybe rename. There are certainly reliable sources that analyze this and discuss its background enough to indicate notability: [11][12][13]. Given the availability of English sources, I would presume there are more sources in Russian, as well. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a POV exercise in its present form. This is a document that could be aptly put into play in an article on the Red Terror, but as a free standing article, this is essentially a political piece. Carrite (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article name is itself POV --XXPowerMexicoXx (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People may not like the conclusions of the Library of Congress, but their coverage of the telgraph is certainly an indepdendent, indepth and 3rd party source. The same with the BBC program. It is not a POV name if it is wideply applied outside of wikipedia. There is a reason why there is an article Boston Massacre.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Planty of reliable sources are available. No objection to moving to Hanging Order, but the title is certainly not POV, it mere states who gave the order. Edward321 (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Media Association

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

All I can find are press releases, or non-reliable/non-independent sources, and a lack of significant coverage about this organisation. I also found a lot about the Yellow Pages Integrated Media Association in NJ, which would appear to be unconnected with this one. I can find no evidence that the organisation meet the notability criteria PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deliberately uninformative text is patent nonsense, and this is deliberately uninformative: mission is to facilitate a transition in public media to a truly innovative and collaborative industry.... an opportunity to bring together individuals who are focused on innovation and advancing the industry so they can learn about the creative activities from around the country along with relevant technology trends and directions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of media coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Robert_A._Heinlein#Author. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Henry League

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

Non-notable organization that was a total and utter flop. At most, this might deserve a sentence in the Heinlein article, but that's it. Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would agree that a brief mention is warranted in Robert A. Heinlein and suggest merging a summary, but that content is already present within the article. This article does not achieve notability as a subject to stand alone. IMO My76Strat ^talk 02:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An organization does not need to be a smashing success to be notable. Clearly, this particular group got more attention than many because it was founded by Robert A. Heinlein. However, notability derives from coverage in reliable sources. Google News Archives and Google Books show that the Patrick Henry League has received enough coverage over many years, in my opinion, to be considered notable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - none of that is actually coverage of the League, because the League never got off the ground - it was a total fizzle; that's all Heinlein coverage, and belongs (if anywhere) in the article on RAH. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & My76Strat, or merge & redirect to Robert A. Heinlein. Clearly not notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article.--JayJasper (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Robert A. Heinlein. The referenced content can be kept, but the other stuff should be deleted based on WP:BURDEN, and that which remains should be merged. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G11 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Division of Psychoanalysis (Division 39)

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

Does not appear to be a notable organization. Main author appears to have COI. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text of this article is paraphrased from the Division 39 site, however, I represent Division 39 by adding this content to Wikipedia. How can I demonstrate that I have permission to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Div39psych (talk • contribs) 01:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability alleged or demonstrated. Permission isn't the issue here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article's creator, User:Div39psych, has been blocked due to concerns that the user name is promotional, and will not be able to comment here using that user name. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Media Awards

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

All the coverage I could find are either press releases or varieties of "xyz won the blah-de-blah award at the Interactive Media Awards last night" (often part of a press release any way). I can't find signficant coverage at independent reliable sources to show that these awards meet the general notability guidelines. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage to indicate notability for this award. The award itself appears to be built to allow people to self-congratulate and decorate their website with medals and ribbons attesting to their web design prowess. The awards appear to be given out like candy based on the 2010 results. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails every aspect of WP:WEB. LiteralKa (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Noling

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AFD focused solely on finding reliable sources for this article. While the sources were found, I am now proposing deletion on the grounds that the subject, known only for his unremarkable crime, clearly fails WP:PERP and WP:1EVENT. Interchangable (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although he was convicted of horrible murders, every murder is by definition horrible. WP:PERP gives us guidance about which biographies of criminals should stay on Wikipedia. This one fails that guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has been trough the AfD process. No consensus was reached., I dont know what could have changed that would justify deletion. It ssomething about that, that never makes any sense to be concerning re-nomination for AfD,--BabbaQ (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing has changed, in fact - this man is still non-notable. The previous AfD focused solely on finding reliable sources. The only policies or guidelines stated were WP:BIO by a voter for delete, and WP:RS by a voter for keep - and even that voter said they weren't sure reliable sources were enough. No one cited a policy to show that murder is not a notable act. I should also call WP:MILL in to question, seeing as the circumstances of the crime were highly average. Interchangable (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For a valid keep !vote, you really need to say more than "this has already gone through an AfD". No consensus means that discussion had no clear consensus, and that should absolutely not be used as a reason to keep an article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SNGs are alternate paths to notability, so since WP:GNG is satisfied, WP:PERP doesn't need to be considered. (See WP:N, "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." emphasis added.) Also, the WP:PERP argument has incorrectly not considered the possibility of merging this material to another article. An argument for deletion would be that the material here is of a temporary nature (see WP:N#Notability is not temporary), but the scope of coverage has gone far beyond the Balloon_boy_hoax. The news media love to report on murder. It is also never possible with death sentence disputes to avoid the reality that a man's life hangs in the balance. So even if we were to consider writing a specific policy to prevent "routine" death-row articles on Wikipedia, such a thing cannot really exist, and so we aren't really going to improve the encyclopedia by doing so. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with Unscintillating that WP:PERP is just one way to meet notability requirements. But does this even meet general notability? This is a person convicted of a crime in Ohio, and there is a small, local movement to set him free. Questions about his guilt have been raised in local Ohio newspapers on and off over the past 8 years. But I dont see any special significance to the crime, or the victims, or the accused, or the movement to vindicate. I suppose if some national media picked up on it, it might cross a threshold into greater notability. --Noleander (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From The Plain Dealer, "The Plain Dealer is the major daily newspaper of Cleveland, Ohio, United States. It has the largest circulation of any Ohio newspaper, and is a top 20 newspaper for circulation in the U.S." I'd also think that decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court would count as national media, but I can't cite any policy immediately. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State Supreme courts rule on lots of things, often of incredibly minimal importance; don't mistake their decisions as holding the same weight as the supreme court at the federal level.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, yes, the newspaper has at least somewhat of a national readership. But it also obviously deals with local coverage, under which this obviously falls.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per PERP. The extending coverage is not nearly extensive enough to overrule that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:BIO1E, articles like this should be named after the event... and this event fails the sub-guidelines in WP:EVENT including WP:GEOSCOPE. Location (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:PERP which overrides spikes in coverage when someone is sentenced to death. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In the sense of "retain as a disambiguation page"; how the page (and other related pages) should be named is not yet clear but can be resolved editorially. Sandstein 06:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tikhonov's theorem

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tikhonov's theorem

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

Procedural nomination. The page was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tikhonov's theorem. Below is the discussion:

Only 3 links; one is red and according to the deletion log[14] has never existed (the dab page was created in 2009). This can be adequately addressed with {{distinguish}} on one page and {{redirect}} on the other. A dab page is unnecessary. Hairy Dude (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why's this on MfD and not AfD? Nevertheless, the rationale is valid; dab pages for only two entries are always pointless, as getting to the "correct" page always takes exactly as many steps in the worst case with two hatnotes as it does with a dab, and in the former case over 50% of readers should have no additional steps to take. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G6 agreed, the names are disparate enough that {{distinguish}} is all you need. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep, speedy declined. Does not meet speedy criterion. Perhaps we should have an entry for the missing item. Red links are good. Anyone looking for it or any of the theorems would come here, and might well known enough to write it. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not an argument based on the deletion guidelines, nor one helpful to our readers (who outnumber our editors by several orders of magnitude). If the article is written the dab page can be trivially reinstated. Until then it is actively hindering readers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move this listing to AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(end of copied discussion) Cunard (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is this an article or a disambiguation page? Unreferenced and consisting solely of three links and brief explanations, without any explanation of its subject, this page is close to meeting WP:A3. Interchangable (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be useful as a disambiguation page; spelling of Russian(?) names is not the strong point of many editors / readers. Redlink could be created, theoretically. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a disambiguation page, although it only contains two extant articles. Granted, as someone above points out, its purpose could be achieved with a disambig link at the top of both articles. However, WP:Disambiguation says "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed – it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." But in this case, it does not appear that one is "primary", so a Disambig page may be appropriate. --Noleander (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The terms are very similar, both in name and concept. I would say they're close enough that if a person was looking for one and found the other they may never even suspect they were in the wrong place. It also prevents confusion among people looking for the redlinked term. For Technical terms, clarity is preferred to brevity, and I think the disambiguation helps keep the issue clear.--Djohns21 (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – useful disambiguation page. --Lambiam 18:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We should also include something about Tikhonoff's uniqueness theorem for the heat equation; that makes three entries, enough for a valid dab. I can't tell whether that is supposed to be the same as the theorem in the redlink or not. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I sharply disagree that you can't have dab pages with only two entries. It's not about number of clicks, which Chris Cunningham mentioned; it's about whether you can identify one meaning as primary, which should mean that it is very substantially more likely to be linked or searched, not just a little more likely. If two articles are of roughly the same prominence, then you shouldn't declare one primary just to avoid a dab page. That said, no !vote here, because I think the one about compact spaces is probably primary. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ There are three topics listed. One of them is a red link, but it's a good red link, to a topic that deserves an article. Probably everyone remembers learning Tikhonov's theorem in a topology course as an undergraduate (OK, experiences vary, but the one on compact spaces is one that everybody knows) but some people who routinely use the term "Tihkonov's theorem" are talking about one of the others. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Later note: I think Tychonoff's theorem and Tikhonov's theorem should not be separate articles, but rather the various different spellings should redirect to one page, since if I'm not mistaken, they all have the same spelling in the original Cyrillic. There should be a disambiguation page with the three links. What it should be called is another question. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Chris Cunningham's proposal that dab pages with only two links are always pointless is wrong, as noted by Trovatore above. Also, the names are not at all disparate; they're the same name, spelled in the same way in the original Cyrillic letters. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As RDBury pointed out on WT:MATH, Tikhonov's theorem seems to be just an alternative spelling of Tychonoff's theorem. So one way or the other, the page under discussion probably should be a redirect to Tychonoff's theorem. This doesn't exclude the possibility of a disambig page if the two meanings are thought to have comparable prominence; in that case, the current Tychonoff's theorem page would be moved to something like Tychonoff's theorem on products of compact spaces (or whatever title makes the most sense), and the redirect left behind would then be turned into a disambig page. But making one spelling an article and the other one a disambig just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. --Trovatore (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical comment If it is decided that T[ik|ch]ono[v|ff]'s theorem should be a disambig page, then the right order to do the moves is:
  - First, move Tychonoff's theorem to Tychonoff's theorem on compact spaces (or whatever)
  - Second, delete the redirect at Tychonoff's theorem and move Tikhonov's theorem (the current disambig page) to Tychonoff's theorem
  - Third, edit the new Tychonoff's theorem, containing the content of the old Tikhonov's theorem, so that it has a link to Tychonoff's theorem on compact spaces. --Trovatore (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rather than Tychonoff's theorem on compact spaces, the title Tychonoff's product theorem has also been proposed. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tychonoff's theorem, clearly the primary topic. Or move this page to Tychonoff's theorem (disambiguation). —Kusma (t·c) 11:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect "Tikhonov's theorem" to Tychonoff's theorem, which as mentioned above is clearly the primary topic (it's a common first example of a theorem equivalent to the axiom of choice). Take the content at the current page and move it to Tychonoff's theorem (disambiguation) or whatever is the appropriate parenthetical. I think that it would be unreasonable to change "Tychonoff's theorem" to anything else. RobHar (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tikhonov's theorem (dynamical systems) now exists. It's no longer a red link. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 World Grand Prix 2010 in Canberra

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

another non notable kickboxing event that wasn't even covered in Australian media. nothing in major Australian search engine trove [15]. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think I can find any widespread coverage in reliable sources. The fact that there was no coverage by Australian media doesn't mean that the subject is not notable, though it would suggest that widespread coverage did not occur, making a claim of notability more difficult. In a search for coverage there was the usual assortment of blogs. I did stumble across incidental coverage in Cage Potato. I now wish I hadn't. On that page the first comment suggests that one fighter will sodomize his opponent, though expressed in other words. Wishing to avoid reflex dismissal of the source because it would lack reliability, I had a look around the site. Their tagline is "MMA is not a crime". Hmmm. I checked the about page to see who the editors are. At the bottom of the about page there was a video running showing a violent assault on a pedestrian crossing in Las Vegas lasting 1:35, ending with a vicious kick to the head of a person on all fours. He slumps to the ground unconscious or dead. The video box is tagged with a link; "See more funny videos". Sickening. The video was hosted on the website of the publisher, not on an external video site. We probably won't use this site as a reliable source. I could editorialize further, but suffice to say the subject of the article is not notable nor is it encyclopaedic. Bleakcomb (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With only one delete opinion, we're close to a WP:PROD, so the article shoulod be restored if further sources appear. Sandstein 05:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stefen Chow

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

Delete per WP:ARTIST. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A gnews search shows his photographs have been included in the Seattle Times, Washington Post, and CBS News. However, I'm having difficulty finding sources that talk about Chow in detail. I found this one and this one, both translated from Chinese, but they're not ideal sources for notability. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That suggests that it fails the first requirement of WP:ARTIST. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of loanwords in Azerbaijani language

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

Unreferenced, original research per WP:NOR. Gurt Posh (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's only OR if it can't be referenced, not just because it isn't at present. The standard is verifiable, not verified. Are you claiming that the status of these words as loanwords is incorrect or cannot be cited to a reliable source? Another question is whether this list topic is appropriate for Wikipedia. Do we maintain lists of words in other languages? Based on Category:Lists_of_loanwords it looks like we do, but I don't know what the consensus is on whether all such potential lists are valid topics. postdlf (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no sources online for any of the claims made, WP:Reliable or otherwise, and tags for references were removed without explanation by the article's creator. The sole reference added was an external link to About.com about the meaning of various Hebrew names, none of which are mentioned in the article. Theories about loanwords are an enjoyable speculative hobby: theories abound on the origins of Basque, for example, with many attempts to show cognates and loanwords from various languages, none of which have passed peer-reviewed scrutiny. So the enjoyable speculative hobby, once plopped unreferenced onto Wikipedia, becomes just more Wikipedia:Randy in Boise. I'm not an expert in the Azerbaijani language, so maybe I should have added an expert tag before taking it to AFD. If the consensus here is that I should do that, then I will. Gurt Posh (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – all of it (except for çaqqal "jackal" and perhaps tilif) is made-up and incorrect information; the other similarities are just coincidences. --Lambiam 20:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's important that each entry is well referenced. The explanations are not convincing. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the Oxford Dictionary of the Azerbaijani language. This is an original essay of somewhat dubious validity with an almost random feel both with respect to material included and the language being covered. Why not List of Georgian words with exactly four syllables? Carrite (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is almost completely unsourced. I am not going to just take somebody's word for it that the Azerbaijani word for "sheep" was taken from a Hebrew word meaning "nation" or "people". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and any other article like it. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A dictionary is a list of words giving the meaning and derivation of each. No word is more "notable" than any other word, Wikipedia-wise. If we have lists of words then we should have complete lists of every word in every language. On the other hand articles about languages are fine, with a few words mentioned as examples. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sole reference describes the etymology of jackal and does nothing to verify the article's content. I think that WP:GNG may also be relevant, seeing as this has hardly received any coverage by reliable sources. Interchangable (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not because list articles cannot be meaningful/useful, but in this form has too many secondary problems and should be in a sandbox somewhere. Compare List of loan words in Indonesian with this. (1) The Indonesian article has a proper lede, (2) the Indonesian article has a decent source, (3) the Indonesian article clicks through to id.wiki wheras the Azerbaijani one has also been deleted from Azerbaijani wiki (I checked). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As for the articles listed later in the discussion, this discussion would not be adequate to develop a consensus to delete those. But it may well be appropriate to start an AfD for them. Rlendog (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Motasin Ali Lodi

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

Creator of this page has removed the Speedy deletion tag from this article. And there are no references for this biography article. —AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 05:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The CSD should not have been removed. No sources cited whatsoever, possibly a cruft article.Whiteguru (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. (Changing to Delete because no reliable sources have been produced.) I removed the autobiography tag placed by AssassiN's Creed as the subject died in 1948 so the article is not an autobiography. This is a stub about an early 20th century Moslem leader in what is now Pakistan. It is not "cruft", which by the way is not a valid argument for deletion. Reliable sources may well exist in other versions of a name which has been transliterated from another language. I will support deletion if an editor with the appropriate language skills verifies that the person is not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is salvageable only with refs and a rewrite. And being crufty is a valid reason for deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now--this is a really poorly written article, but it might be a notable topic. Why not give it a few months on cleanup--it may improve? Meelar (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Meelar too. The article was just created yesterday, and the new corner should get a chance to improve it and correct our concerns, IMO. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 05:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC) ~ AdvertAdam^talk 20:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The AFD tag was improperly removed from this article twice. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this article gets deleted, now or in the the future, the following articles should automatically go with it: Centre Mathiura Government Model Primary School, and Taleb Mohammed Lodi Jame Mosjid. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 20:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main "source" cited in this article is a map, although it remains unclear to me how a map can be a source for a biography. There are also some vague citations to archives, although with no indication of what documents within the archives are being referenced. I don't see it as likely that this article is going to be properly sourced any time soon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Massive delete the newly added group of articles (this one, Centre Mathiura Government Model Primary School, and Taleb Mohammed Lodi Jame Mosjid), no-one is willing to contribute or bring a single source. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 20:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no refs William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Clube de Portugal Youth Sector

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

No evidence found that this youth club is notable in its own right (although it is mentioned in the parent club's article in passing) - if necessary, some of the content here could be merged with that article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: It's a youth academy of a professional football club. It's one of te better ones too. It's only a weak keep because of a lack of sources. Kingjeff (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - youth teams of senior clubs can be considered notable, per Category:Reserve team football. Article needs improving, massively. Giant Snowman 10:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The key phrase is can be - I agree, but they need to meet the notability criteria in their own right, whereas I don't think this one does -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 12:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - topic area (i.e. reserve teams) can be notable, but no evidence this one will. If someone with the Portuguese language skills can find references to improve the article, please do - I'm more than happy to change my mind. Giant Snowman 12:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Needs references. Are some available? --MicroX (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many clubs have youth team pages and many are poorly referenced. No reason why this one should be deleted. Adam4267 (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the reason why this one should be deleted is that no reliable independent sources with significant coverage is provided, and I couldn't find anything which could be used as such a source. It should be deleted because it does not (without such sourcing) meet the notability criteria, and so should not have a stand-alone article. Of course, it can be mentioned in the parent club article, but it does not currently warrant its own article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the parent club article, if any content is worth merging, otherwise Delete. Big clubs' junior teams can be notable, the same as anything else, if there's enough independent non-trivial media coverage. But to justify keeping the article, it needs to demonstrate notability by reference to that coverage. This one doesn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is an onus to demonstrate that a particular youth team warrants a full-blown article, according to the general notability guideline. Certainly, there's a chance that sufficient sourcing exists, but I believe that even for a relatively big club, the chances of such sourcing existing are somewhat less than 50-50. The fact that other articles are in a similar position should have no bearing here. —W F C— 01:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zero reliable secondary sources which establish notability. Given that the league they play in isn't even notable enough for an article, there would have to be an extraordinary reason to assume notability of the club, and "they wear a famous badge" is not one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent club article. Warburton1368 (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Jade

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

Not a notable person. Changed from PROD because creator does have some valid points but I don't they are good enough JDDJS (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This search turns up a few sites, like this, that may conceivably show notability. Not sure how reliable they are. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa Murray

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the duplicate nomination. Got a message saying the original had not worked when evidently it had. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject clearly fails WP:ENT, as her two film roles are hardly significant. Interchangable (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. Any editor is free to write a new sourced article and I'll userfy or incubate this upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ev-ie

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

Has no reliable references; quick Google search comes up with nothing. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 18:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nom has been indef blocked being a sock of indef blocked editor, so he's not coming back to this AfD --DeVerm (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suguru Murakoshi

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

Not notable. Similar to Masashi Tsuboyama Golden Sugarplum (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Golden Sugarplum (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails general notability criteria: no independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Article is a verbose version of the MobyGames credits, and impossible to expand without biographical information. Prime Blue (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any reliable sourcing to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per lack of notable coverage, as I didn't find any media mentions on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Showtime - Original

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/It's Showtime - Original

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

also nominating:

just a series of sporting results that receives no significant third party coverage. one could also apply WP:EVENT, as these sporting events have no long standing notability. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These events were held by It's Showtime, one of the biggest promotions in the world. World title fights were held on these events. -- WölffReik (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2011

being held by It's Showtime is not a criterion for notability. most of these do not involve world title fights. LibStar (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see notability or significant independent coverage. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing besides results in these articles. I also didn't see the world championship fights mentioned above. Astudent0 (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Kitur

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

A 800-meter track athlete for Virginia Military Institute. Has won the the Big South Conference indoor and outdoor events. Has made it to two NCAA Championships, but never made it beyond the preliminary rounds. He fails WP:NTRACK Bgwhite (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuperKombat

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

Non notable promotions company, in fact this may well be CSD A7 as not seeing anything of significance. Fails WP:GNG (also nominating List of SuperKombat events) Mtking (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both no reliable third party coverage. For it to be in WP, there must be evidence of wider coverage than simply the fighting world. LibStar (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The World Grand Prix II event was broadcasted in Eurosport, which shows that this promotion has some importance. There are also hundreds of reports in credible websites, that deal with martial arts. I personally don't understand why there's always a proposal for deletion in pages concerning kickboxing organizations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnymanos arc (talk • contribs) 10:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A highly notable promotion with highly notable fighters. It's last event featured an inter-continental title fight and was broadcast by Eurosport. WölffReik (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notable fighters and being broadcast does not meet automatic notability. please provide evidence of third party sources to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article and list There doesn't appear to be reliable sourcing of the event by third-party entities. I'm unsure if broadcasting on a network supports notability (i.e. nothing is said about this specifically on WP:SPORTSEVENT). However, it does say this about what a notable series or game is:

A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved.

The current list contains one game, and it is basically full of match outcomes and no substantive content, which WP:SPORTSEVENT requires:

Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats.

All in all, the event needs better coverage in independent sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several articles on Superkombat from Romanian sports newspaper "Pro Sport" http://www.prosport.ro/cautare?in=prosport&q=Superkombat. Moreover here is an article from historical newspaper "Libertatea" covering a Superkombat event http://www.libertatea.ro/detalii/articol/stefan-leko-catalin-morosanu-gala-arte-martiale-constanta-protv-local-kombat-345410.html. Finally this is an article from another newspaper, "Adevarul", which seems to mention the promotion http://www.adevarul.ro/locale/tulcea/Tulcea-_Victorii_pe_banda_la_Campionatul_national_de_kempo_0_475152639.html. Here is also a report from Eurosport Romania which includes an analysis of the promotion http://tv.eurosport.ro/fightclub/storynews_sto2798444.shtml

There are even more but I think that's enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnymanos arc (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as promotional and WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat World Grand Prix I, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat World Grand Prix II demonstrate that this page's creator was promoting, uploading a promotional poster of the second event and using it to illustrate the infobox on an event which hadn't yet occurred, hence promotion. User has since been blocked for running a sockfarm. Since this page also lacks sources which aren't routine sports event news, delete. BusterD (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Success Is Certain. v/r - T P 15:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Place

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NSONG Eeekster (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No chart or background information, fails notability guidelines for songs and could be easily integrated into the Success Is Certain album article. WIKIPEDIAN PENGUIN ^(♫♫) 18:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yibaleh

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

This appears to be a content fork from Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. The language in this article is identical to other attempts by User:Ras-By-ras to create these type of forks. Singularity42 (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; what Singularity42 said. This is a WP:DICDEF that could easily be merged into Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, assuming reliable sources are available. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see also Ĕthiopia Tĕwahĕdo Krĕstyan Orthodox and Judaism which I just nominated for WP:PROD. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is a classic WP:DICDEF, and one that is barely readable at that. LadyofShalott 01:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF, WP:V, and WP:RS. Someone familiar with the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church should probably review this article and see if any portions thereof are appropriate for merging. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wako-Pro World Grand Prix 2011: Romania vs Italy

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

Following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat World Grand Prix I and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat World Grand Prix II this is also not notable as it lacks significant coverage in third party reiliable sources thus failing WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Mtking (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete clearly fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Co-promotion between two highly notable promotions. Also featured a world title fight. -- WölffReik (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notable fighters does not meet automatic notability. please provide evidence of third party sources to meet WP:GNG. they are not world title fights. strong keep would require a lot of sources. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This article clearly needs improvement. However, the event did feature a WAKO world title fight and does have some weak sourcing. Needing improvement is not grounds for deletion. Papaursa (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"does have some weak sourcing" It has no sourcing to reliable sources that are independent of the promoter, it has one to www.headkicklegend.com, which is in reality a link to a video and a copy of the results. There is zip all that is in any way significant coverage. Mt king ^(edits) 01:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuperKombat was the promoter and the source given is WAKO--confirming there was a world title fight. Therefore, I'd say that source is both independent of the promoter and reliable (who better to confirm a WAKO title fight?). At least, that's how I see it. Yes, you could argue they're not independent since the promoter probably paid a sanctioning fee for the fight but that's SOP for all fighting events. Papaursa (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we are talking about sources proving notability, how can WAKO be used to advance the notability of a WAKO sanctioned event ? It can't. I say again that there are no independent sources that can attest to the notability of this event. Mt king ^(edits) 03:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 03:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Host-based intrusion detection system

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

Article was brought to the attention of the content noticeboard. Article has been unsourced for awhile, in vio of WP:V. Phearson (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; maybe delete Other than the complete lack of sources (and a hint of essayishness), the content appears reasonable to me, at first glance. There's no shortage of easily googled sources in this field - I'm surprised this article hasn't been fixed already! Alas, digging around to find sources for somebody else's old text is not very time-efficient, and I don't have free time for a rewrite at the moment. If nobody else fixes the article during the course of this AfD I'm happy for it to be deleted - I'll write a nice, sourced replacement from scratch, later in July. bobrayner (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some "citation needed" tags at least but it clearly is verifiable and thus meets WP:V DeVerm (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT Until it does, it does not meet WP:V. I am hesitant to fix this because this particular part of the computing aspect is quite confusing, especially with the marketing terms people comeup with on a whim. Phearson (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I spend enough time editing on WP to not feel guilty nor compelled to jump onto this article to take charge of it too. But that doesn't mean this article isn't WP:N / WP:V because it is. Lacking references can be handled by editing, talk page discussion or even by slapping some tags onto it which are all better options than delete imho --DeVerm (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 15:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—A solidly notable topic that deserves rescue rather than deletion. I've added a citation and a Rescue template. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Agreement with RJHall. However, whether or not "Keep" is a consensus agreement arising from the Delete debate or is an independent opinion isn't clear. (This may be a newbie remark since I'm unfamiliar with Delete "project page".)

Kernel.package (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: The Citizendium article is identical to this---is it common that they copy from here, or could this be a copyright violation on our part? Was too fast here, it is Citizendia, a Wikipedia mirror. Otherwise, notable topic, hundreds of scientific and white papers available, keep. --Pgallert (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is clearly notable. Click the Google news, Google books, or Google Scholar searches at the top of the AFD, and there are results, people talking about this. I'll see what I can add to the article. Remember to use WP:BEFORE to avoid wasting people's times with pointless deletion nominations. Dream Focus 06:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus on Hawaii, delete the rest. Courcelles 02:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Fighting Network Scandinavian Qualification 2007

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

also nominating:

another sprawling series of results listing of sporting events that gets no indepth third party coverage and fail WP:GNG. there has to be more than sherdog.com to establish notability. they all fail WP:EVENT as well. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - poorly referenced and barely notable, and per nominator's arguments. Interchangable (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but the Hawaiian event That event featured a world title fight for the heavyweight championship of the world's premier kickboxing organization. Astudent0 (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The events were held by the world's biggest promotion and featured world title fights and many notable fighters. -- WölffReik (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2011

having notable fighters does not mean automatic notability. World's biggest promotion? Do you have reliable sources to back that claim? LibStar (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 15:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Content Access Protocol

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

No coverage since 2008 as far as I can see that isn't the project itself talking about itself. Soupy sautoy (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unclear how lack of recent coverage is relevant. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was coverage at the beginning as it was launched by a notable institution, but it fizzled out. I realise that the notability guidelines say it isn't temporary, but is there room for something looking notable in its inception but turning out not to be? Soupy sautoy (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the general answer to your question. I did just notice a recent update on the ACAP site -- management of it has been turned over to IPTC and ACAP 2.0 planned.Mike Linksvayer (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still no coverage though, and I'd have thought if anyone was watching it at all, that'd be something to report. Soupy sautoy (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was in the media 1 or 2 years ago. We don't delete biographies of dead people either. —Ruud 14:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. The necessary standard of notability was met at the time, and this wasn't just somebody's pet idea that existed in the blogosphere only to be instantly forgotten. It was a genuine attempt to adopt a standard for an important sector. The value of keeping these things in Wikipedia even if they are later superseded or fail to thrive is that the topic will be mentioned in some context or another and there is a need for a reliable source where users can find out what it is/was and why it might not have succeeded. --AJHingston (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Freeman (meteorologist)

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

Previously kept at AFD in 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Freeman (weatherman)), but there doesn't appear to have ever been any significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources or anything to confirm the claimed awards (a behind-paywall source suggests the award may have been for visual effects rather than for Freeman). The reference (to a blog) is a dead link. Michig (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Award is confirmed on National Weather Association website (about 2/3 down) in http://www.nwas.org/awards/nwa08awards.php. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find the significant coverage at independent reliable sources which would indicate that he meets the notability guidelines. I can find his own writing at various websites, and a few minor mentions, but nothing to meet the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tooga - BØRK! 12:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just added three references. http://www.ksn.com/content/about/team/weather/dfreeman.aspx, http://www.nwas.org/awards/nwa08awards.php and http://weatherbrains.com/weatherbrains/?p=1135. It seems that the entire article can be referenced and if required expanded with those sources. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still a bit short on significant independent coverage. I'm fairly neutral given that we now have at least something to base the article on. --Michig (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my thoughts on those three sources:

The KSN article is his biog on the station he works for - it is not independent, especially as I would suspect that a lot of it was submitted to KSN by himself!
While the National Weather Association is arguably notable (the article has no citations from reliable independent sources), there is no mention in that article of their awards (and certainly no National Weather Association Awards or NWA Awards articles). I am not convinced that NWA Awards would be considered "major" enough to make a recipient notable
Although WeatherBrains is arguably notable (even though there is no Weatherbrains, Weather Brains, Weatherbrains.com etc article), it is also arguable about how independent the bio at the page actually is. When I read it, I thought that it read like a bio supplied to WeatherBrains by Freeman himself.

Overall, I personally am not convinced that these are enough to meet the notability criteria. One is not independent (it is his employer); one has an article, but there is no evidence that their awards meet the criteria for making someone notable; the final source has not been demonstrated to be notable. So, despite the excellent work by SunCreator in finding those sources, I am still recommending that we delete this article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bloons TD

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

I can not find enough third-party source offering significant coverage of this browser and phone based game to establish its notability. Most of the references in the article point to the iTunes store, which helps with verifiability, but does nothing for notability. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You obviously haven't looked in the right place then. Just click the "RS" link in the tiny note above my post. [16] [17] [18] [19]. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for articles about every kind of game. Plus this article does not cite good references and is not very notable. Atterion(Talk|Contribs) 18:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, not every kind of game, but every game that meets notability guidelines. This article does cite good sources. WikiProject Video Games has established IGN, GameZebo, GamePro, and Wired as reliable sources for video game articles. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm satisfied that the reviews cited above establish notability. Marasmusine (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate coverage exists in reliable sources to show notability (though I do prefer my old version without all the fancruft. Fences&Windows 01:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It just needs significant cleanup in the citations area. LiteralKa (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has adequate information, just needs cleaning up as stated. Mordecairule — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordecairule (talk • contribs) 18:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GNG satisfied -- Blake's sources above are multiple reliable, independent VG sources with non-trivial coverage. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Stephen Williams

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

One significant role. Fails WP:ENT. Too soon. SummerPhD (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing reliable on Google to show notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This actor is on the cusp of notability. WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", but this actor has only one significant role, and a handful of minor appearances in other shows. Google hits show 99% self promotion/blogs/DB indexes, but very little independent commentary. --Noleander (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sustainable sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Romano (guitarist, vocalist)

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

Unsourced biography. Notability per WP:NMG unclear. bender235 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Speedy delete I've nominated this for speedy as a copyright violation--the promotional and eulogistic tone is a giveaway.~~ Though with some digging it may be possible to find sources to start over [20]. 99.170.154.183 (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- The website which you have cited as the source of the text was created in January 2011 -- 3 months after the Wikipedia article was created in October 2010. Although I agree that the language is promotional, eulogistic and non-encyclopedic, (and the source of both articles is probably the same), it is not an clear copyvio. Therefore, I have declined the G12 speedy deletion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. It was apparently written by the subject's daughter, which accounts for the tribute tone. Perhaps it can be stripped down and rewritten, provided reliable sources are added. 99.170.154.183 (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Memorial language has been removed and article rewritten with RS references. Notability is clear per WP:GNG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources added illustrate sufficient notability. I moved it to Tony Romano (musician). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this article is now proper thanks to the editors who have made recent improvements. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Nice work. --bender235 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequate sourcing now. --Noleander (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Juke Kartel. v/r - T P 15:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Burman

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

Autobiographical article about a musician of questionable notability outside the group Juke Kartel. Majority of the major claims are unreferenced, sourced to the subject's personal website, or are references about the band, with no mention of Burman. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern. My name is Todd Burman, I have been trying to do a site on wikipedia. I am trying my absolute best to upload information about myself on this page. I am new to Wikipedia and am only trying to do my best to create this and am the actual person. The content I have been providing is true and I have am performer at the highest level. There are hundreds of articles online mentioning me by name and my achievements including winning awards with the band Juke Kartel and me being one of the main songwriters for that band. I am happy to prove this with my writing societies across the globe able to prove this. All statements are of fact on my personal website including PROOF of work in the field of writing and performing all are which are copyrighted and logged with my applicable writing societies.

As I have mentioned I am doing my best to site references and outside articles that name me by name. I have collaborated on multiple records and toured with the best in the business and believe to be worthy of inclusion on this site.

Todd Burman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.40.2 (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Todd, this process questions and seeks discussion regarding your notability with regard to justifying the existence of a Wikipedia article. As you have probably deduced that can be somewhat harrowing for the living! Do understand that by not directly editing autobiographically and avoiding any perceived or real conflict of interest you can avoid being in this undesirable position. An editor has given you a lot of useful information on your talk page. If, after having read that information, you need further clarification about why this process is taking place, please leave a note on my talk or I'm sure the nominator would run through it for you. Bleakcomb (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Juke Kartel as I cannot find any coverage independent of his work with the band. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Nom's reasons are well articulated. The Juke Kartel page contradicts itself as to whether the subject is still actually a member and reliable sources are few. If it can be established that the subject is still a member of the band then I'd change to a redirect to the band article. Bleakcomb (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It doesn't really matter if he is a current or former member. A redirect there would still be appropriate to s section listing former members. We don't ignore history. -- 01:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Doesn't meet WP:MUSICIAN or WP:GNG, but as is said above, it doesn't really matter whether he is a current or former member of the band. As long as it's verifiable, and it is in this case, then he deserves a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Craciun III

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

This is related to the WP:Articles for deletion/George Jay Wienbarg (2nd nomination) and WP:Articles for deletion/David Capurso deletions. It was written by someone with a vested interest (Georgewienbarg (talk · contribs)) and is about an individual with borderline if at any notabilitity. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has notability in music and history of FM Radio. No obvious WP:COI Whiteguru (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errm, what? No obvious conflict of interest? What checking did you do before making that statement? The article was created by the user Georgewienbarg. The article mentions George Wienbarg as a business associate of Craciun. That is surely enough to strongly suggest a conflict of interest, even if you didn't search far enough to know that the user Georgewienbarg has elsewhere indicated that he is indeed the real life George Wienbarg. And as for "article has notability", simply saying so without giving sources or explaining how notability is shown is not very helpful. See WP:ITSNOTABLE.JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched, and can find no substantial coverage in any reliable third party source. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with James B. Watson: there are vitually no independent 2ndary sources that discuss this person. I see one trivial, passing reference in a book: Rock 'n' roll and the Cleveland connection (Page 239), but that is all. Not sufficient to meet WP notability requirements. --Noleander (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Additionally, the article appears written by someone who had intimate knowledge of this guy's activities despite the dearth of references, raising COI concerns. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Horne (radio)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudonym (band)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miguel A. Jenkins}}