Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 15:42, 3 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< 18 July 20 July >

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 speedy delete (A3) by Jmlk17. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buck D'Oha

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

Fails WP:NM as a non-notable recording artist. Has very low Google hits and no Google News and Books hits. Not a single claim can be verified in this article. — ξxplicit 23:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. –MuZemike 23:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smelly socks

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

While referenced, it isn't very notable or encyclopedic. I don't see Stinky Shoes as an article, so why "Smelly socks"? What makes socks important and not shoes that stink? Just silly. Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 22:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I'm curious why you have relisted this only 5 days after the previous afd closed as no consensus. Either you think the closing admin got it wrong, in which case you are in the wrong venue and should try DRV or you are dangerously close to wasting everyone's' time. As an aside I would have thought it prudent to mention the previous discussion in your nomination. Spartaz Humbug! 23:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: I was not aware it was AfD'd 5 days ago, just that it had been AfD previously. I personally don't think the admin got anything "wrong", just that it the article doesn't need to be here. It isn't notable or encyclopedic in any way, shape, or form. I think the post from you above it enough to notify people. You may, if you wish, close this and move it elsewhere. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. Jayjg (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OSRIC-Compatible Supplements

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

This list compilation is not referenced to non-published sources. Creation of a ' sales catalog' (the products are not for sale, but that is the effect of having this article) from primary sources makes this an original research issue.

The authors are using Wikipedia as a primary source of documentation for their game creating specialized catalog lists. Miami33139 (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I authored most of the content on this page. To date, I am not associated with any of the publishers, nor have I written any of the items listed. Also note the various publishers are unafilliated. The article is meant as a useful index for interested readers to find all OSRIC-compatible supplements. I believe Wikipedia is the best place for such information because the list is independent of publisher, author, and distributor bias. So, it is the ideal place for the reader to find all published OSRIC-Compatible supplements, regardless of publisher, author, or distributor bias. I know there are a number of people interested in RPGs that use this article as a reference. I believe the article should be kept for those who want a comprehensive list of OSRIC supplements. -Terrex2112 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrex2112 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Same reason as the modules page, a useful list analogous to various computer game lists, and perhaps most pertinently the List of Dungeons & Dragons modules page. M.J.Stanham (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same argument as modules page, other stuff exists is not a valid argument for keep. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not the argument for keeping it, just examples of analogous material of similar usefulness. If those other pages ought also to be considered for deletion, then they should be. M.J.Stanham (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Other lists you've mentioned have twice as many source, are one lengthier topics and come from parent articles that meet the same standards. Your assertion of 'other lists being considered for deletion' is very familiar. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, if the requirement is more sources and lengthier topics, I am sure something can be done about that. I am not asserting anything, just saying that if the contention is that similar lists should be considered for deletion, then they should, and according to whatever criteria is suitable. M.J.Stanham (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The requirement is valid second and third party sources to establish notability, cause as the list stands it doesn't establish this and reads like a catalog. Yes, lists that have these same failing will be pointed out and either improved or deleted in some fashion, that's a given. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Right, which is what I was saying above. I think you can understand the confusion when a page is indicated to be marked for deletion because it is a list, when in fact its function as a list is not the primary reason for its deletion, but rather that the criteria is towards notability established through the existence of secondary and third party sources, presumably things like discussion in Dragon magazine or Knights of the Dinner Table, which are fairly easily established.M.J.Stanham (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • There is no confusion. No where did anyone say 'delete this because it's a list'. Nom states that it's a list that lacks notability. The fact that it's a list is secondary to the notability issues, coupled with the fact that the list reads like an advert for OSRIC products. If you believe that notability can be established "fairly easily", might I suggest you focus your energies on that? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If there was no confusion, we would not be having this conversation. I am indeed devoting what energies I can spare to this process, and would appreciate any help from people who know better what they are doing with regards to the criteria for Wikipedia. I am indeed "fairly certain" that that the criteria can be met, but obviously that certainty is itself limited by my understanding of what is and is not permissible.M.J.Stanham (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • We are having this discussion because you are trying to defend a list that is up for deletion due to notability issues, not because it's a list, so I don't see this confusion you keep talking about. Additionally, this isn't getting us anywhere. I see that you've created the article you proposed and that an admin from OSRIC wiki has rejected the information. Vote amended to reflect that. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of improvised weapons

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

The article Improvised weapons was previously deleted as a mess of original research. This article was then re-started as a listing of objects that could be used as improvised weapons. Because it was a list it was then moved to its current article title List of improvised weapons with Improvised weapons left as a redirect to the new list. To avoid it listing every item in the world, consensus was achieved to only list objects for which references could be found. The same editor who re-started the article then created a new article in place of the redirect at Improvised weapons including a large list of improvised weapons and thus creating a large degree of overlap between Improvised weapons and List of improvised weapons. I proposed the obvious solutions of a merger or leaving the list of objects in the list article and removing them from the descriptive article, but due to lack of participating editors there was no consensus. I agreed to remove the merge tags, wait a month to see if the problem had been addressed and if not to take this to AfD to gain a wider consensus on how to deal with the problem. The problem of a high degree of overlap remains and I believe that only one of the two articles is needed. Either article could have been listed for AfD, but since Improvised weapons is probably the more logical title I have chosen to nominate List of improvised weapons for deletion. Ahunt (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Navigational lists where the population have more in common than "list of inanimate objects that someone somewhere has used to harm someone else", such as List of firearms are more likely to be for relevant research than trivia. This one's utility as a navigation list will drop dramatically the more it's filled with items which are not covered as weapons within their own articles. Even with a column for descriptions, it'd be "X whacked Y with (a milk jug, a picture frame, a rickshaw)", which is just trivia. Bulking the list out with hundreds of entries and a cite apiece would only show that otherwise unrelated objects can be used to cause harm, which can be summed up in a sentence or two within the article. An article covering who uses improvised weapons, why, periods of time and places where they have been used extensively (history), what qualities are more likely to result in an item being used as an improv. weapon etc. etc. would be interesting, useful and could contain relevant examples. There's nothing wrong with the subject itself, it's just that you've selected a grossly inefficient way of delivering information which trivializes something which is not trivial at all. You say it's easier to be a critic.. this is a community with the goal of serving the wider readership, if other contributors see you delivering information in a less than optimal way (in their opinions), expect them to say so rather than picking up a shovel. Someoneanother 23:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Tomithy83: You have rather missed the point of this AfD that I explain in detail in the nomination at the top of the page. I nominated this not because there shouldn't be an article on improvised weapons, but because the two articles have a large degree of overlap and we don't need two articles on the subject. You actually support this argument above when you point out that "Naturally I searched wiki, as it is a repository of information with sources cited, only to find that the information was scattered throughout various unconnected articles". With the high degree of overlap we don't need the two articles. As far as there being other overlapped or poor quality lists justifying keeping this list see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep (although this may need to be moved to Tomithy's user page). The article attempts to source each of the entries, and there's precious little of that in Wikipedia. I think that the major problem with this page is something that isn't beyond fixing, which is the presentation. The way it reads now is an indiscriminate list of items, "Baseball bat, brick, cricket bat, crowbar, etc. etc." some of which need no explanation, and others, like "human blood" that would, or "improvised firearm", which needs more explanation than anything. I really don't want to know how fecal matter can be used as a weapon, but some people might be interested in crap like that. Mandsford 15:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are few things that couldn't be made into weapons. Even cotton balls. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep , then merge: Inappropriate venue. Since when AfD has become a venue for discussing article moves/merges? Yes, I know that AfD's can close as merge, but one should not nominate for deletion if the plan is merging from the start I agree with the nom that we should merge the list in the main article, but using AfD for this is plain wrong. --Cyclopiatalk 16:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with you that a merger discussion should be held as a merger discussion on the talk page and merging was my first choice, but as you can see on the article talk page the lack of participation resulted in "no consensus" to merge. Deleting the list article was my second choice and that is what we are here discussing today. My nomination statement is clearly to delete this article, not merge it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed to remove the merge tags, wait a month to see if the problem had been addressed and if not to take this to AfD to gain a wider consensus on how to deal with the problem - This is not the way to use AfD. AfD is not mean to "gain a wider consensus on how to deal with the problem", if the problem is not outright deletion of a page. You want to merge content of A to page B, and in fact that's what you proposed. The lack of participation is irrelevant: you could have posted an RfC, opened an official merge request, notified some related Wikiproject, or even being WP:BOLD and merged yourself. There are lots of venues for the kind of thing you ask; AfD is not one of these. --Cyclopiatalk 17:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps you are right in that my nomination wording was too vague, but I have clearly stated that this proposal is to delete, not merge. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Openplaques

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

Note: article now at Open Plaques as this is the form of name it uses on its website PamD (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This organisation does not seem to be particularly notable, no references on the page. Nothing on Google News, nothing substantial on Google normal search (where else should I be looking?. Template:Openplaque, created the same day, inserts external reference to the site. Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. Fails WP:GNG I think. I am not bringing the template here for discussion, only the article: I merely note its existence and that the "what links here" of the article are in most cases the result of its transclusion. Si Trew (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The virtue of this in terms of WP is because of the template. That's a useful link to an external database, just as we already do for findagrave, geograph and various location-based services. If the template is in use, it makes sense to have some wiki-hosted target to explain what the service is about, even if notability is otherwise marginal.
Sadly past experience suggests that the article will be deleted, then others will call for the link template to be deleted too on no useful basis whatsoever. Consider what makes WP work best, not how you can find policy excuses to delete something else. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I started the AfD and I am a self-confessed inclusionist. I think this smacks of WP:PROMO but was too polite to say. Yes, I will propose the template for deletion if the article gets deleted; I think its primary purpose is to give the article more links than it really has. At George Orwell I left one vaguely useful link to a plaque and deleted one other that is essentially a holding page asking someone else to submit a photo of the plaque at that location. I also have doubts because the current street numbering may not be that of a street in the past, so the geo data could well be inaccurate, but then this site doesn't have the standards of WP:RS and WP:V that Wikipedia has. So I happen to know that at least one of the geolocators on that site is in the wrong place, but it's not my business to correct an external site.
I note also that that site contains content from Wikipedia articles but does not seem to link to the GFDL. I appreciate that this is a new site and they can't do everything at once, but it is absolutely essential that they link to the GFDL. That again is irrelevant to this particular discussion, but I am just trying to do one thing at once and give other editors a chance to comment.
My personal view is this could be a good site, but it isn't now. WP:CRYSTAL. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the founder of the site. Thanks for raising the Wikipedia attribution issue - we certainly want to link to Wikipedia correctly, following the Terms of Use, and will look at improving this as soon as possible. I'm an active Wikipedia contributor but didn't start the Open Plaques page, and will refrain from voting on the grounds of a WP:CONFLICT. The only thing I'd add to this discussion is to admit that the project is still in its early stages in terms of gaining wider coverage and participation - however recent RSA funding, the early support from Flickr, and the active community of contributors means that the project is now starting to grow, and hopes to become more usable and notable in the coming months. Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, we'd really welcome any support or advice from Wikipedia contributors. Cheers. 82.69.187.206 (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps with your decision. Thanks, DeirdreMM (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Blogs ain't no good. Nor are flickr, facebook, or anything similar. "We haven't had mainstream media coverage yet" - I'm afraid it's a case of come back when you have. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Acceptance for this year's Museums and the Web conf certainly is though. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note (to go at bottom of page): article now at Open Plaques as this is the form of name it uses on its website PamD (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Goode

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

Unelected challenger for Senate seat per WP:POLITICIAN also fails WP:GNG no significant coverage only passing mention on google search mainly dealing with her intension to challenge for seat. Mo ainm~Talk 21:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All those links simply establish is that she is seeking the nomination - that's not notable. She'd have to have coverage for something else. Valenciano (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why? Hobit (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because passing mention of Goode and coverage of her intention to stand doesn't meet GNG which states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail... Also one of the sources you link to claims that she is a Little known Democrat Mo ainm~Talk 18:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In general passing coverage is something like a sentence or two, this coverage is significantly more than that. Also though she was little known, it is unlikely she is now. Thus the reporting on her, thus meeting WP:N... Hobit (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources you gave talk of subject directly in detail? If you take out the coverage of her intension to stand could you write a detailed biography with those sources? IMO no because she fails WP:GNG. Mo ainm~Talk 21:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:N. None of what you ask for are a part of it. She is covered, in detail. There are non-independent reliable sources for her to build a detailed bio. So again, does she have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources? Clearly. Is there perhaps a WP:BLP1E problem? Yes. They are different and separable issues. Hobit (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it and she doesn't pass it. As the sources I have found claim she is little known, so how does that make her notable. She is getting passing coverage as a potential candidate which fails WP:GNG and also WP:POLITICIAN. If she does contest and win then she will be notable. If I declare my intention to challenge for the vote would I be notable? Not according to our policy. Mo ainm~Talk 12:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If major newspapers covered your challenge in detail it would meet WP:N (multiple reliable sources, not in passing). I think that has clearly happened here. Again WP:BLP1E might well be an issue. And yes, if multiple reliable sources covered a topic in detail for being "not notable", then by Wikipedia's definition of notable (WP:N) that topic would be worthy of inclusion. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please find a citation for that? The official website of the NYS Board of Elections has no such statement on it. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if she does get on the ballot, that doesn't make her notable - by Wikipedia's criteria. In the world of politics, maybe. Here, candidates have to be worthy of an article for other reasons first. Once elected, yes (excepting minor positions, of course). Peridon (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I am a New Yorker. She most certainly IS ON the ballot right now, plus she leads a very important agency in the City of New York. You have articles of other bureaucrats and even of annual candidates who muck up a few thousand voters. Deleting Gail Goode's page would be very suspicious to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jro660 (talk • contribs)
    • And what would be suspicious about it's deletion? What is suspicious is the article is created twice in a few hours by yourself Jro660 which was speedy deleted and then again by Andrew.neidhardt and you "both" forget to sign your posts. Mo ainm~Talk 16:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't create articles often so I don't know how to do a signature or sign it or whatever it's called I don't even know what that means. You have other candidates who have lost elections and primaries listed on Wikipedia. This is a candidate who has beaten back existing pressure from the White House who collected 45,000 signatures to run statewide. Considering every institution has been there to protect Gillibrand it's very odd that Wikipedia would rush so quickly to delete Gail Goode. Favoritism? Don't delete her page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jro660 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And why would I show favoritism, I am from Ireland and have never set foot in New York and have no wish too ever set foot there, the article you and Andrew.neidhardt created just isn't notable read our policy on this that I have linked to above. So drop the conspiracy bullshit. And you use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your posts. Mo ainm~Talk 09:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. I too am from across the pond and have no political interest in goings on in NY or anywhere else outside my country (and also don't fancy going to NY - London's bad enough and I only go there on business). Gillibrand or whoever is an office holder and has notability from that. If Goode gets in, there'll be an article on her. In the mean time, only if she does something notable - by Wikipedia standards, not by your political standards - will she merit an article here. If you don't like Wikipedia's criteria, tough. Find somewhere else. We have no duty to publicise anyone from any party or affiliation. Peridon (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Simply being a candidate, or being on the ballot, does not make her "notable" in the eyes of Wikipedia. She needs significant coverage from independent reliable sources, and the general Wikipedia consensus is that coverage about an election is not the same thing as coverage about the person. If she defeats Gillibrand and wins the Democratic nomination, that would probably be a significant enough achievement to make her notable. But simply running - no. There are some news hits about her campaign, [3] but even those that do mention her don't seem to take her seriously. "... there’s a silver lining for Gillibrand: she has no strong Democratic opponent (sorry Gail Goode)." [4] "MSM Silent on NY Democratic Challenger for U.S. Senate" [5] The one mainstream article about her candidacy - the one from the New York Daily News - refers to her as "a longtime but little-known city lawyer". Little known is, by definition, not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete based on WP:OUTCOMES, although I think we should keep in US Senate candidates who get on the ballot. COI notice: I am volunteering on the campaign of Kirtsen Gillibrand. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --Mike Cline (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Steele

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

Citing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argiris Karras as precedent, actors who are only notable for their appearance on "Degrassi: The Next Generation", and have little (ie. IMDb) to none sources, should be redirected to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. I suggest that the redirects are indefinitely semi-protected, so that exuberant fans don't violate this discussion, and recreate the page. I am also nominating the articles listed below. 117Avenue (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Cassie Steele until more roles are picked up for Alex Steele (if it can be verified they are sisters), otherwise Im fine with a merger to the List article as well for this case. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alex's official site confirms it, as well as the IMDb link on Cassie's article. 117Avenue (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adamo Ruggiero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep: I oppose deletion of this article because, contrary to the rationale stated above, Ruggiero is not only notable for his appearances on Degrassi; he is also a TV show host, and has starred in plays and films unrelated to Degrassi. The article could benefit from additional sources, but the existing sources are, I believe, adequate to establish notability. –BMRR (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with above comments that there are sufficient sources and work history for this actor's page to remain as is for now, and grow as his resume grows. Jul. 12, 17:31:14 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdterp (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rescind my nomination of Adamo Ruggiero, which was border line. He is recognized in Canada as someone who brought homosexuality into the minds of teenagers. I do encourage editors to expand the article. 117Avenue (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Annie Clark (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Christina Schmidt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dalmar Abuzeid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Daniel Morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deanna Casaluce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jajube Mandiela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Judy Jiao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Katie Lai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Melissa McIntyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Raymond Ablack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sam Earle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep I think we should keep Sam Earle's also. I just updated missing information that do not have to do with Degrassi like short films and his stage work that went unmentioned, his charity work, him wanting to direct, I corrected his birth date, and much more. I also added more external links to back up my findings. This all was missing and I think fills it out better with more information and shows that he has done more than just Degrassi. These are all things that make him his own actor and why he should be able to keep his own Wiki page. DegrassiTNGFan (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Barrable-Tishauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scott Paterson (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep – I can understand why the nominator bundled all these articles together, but I think it's becoming clearer that these really need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. There are some good arguments for keeping a couple of them already. I chose another one of them randomly, Christina Schmidt, and see that she has apparently won a Young Artist Award (needs a citation), and found an article entirely about her in The Record [6] which has not yet been added. So each of these articles seem to need their own individual research, as happens in separate nominations. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Look Into Each Person - I completley agree. If you look at each page you can see that there may not be a lot but they just need to be added. Some are, and some arn't but they all have more to offer than what there already is. For example, I spiced up Sam Earle 's page with a lot of things that wern't listed before. Same thing seems to be repeatedly happening with the others. I do feel like it would be better to not bundle them and consider them for a case-to-case bias as was said above if it is still felt as neccissary for a particular article^.^ DegrassiTNGFan (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider separately, per the above two comments. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeda Oikawa

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

The notability of this person is questionable. Additionally, the article does not cite any sources and it is written like a résumé., with most of the article being a poorly formatted list. cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death Will Never Conquer

[edit]
Death Will Never Conquer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While I am a huge fan of Coldplay, this B-side is simply not notable under Wikipedia:NSONGS. It never charted, never became a singe, never won significant awards or honors, or has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. It didn't even make the cut for Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends and was instead degraded to B-side status.The article itself pretty much provides a reasoning for it to not exist. White Shadows There goes another day 23:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Volareweb.com. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volareweb.com destinations

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

Bringing to AFD after a speedy attempt (was declined) for A10 (see {{db-same}}. This article covers destinations for a defunct airline - which is OK, but it also duplicates work already in existence in the main article for Volareweb.com. A merge is inappropriate (nothing to merge). Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, sorry, being 9 millionth most popular is not a valid claim of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ikon Circuit

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

Notability conerns. Article does assert notability: the website is the 9,224,530th most popular site on the internet :-) RA (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StreamingFlix

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

The articles doesn't assert the notability of the company. While not overtly advertise-y, in essence is looks solely to be. RA (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraix data

[edit]
Algebraix data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
King4057 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"Algebraix Data Corporation develops, markets and supports a single flagship product called the Advanced Analytics Database (A2DB)." Appears to be non-notable software company. No significant coverage from multiple sources. Existing sources are self-referential, from unreliable places, or give minor coverage. Article also reads like advert. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Coverage in reliable sources is lacking under both "Algebraix" and its former name, "Xsprada". The patent claims are irrelevant as there is no indication that these patents are notable. Note that modern SQL style databases are based on relational algebra and so any patent from any database company working in the datamining field will likely have patents based on algebraic relations. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Buttigieg

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

Political candidature doesn't confer wikipedia notability. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: don't delete - Pete Buttigieg has achieved sufficient notability so as to be included on wikipedia as per the Wiki notable person policy. He is one of the two candidates appearing on the ballot of a statewide office of Indiana, an office for which more than 1.5 million people cast their vote four years ago. There is a great deal of media coverage around the state, but seeing as it is statewide, a great deal of it is on smaller, local newspaper websites that do not allow for citation of their pages after a certain amount of them (when they archive them). All the articles can be found on the candidate's website, but I assumed wikipedia would frown on that repeated citation of the campaign website (which you'll note is only referenced ONCE, not multiple times, and that is to simply observe the candidate's business background). I'd also note that the party website is only cited once, simply to establish that he is in fact the Democratic candidate, which is hardly illegitimate. I'd reference you to another State Treasurer candidate with a wiki page that is not remotely controversial, Andrei Cherny, and would observe that his age is similar (even if it's not mentioned there), and his methods of citation are quite similar as well. Notwithstanding the fact that this candidate is a Rhodes Scholar, which is "a well-known and significant award or honor", there is plenty of news coverage to meet wikipedia's exacting standards, and examining the page reveals no significant bias in its writing. (I apologize for some of these points not being raised by the above two users, I wanted to address the ones raised on the article's talk page as well, in case those were being considered). Hanumang06 (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • - — Hanumang06 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment There are about 32 Rhodes Scholarships per annum for the United States. A page's existence is not reason for another page to exist. I went to look at Andrei Cherny expecting to tag for deletion, but it seems he's got a few more qualifications. This one looks like just another candidate to me. Peridon (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep limited coverage previous to run for office (Harvard, publication in NYT) likely which wouldn't meet WP:N, but current run has plenty of coverage so WP:N is met and I don't quite see a WP:BLP1E here. Hobit (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This candidate has no real experience or notoriety outside of being in a statewide campaign. The media coverage (as stated above) has been in small media sources and has not been widespread throughout the state. This is the candidates second attempt to create a wikipedia campaign page. Redwngr333 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Indiana State Treasurer, unless there's a page created for the race (doubtful, but who knows around here), per WP:POLITICIAN. I can only see mentions of his involvement in the race in two articles in two local media sources, hardly "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." If he gets more coverage, the redirect can be undone and the article expanded as appropriate. — e. ripley\talk 02:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Comment - from the picture upload detail."This is a biography created by his campaign staff using a picture from his campaign" . Although this is not wiki illegal as such it is reflective of the reasoning behind its creation and good reason to investigate what coverage there actually is in these citations specifically about this person and not the election race as a whole. Off2riorob (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First please note that this was a second attempt not due to some stubborn flouting of rules, but simply because I'm a wiki neophyte and didn't include proper news references in my abortive initial foray. To address some of the points above: * the page actually includes 10 different news articles, which come from every reasonably sized media market in the state, geographically scattered throughout (South Bend, Ft. Wayne, Indianapolis, Chesterton, Terre Haute, Lafayette, Louisville/Jeffersonville, and Evansville), so it is actually "widespread throughout the state", and definitely more than two articles in two local media sources: a quick Google News search would net you 30 similar articles, these are simply noted to show the distribution. Like I said, I'm no wiki expert, but I genuinely don't understand what the notability difference is between this article and the one for Andrei Cherny, who has a similar background, age, # of references (fewer, actually) and office he is seeking, (he is Arizona's Democratic nominee for Treasurer). I appreciate the time you've all put into something like this not necessarily fascinating to you, any feedback would be great! Hanumang06 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can only vote comment once, please strike one, so far you have, bolded..don't delete and now keep. Please ask me to help iy you don't know how to strike, Or just delete the don't delete..this will sort it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've refactored Hanumang06's !votes, changing the first from "Don't Delete" to "Keep: don't delete" and the second from "Keep" to "Comment". TFOWR 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I agree with the edit, I didn't realize how to do appropriate formatting, sorry about the confusion! Hanumang06 (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no real good reason for keeping has been advanced. The elected position of State Treasurer is one that has no equivalent over here, and I'm not sure of its status. However, there is an article on the Indiana one, so I will assume it is notable. Candidates with no other notability do not acquire notability from a position they do not yet occupy - except at Presidential level, of course. Peridon (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think, from my understanding of WP notability rules, that it's not his standing as a candidate that's relevant (which is not my contention here, though the office itself is certainly not some local town council seat), but whether he has acquired notability, as judged by such things as news coverage from independent sources. That burden has been met, again, both for this candidate and Andrei Cherny for Arizona's equivalent position. Hanumang06 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would say Andrei Cherny doesn't meet the guidelines either, we have a thing here that political candidature does not assert wikipedia notabity, and I have seen the reasons for that and support that position, this is over ridden if the election in itself becomes especially notable.. so if you look at it like that, what is my man notable for apart from that? His Rhodes scholarship and employment history doesn't quite cut it, imo.Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Tag it if you don't think it fits. But you can't use it as a reason for this one. Peridon (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think his resume is more extensive than the simplified "Rhodes and employment history", even aside from that, I think the references are numerous enough and geographically varied enough to indicate notable interest in the candidate and the election throughout a state that is of reasonable geographic size. And since Cherny has been around on the site for quite some time without any challenge, it seems like there's at least some reasonable number of users who consider it a relevant entry. Let me know what you think! Hanumang06 (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That guy Chenny appears to have written a book but I don't know about the sales or the notability, we have WP:AUTHOR for writers. General guidelines are WP:GNG .. WP:BIO..Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think things are getting off topic here. I'm happy enough with Cherny'a article, but if anyone wants to make a real discussion of it, there's a talk page there or if you feel strongly enough, take it to AfD. Peridon (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete for now. If he wins the statewide office for which he is running, he will be automatically notable. But for now he doesn't have the outside citations necessary to make him notable. I am saying "weak delete" because he gets a few hits besides the usual "so and so is running" stories. He has managed to get some op-eds printed in the New York Times, and there is some coverage of the election from outside Indiana. --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to user:Hanumang06: It is clear you are here only to promote this person's candidacy, but please be less blatant about it. The redirect page Pete for Indiana, which you created to redirect to this page, is way over the line and I have requested its speedy deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fair enough, i actually agree with your point, I'm gonna delete that myself Hanumang06 (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC) --- someone beat me to it, but yeah, you were definitely right on that point, apologies Hanumang06 (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from Wikipedian05. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite campus

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

Just a dictionary definition with no evidence of notability. Prod rejected Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my nomination but with the caveat that the research I've done now, and should have done before, strongly suggests that the title should be Branch Campus - about 20,000 Google books hits on that to just over 3000 for 'satellite', and this "Satellite+campus"&hl=en&ei=9E1MTPncHoeuOOr-iJYD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=30&ved=0CLMBEOgBMB0#v=onepage&q=%22Satellite%20campus%22&f=false,

  • I created this article expecting others to fill it in, and am a little surprised it never was. I still think that there should be a history of the satellite campus here, something that discusses the phenomenon and types of satellite campuses. But I've never cared much to write it.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep a good article could easily exist under this name. [11] would be a possible starting point. Hobit (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic is worthy of an article, but the current one is so self-evident it's hardly even a dictionary definition. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a good solid definition, providing context so that editors who want to expand the article know what the subject is. And as Hobit notes, there's scope for expansion. ISBN 9781607091783 is a whole book on this subject, by its U.S. name of a branch campus. There's a full formal definition, cited in the literature on higher education, of what a branch campus is, formulated by A.G. Konrad in xyr 1982 paper presented at the AACJC conference that year. And even if those weren't enough, this subject is clearly encyclopaedic by dint of already being in another encyclopaedia, in this particular case as the "branch campus" article in the International encyclopedia of higher education, Volume 3 (B-C), ISBN 9780875893235.

      This is a good stub with demonstrable scope for expansion. Please put deletion policy into action properly. Uncle G (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • This isn't even a valid stub. It's unreferenced, it's not tagged as a stub and the handful of content words it contains are dwarfed by its own templates. Whilst a stub, or even a useful article, on this topic would have value this just isn't it. In the absence of any expansion in the imminent future (and not just sitting on the shelf for months) we'd be better served by deleting it, leaving it as an obvious REDLINK and re-creating when someone does have opportunity to do it properly. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: there was a lot of information removed, i re-inserted it from the history. It's now (again) more than a 1-liner. the 'examples' section needs some tidying. I see a decent stub with improvement potential. Don't forget, when you delete an article, you delete it's history, so check through it for sudden drops in article size (shown in kb in brackets next to the revision date) for any potentiall good stuff in the history --Arkelweis (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has no sources and no sources have been given since the tag was added a long time ago. No doubt that the content is original research.Wikipedian05 (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important topic with plenty of third-party coverage, based on a quick Google search. I started a sourced paragraph about international branch campuses, which is a particularly interesting aspect of this topic. Also, I note that the "Examples" list, which had been deleted earlier but was restored earlier in this AfD, cited references all along in the form of inline ELs. --Orlady (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfy. Article will be moved to User:Dzimozz\drafts\Iron Mask (band) for further improvement with the suggestion that Dzimozz seek guidance from fellow experience editors and projects on the best ways to bring this article in line with WP standards.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Mask (band)

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

With only a myspace and their official website as external links, I believe it fails WP:Notability (music) LAAFan 19:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can check out their latest album at Yahoo. There are more than 42000 results of search for "Shadow Of The Red Baron". Besides, in Wikipedia there's an article about another Dushan Petrossi's project - "Magic Kingdom". Iron Mask is a more successful and popular project, so I think therefore there shuold be an article about it. Dushan Petrossi is considered as guitar hero #1 in Belgium, the belgian Yngwie Malmsteen. And in Iron MAsk there's of the greatest rock-singers of our epoch - Oliver Hartmann. Their latest album was highly estimated by many rock magazines, for example Burrn!

List of magazine titles hidden back here for brevity, hit "show" to display
  • Aardschock Mag - (Holland) - 82/100
  • Burrn! Mag - (Japan) - 80/100
  • MetalParadise - (Belgium) - 8.5/10
  • CastleOfPagan - (Japan) - 85/100
  • MetalExpress - (International) - 7.5/10
  • Metal-Integral - (France) - 18/20
  • NightfallInMetalEarth - (France) - 4/5
  • HardHarderHeavy - (Germany) - 6/7
  • Schmurzi - (Germany) - 6/6
  • MetalObserver - (Germany) - 8/10
  • Obliveon - (Germany) - 8.5/10
  • UnstoppableForce - (USA) - 9.5/10
  • ZwareMetalen - (Holland) - 90/100
  • Concrete Web - (Belgium) - 90/100
  • Virtuosity One - (UK) - 95/100
  • Lords Of Metal - (Holland) - 83/100
  • Rafabasa - (Spain) - 8.5/10
  • SpazioRock - (Italy) - 8/10
  • MusicWaves - (France) - 8/10
  • HeavySound - (France) - 8/10
  • PowerOfMetal - Denmark - 79/100
  • Imhotep - (Norway) - 5/6
  • SeigneursDuMetal - (France) - 8.5/10
  • PowerMetal - (Italy) - 7.8/10
  • HellSpawn - (Belgium) - 92/100
  • DangerDog - (Germany) - 4.75/5
  • MetalGuide - (Intl) - 9/10
  • Imperiumi - (Finland) - 7.5/10
  • MetalZone - (Belgium) - 8/10
  • FestivalPhoto - (Sweden) - 4/5
  • MEtalicGeneration - (Japan) - 82/100
  • TrueMetal - (Italy) - 74/100
  • SquealerRocks - (Germany) - 9/10
  • LesEternels - (France) - 15/20
  • Stormbringer - (Austria) - 4/5
  • MetalGlory - (Germany) - 8.5/10
  • PowerMetal4Ever - (Germany) - 11/15
  • MagicFireMusic - (France) - 15/20
  • TheMayfairMallZone - (UK) - 9/10
  • ProgRock - (Poland) - 4/5
  • ParanoiaShow - (Spain) - 9/10
  • MetalTemple - (Greece) - 4/5
  • KronosMortus - (Hungary) - 8/10
  • MetalMundus - (Poland) - 10/10
  • RockReport - (Belgium) - 5/6
  • HeavyMetalFire - (Spain) - 20/20
  • MetalSymphony - (France) - 8/10
  • WestSideDave - (USA) - 10/10
  • Laestadea - (Spain) - 8/10
  • MetalCrypt - (France) - 4/5
  • Katehizis - (Bulgaria) - 8/10
  • SoundsOfRock - (Venezuela) - 8.5/10
  • Froster - (Ukraine) - 8/10
  • FuryRocks - (Holland) - 8.6/10

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzimozz (talk • contribs) 19:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Dzimozz (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their previous album "Hordes Of The Brave" was well-estimated too, in the same magazines. Besides, in "Iron Mask" we can find musicians, who performed in well-world-known bands and projects: Avantasia, Narnia, Joe Stump, Reign Of Terror, Edguy and so on - the articles about these bands can be found in Wikipedia. Iron Mask perfomed onstage with such monsters of rock as Soulfly, Aerismith, Primal Fear, Caracass and many others —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzimozz (talk • contribs) 19:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Dzimozz (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC) And one more thing. Record labels Lion Music and Avalon\marquee are well-known, and there are articles 'bout 'em in Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzimozz (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Dzimozz (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remove afd messeage? Is the isuue settled? Dzimozz (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I have already explained the issue to JamesBWatsonDzimozz (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can add more than 50 external links about the band and their albums, if nessesary Dzimozz (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Plenty of coverage in webzines but I'm struggling to see any of those as what we would count as reliable sources. Allmusic has no coverage, but MusicMight does if you know what to search for: [12]. This appears to be from a print magazine (or former print magazine). A few pointers to coverage in print magazines might sway it to a keep, but it needs more evidence of coverage in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can provide more references - these are the reviews of thier album "Hordes Of The Brave"

List of web sites and other magazine titles hidden here for brevity, hit "show" to display
  • Aardschock Mag - (Holland) - 88/100
  • Burrn!!!! Mag - (Japan) - 80/100
  • Gobilin Mag - (Poland) - 9/10
  • Rock Hard Mag - (France) - 8/10
  • Virtuosa Mag - (UK) - 10/10 *album of the month*
  • www.adrenalinfanzine.com - (Usa) - 10/10
  • www.angelfire.com - (Holland) - 8,8/10
  • www.aordreamzones.com - (Holland) - 85/100
  • www.bird.zero.ad.jp - (Japan) - 5/5
  • www.blogcritics.org - (Usa) - 4/5
  • www.castleofpagan.com - (Japan) - 89/100
  • www.darkside.ru - (Russia) - 10/10
  • www.eternal-terror.com - (Norway) - 4/5
  • www.eutk.net - (italy) - 9/10
  • www.funchannel.at - (Austria) - 4,5/5
  • www.glory-daze.com - (New Zealand) - 5/5
  • www.hardrockhaven.net - (Usa) - 8,5/10
  • www.heavylaw.com - (France) - 5/6
  • www.h4.dion.ne.jp - (Japan) - 5/5
  • www.imperiumi.net - (Finland) - 9/10
  • www.lucidforge.com - (Usa) - 9/10
  • www.magnumaspiration.com - (Japan) - 85/100
  • www.medazzarock.com - (Germany) - 8/10
  • www.metalcdratings.com - (Usa) - 4/5
  • www.metalcentral.se - (Sweden) - 8/10
  • www.metalglory.de - (Germany) - 8/10
  • www.metalheart.se - (Sweden) - 8/10
  • www.metal-zone.it - (Italy) - 90/100
  • www.musicamustdie.ru - (Russia) - 8/10
  • www.nightfall.fr - (France) - 5/5
  • www.powermetal.pl - (Poland) - 8/10
  • www.prog-nose.net - (Belgium) - 8,5/10
  • www.progressivewaves.com - (France) - 8/10
  • www.prog4you.com - (Usa) - 8/10
  • www.rockangels.com - (Spain) - 89/100
  • www.rockradio.se - (Sweden) - 4/5
  • www.rockreport.be - (Belgium) - 5,5/6
  • www.rockreview.net - (Belgium) - 8/10
  • www.rocktribune.be - (Belgium) - 82/100
  • www.seaooftranquility.org - (Usa) - 4/5
  • www.seigneursdumetal.fr - (France) - 4,5/5
  • www.sue-soul.com - (Japan) - 85/100
  • www.thedarkesthours.com - (Canada) - 85/100
  • www.umemetal.com - (Sweden) - 8,5/10
  • www.verorock.it - (Italy) - 9/10
  • www.virtuosityone.com - (UK) - 95/100 *album of the month*
  • www.vs-webzine.com - (France) - 15/20
  • www.whiplash.net - (Brazil) - 10/10
  • www.7.ocn.ne.jp - (Japan) - 86/100

Hope, this will be enough. Their disks can be bought at Amazon, the record labels Lion Music and Avalon/Marquee are well-known. And one more thing. I've just searched for "iron mask" "shadow of the red baron" in Google - the number of results is about 1 700 000 ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzimozz (talk • contribs) 20:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Dzimozz (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Some sites are very popular, for example russian rock-metal site #1 darkside.ruDzimozz (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need direct links to the articles, bro. Not the host sites. Also note that fan sites are not going to make the grade - and the pages at angelfire alone won't work. Check those links on your talk page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going with a weak delete for now. There are plenty of reviews out there (Dzimozz shows links for this), but I'm not finding much more than that - and it doesn't quite make the grade on WP:MUSIC. I say weak, however, because a Google search (yes, I know...) turns up multiple links that relate - though none of them make the grade on our reliable sources guidelines. Some mini-reviews, album listings, torrent and download sites, but not much more than that. I've gone ahead and explained my stance to user:Dzimozz on his talk page, and I'm hoping he can turn something up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change vote to userfy. He's making an effort, but he's focusing his energy wrong - so I'm going to assume good faith in that he'll fix it. The down shot is that it's not yet a viable article for Wikipedia, so keeping it is not the right thing - put it in background and userfication should do the trick. Good luck. =)

Well, as far as I understood, an encyclopedia can be regarded as reliavle source for Wiki? In this case, I've found the link for the The Encyclopedia of heavy metal Metallian:www.metallian.com/dushanpetrossisironmask.htm Sorry for my English, I'm from Belarus, this is not an english-speaking country (former Soviet Unin, you know:-)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzimozz (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Dzimozz (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I think, my article meets the following criteria 1.5 WP:Notability (music): "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" The Label is Lion Music. There's an article about this label in wikipedia.It was founded in 1989 as a production company for the composer and artist Lars Eric Mattsson.Lion Music has also released several well received quality tribute albums to Jason Becker, Shawn Lane, Ritchie Blackmore, Jimi Hendrix, Uli Jon Roth and Gary Moore. Lion Music's current release schedule sees an average of 3 to 4 new albums each month. And ALL THREE albums of Iron Mask were released on this labelDzimozz (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And one more criteria :"Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.There is a musician - Oliver Hartmann, he has been member of several notable bands - Avantasia, At Vance, Edguy and so on. By the way, in the article about hartmann in Wikipedia there's mentioned that he participated on the album of Iron Mask "Hordes Of The Brave" (2005) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzimozz (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems with the link to Lion Music. One, there's WP:WAX. Please read that. Two, at the risk of seeming like I'm throwing a straw man argument, that article has plenty of issues on its own, and may just come up here. I need better references! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dzimozz, noting your cite for WP:MUSIC 2.6 which notes "two or more" musicians, only one is listed as notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, Dennis! Hope, that I found RELIABLE source. Please check out this one: http://www.musicmight.com/artist/germany/hartmann and one more: http://www.musicmight.com/artist/belgium/brussels/magic+kingdom. And the following one: http://www.musicmight.com/artist/belgium/dushan+petrossi+27s+iron+mask Hope that Musicmight is a Reliable source.Dzimozz (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are brief bios. Historically, they don't tend to work out. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, that one of the world's best metal keybordists Richard Anderson did all the keybords waor on Iron Mask's second album Hordes of the brave. Therefore, we have here TWO notable musicians - Richard Andersson and Oliver Hartmann. There is another great guitarist, who contributed to Tron Mask's album - Lars Eric MattssonDzimozz (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, ok but the article is not encyclopedic and has seirous issues, I marked some of them, when you mention something you should provide reliable sources, if you dont, the article will be in danger of deletion any minute. I may even change my opinion if you dont edit it Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to correct everything you've mentioned. Hope, now the article suits the requirements. Is there anything to change in order to remove these warning messages at the top of the article?Dzimozz (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC) I hope, now it's quite neutralDzimozz (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least, is it possible to remove the very first note 'bout the deletion of article (at the top of it). Got a question: is the issue about possible deletion settled or not?Dzimozz (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the heading at the top of the page cannot be removed until this AFD is done. The issue of deletion will be settled after a consensus is reached on this page. You can see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD for more information.--LAAFan 23:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've made some changes and added the references, hope they are from RELIABLE sources. I do my best in order to make everything as it must be according to Wikipedia's rules. Hope, now the article suits these requirements. Got a question - why when i search for "iron mask band wikipedia" in YAHOO there are no references to the article, that I created in wikipedia? This is because the article is still nominated for deletion?Dzimozz (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment you're doing good but self published sources are not reliable, you need to change ref 1 & 2, you should search reliable metal new sites like, blabbermouth or metal hammer...etc, it takes time till Google find it, also depends on the number of page visitors. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, I removed your note "Citation needed", and my 2nd reference and made single reference for this abstract. Hope, Rock Box is a reliable source. And Prog4you as well. At least, there are many links to these sites (i searched in google&yahoo).Dzimozz (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry - search in Google for "iron mask band wikipedia" works!))))))))))))Dzimozz (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more question - when i provide references, is it a must that reference shuould be complete, for example www.psychocydd.co.uk/details.php?id=9dbe2c5276e89b66efff96a6548389def548707b or I just can provide reference for the site - www.psychocydd.co.uk?Dzimozz (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link must be complete.--LAAFan 19:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it! Hope all my links are reliable and complete now)))Dzimozz (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. As a band that has had albums commercially released I would like to find a reason for keeping this, but I don't see enough/any coverage in reliable sources to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous. Delete it and let its creator work on it in userspace if need be until it gets properly sourced, when it can be moved into userspace or deleted if it doesn't look like it's going to get properly sourced.--Michig (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seemed to me that Spada II ♪♫ is agree with my point that they HAVE ENOUGH COVERAGE in reliable sources - see his comment at the middle of the discussion. He said "they reviews and news coverage at bravewords magazine, Lords of metal, Metal Glory, Metal Express Radio...etc, plus they have discography." And I gave the references at THESE reliable sources.Dzimozz (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spada II ♪♫ asked me just to provide one more reference - and I hope that I met this requirement.Dzimozz (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing. The incredible and one of the best rock-metall drummers of all times Mike Terrana was a member of Iron Mask for a while [13] [14] [15] [16][17]Dzimozz (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzimozz (talk • contribs) 21:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, that you've removed the abstracts about Iron Mask's 3d album Shadow Of The Red Baron and about their participation at Graspop Metal Meeting. Well, this 3d album is considered to be their best album, and at Graspop Iron Mask performed onstage alongside with Soulfly, Caracass and lot of other monsters of metal. Therefore, can I bring these abstracts back, cause they seem to be notable? Another question: Is it a must that I should keep YOUR references or I can provide my ones?Dzimozz (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, was anything wrong with the references that I provided last time ([1][2][3]) - I just want to notice, that it seemed to me, that Spada II ♪♫ said, that these references are OK, and reference at Last.fm doesn't seem to be reliable. So, can I change your corrections and return to the very last version of the article? I'm not from english-speaking country, so probably I didn't cacth the idea, that Spada II ♪♫ wanted to express and deliver me with? Is anything wrong with the fact, that Dushan was influenced by Schenker and Moore?Iron mask even contributed to the tribute album "Give Us Moore" (Lion mysic) and performed Dary's hit Out In The FieldsDzimozz (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - in 2005 they toured with canadian thrash veterams Anvil - [18]. Can I add this fact? So, finally my qoestions are:

  • Can I bring back the abstracts about Shadow Of The Red Baron[4][5][6] and Graspop festival [7], that seem to be NOTABLE?
  • Can I add that Petrossi was influenced by Schenker and Moore, remove your link/reference [19] and add my one, cause it seems to me, that article in Bravewords in not NEUTRAL.
  • Can I add the abstract and reference for Iron Mask's 2005 tour with Anvil?
  • Finally, can I bring back the references ([8][9][10]), that Spada II ♪♫ considered to be reliable? TNX for Star)))Dzimozz (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, according to wikipedia's deletion policy I can change my article in order to make, that it meets wiki's requirements. But the question is, that my corrections can be removed by YOU once more and the article will be in form, as it is now? I try to make article full, neutral, reliable and notable, that's why I need my corrections back, if it's possible))))Dzimozz (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, but it wasn't me who made the references at Last.fm, there is someone else. I remember all your requirements, and I provided the links, that I hope are reliable, but someone cut the arctice and established other linksDzimozz (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everyone! Tnx for stars! )))) I do my best to meet all the requirements, but it's nor simple (I've alreday told, that I live in non-english speakinf country - Belarus))))). I would ask you not to remove Roma Siadletsky from the list of band's members at the bottom of the group photo (at this foto he's second from the right) . The prove that Roma is band memeber can be found for example here [11] and i can give more than 50 links more. The point is that the guy, who created the official site of Iron Mask lives in USA and he forgot to mention Roma. While creating this article about the band, I act on behalf of Dushan himself and Roma, who was born in my country (Belarus). Awaiting for further recommendations, hope that one day the note about this article's deletion will be removed for the top of the page))). But what I know is that now in the world there are 6 more persons - LAAFan, Dennis The Tiger, Spada II ♪♫, Michig, Pianotech, JamesBWatson - who know that there's such a wondeful band Iron MAsk))))) Hope, you'll like their last album "Shadow of the Red Baron"! CheersDzimozz (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what else am I to add/remove/correct/improve in order to ask you to remove the notion that the article is being considered for deletion? Dzimozz (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I provided another reference, that I hope is reliable Tartarean Desire. The information about the site and its reliability can be found here Websiteindepthand here Websitetrafficspy There are references at this site in existing articles in wikipedia, that are not nominated for deletion- Korpiklaani, In Flames, Folk Metal, Gothic Metal. The same thing foe the reference at CdUniverse - in Wikipedia there's a reference at this site here - Jeff Healy and here The Doors. Hope this's quite reliable source. The information about its reliability can be founf here Trafficestimate and here Alexa.com Alexa Internet. Check out the criterias here WP:GOOGLE DzimOZZ 07:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzimozz (talk • contribs) 07:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tartarean Desire isn't a reliable source, and CDUniverse is a shop. Traffic stats don't make them more reliable.--Michig (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Traffic stats may prove that a site is reliable but they don't prove that that site is a reliable source. I would strongly recommend that you read and try to understand Wikipedia:Reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but as I said, there are the references at these site in many wikipedia articles (that I've mentioned). Does it means, that for these articles they are reliable, and for Iron Mask's one no? For example, in the article about famous metal band In Flames there's references for Tartareandesire. The reference is nor removed, and the article 'bout In Flames is not nominated for deletion. The same thing concerns article about Jeff Healy - here there's reference at CdUniverse.com. These references are not disputed by the administration (there's) no such box at the top of these articles, and they are not nominated for deletion.

I'm not insisting, that my opinon is 100% right, but I try to provide the valid arguments in the defense of Iron Mask))) In my article there's the reference for Blabbermouth.net. And in the article about Cradle Of Filth also! By the way, in wiki there are plenty of references at Roadrunnerrecords. Therefore I got a question. Are all these references in other articles reliable? If not, they also should be removed, or I didn't catch again the wikipedia's policy about new articles)))) And one more thing - the article about Graspop Metal Meeting can be found in Wikipedia, in this article there are references at Graspop - the same, that in my article about Iron Mask. And by the way, in Graspop Metal Meeting Iron Mask is mentioned as a member. DzimOZZ 08:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to CWG magazine Iron Mask is in the list of the best 3333 rock/metal bands of the decade. DzimOZZ

Well, I can provide references, cited by many other articles in wikipedia - Metal Storm Metal Storm (webzine) and Metalglory - if it's necessary. Or perhaps this one will go Maelstrom - there are many references in Wikipedia at this site. DzimOZZ 13:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About notability. Iron Mask contributed to documentary film about the Canadian heavy metal band Anvil - Anvil! The Story of Anvil. The external link is as follows The Internet Movie Database and I can provide many others. Hope, with this addition my article meets the criteria Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. WP:Notability (music) DzimOZZ 08:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia's articles about musical bands there are many and many references at Lords Of Metal - Thanasis Lightbridge, Lupus Dei, Antestor, Dol Ammad, Almah (band), Industrial metal, Accept and so on and so on. So, this is also reliable, as the references, that I mentioned above? DzimOZZ 09:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about my reference for Metal Express Radio? As it seems to me, it should be reliable, 'cause we can find the references at shis site in the wikiarticles Slipknot (band), Europe (band), Machine Head (band) and many others. The same thing for my external link at rockeyz.com. Seems, this sourse is reliable as it is widely-used in Wikipedia's musical articles - Randy Black, The Angel and the Rain, well=known project Danger Angel, Epica (band) and so on, and Archaic Magazine - the references are in 30 wikiarticles.Once again, these are existing articles and the are not nominated for deletion DzimOZZ 09:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked for another 3 references, that I provided: Metal Archives and Spirit Of Metal and Rock Report. These sites are widely used as references in many Wikipedia's articles. DzimOZZ

One more thing, that I want to mention. It seems to me, that all the articles in Wikipedia, especieally new-created articles should be treated equally by WikiAdministrators. What I mean here is that to ALL THE ARTICLES, and for those about musicians/bands as well, the same rules must be applicable: notability, reliability and so on. This would be fair. But, in Wikipedia there are plenty of articles with NO references, NO links, where the author just mention band members, discography, history, and there are no valid links for it! The example - article about the band Justice. By the way, this band's drummer Rami Ali is mentioned in my article, 'cause for a short time he was memeber of Iron Mask - Justice at musicmight.com Rami Ali's Official Site. So, does this mean that the articles with no references, no link, no coverage could be published in Wikipedia, and the articles like mine about "Iron Mask" (probably a little MORE notable than Justice) are nominated for deletion? Probably, everything that I've mentioned above is just emotions and not an argument, I beg Your pardon for this... But anyway... I expect, that a consensus for my article will be found! Best regards DzimOZZ 16:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For this one, I refer you to WP:AADD - a list of arguments you really want to avoid here in AFD. In this case, pay particular attention to WP:WAX. We know there are articles, but we can't review them until somebody encounters them, and sometimes they just kind of slip through. While we have millions of editors here, everyone who works with the site is a human being - and sometimes we just miss stuff. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Dennis, I got it! More facts, less words))) Iron Mask was covered in Burrn! Magazine (Japan). Their latest album "Shadow Of The Red Baron" is pictured on the inner cover. I've made changes in my article.DzimOZZ —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

...dude? That's a link to Ebay. That's not going to work. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well,  Chzz  ►  explained me, that I can provide references for paper magazines, If the band have appeared in any printed magazines or newspapers. Please check Chzz'talk on the point. I gave link for Ebay just to show you, that Burrn! is a reliable source))) I think, this is verifiable. Of course, it's impossible to provide the direct link for the inner cover - 'cause it's paper magazine, but  Chzz  ►  told me about WP:AGF DzimOZZ. —Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Are you claiming that this band is notable because there was a picture of their album on the inside cover of this magazine? Could you elaborate on why the picture is there? Is it an advert? The URL you've given doesn't even confirm this much by the way. The ebay listing doesn't suggest that there is an article about the band or album in the magazine.--Michig (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again - I gave URL just to show, that Burrn! is reliable magazine and to show you the front cover (to explain, that this issue really EXISTS))). What I try to claim is: if a band is covered in notable magazine, does it work for notability of the band in Wikipedia? "Shadow Of The Red Baron" was estimated 80/100 by Burrn!, but unfortunately, I can't prove it by providing the link - the magazine is only on paper(((((((. And what about Iron Mask's contribution to Anvil! The Story of Anvil WP:Notability (music)? (I provided the reference and arguments earlier on this page) Dzimozz (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point that we're all getting at is that you need to demonstrate notability by, for all intents and purposes, showing us the article. Showing the magazine that the article is (possibly) contained in as for sale on Ebay does not show the article - I can't read articles in a magazine for sale on Ebay without buying it, and it's not a publisher's site. And it's fine that this magazine exists. As for Anvil! The Story of Anvil, well, other stuff exists. We need reliable sources, and a posting for a magazine on eBay is NOT reliable. At all. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right... I removed the reference for Burrn!((( Probably, this one will help: Burrn! 2000-2010. This is russian site where there are covers of all the Burrn! issues 2000-2010 and short description of each issue (contents). It's stated, that in issue #6 - 2005 there's article 'bout Iron Mask. I can try to find these issues in paper (#6-2005 and #12-2009), scan images & articles 'bout Mask and show to you - but this will not be simple)))) All best!Dzimozz (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allright(((, you're the administration and you're to decide. But before doing so I kindly ask you to evaluate once more all the arguments that I highlited. If it's possible, I would propose not to remove the article, but to remove this AfD and add instead the notion about references and necessary changes (you know). And please take into consideration, that I followed all the user's and administration's recomendations and provided references, that others considered reliable. All best, Iron Mask's Red Baron, Dzimozz(talk) 16:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Novaseminary (talk)! TNX for your opinion!))) I can send you the image - that proves, that Iron Mask was covered on the inner cover of Burrn! Magazine (japan) #12-2009 Probably, this is not an argument - but I have just searched in Google for "iron mask" "shadow of the red baron". The Number of results is 1 670 000.Dzimozz (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GOOGLE. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. I must say Dzimozz gets points for enthusiasm. My questions are:
    • Has this entity won an important award, such as a Grammy award or something equivalent?
    • Has this entity headlined a tour of Europe or America or some other continent?
    • Has this entity had a song high on the national charts of a major nation, or earned a gold record, or something equivalent?
    • Has this entity been written up, even briefly, in the London Times or Le Monde or Der Speigel or similar mainstream publications? Or in Rolling Stone or similar mainstream music publications?
    • And if none of the above -- which I haven't seen any evidence for -- why should we host this article? There are a lot of bands. They all have fans, and their fans want them to have articles. This is a general encyclopedia. Therefore I would say Delete, but in deference to Dzimozz's enthusiasm, I'll vote Userfy. Herostratus (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the final argument. All 3 Iron Mask's albums are mentioned at the site of Billboard. They are not RANKED, but they are COVERED at Billboard's official site. Will this reference work?Dzimozz (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Absolutely not. Will somebody please close this discussion.--Michig (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. It's been nine days. WP:SNOW, anybody? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Incubate. This can be moved to someone's userspace if desired, but there's no indication here who should receive it, so the communal incubator is used instead. Courcelles (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Podaa Podi

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

Forthcoming film (article says forthcoming in 2010 and released in 2011). Only reference is unreliable. A quick search says it should have started shooting in June, this is too early for an article. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
per wikipedia's policy on new films a film doesn't have an article unless filming begins. That's strong reason enough. So create this article in your userspace, wait till filming begins and then move it into userspace.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: Already voted but wanted to state I concur with Sodabottle (comment/vote) above. According to Wikipedia policy any film not already in production should not have an article about it on Wikipedia. Shearonink (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...Unless its production has enough coverage to be worth consideration per WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL... and we DO have such articles on Wikipedia. However, this one does not have such coverage... yet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Sky Learning

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

Article reads like an advertisement. Company also fails WP:CORP as there are no WP:RS nor could any be found. Further, the References provided typically do not cover the company in detail; they are instead lists of providers that include the company, or include only a passing reference to the company. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Could have been an A7, but since this lasted the seven days, I'll delete as per this discussion. Courcelles (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damir Hara

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

No third party reliable sources to confirm notability (only link is to MySpace); Author removed my prod. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. this is difficult one. However, it seems that this article inherently breaches the core neutrality policy. An article on UN attitudes to Jews might be OK, but a pastiche of allegations is always going to be original research with an agenda. Do we end up with an article on "allegations of pro-Jewish bias at the UN" to list the counter claims? The debate is moot, NPOV is non-negotiable. (Happy to undelete or userfy to facilitate a merger of anything useable). Scott Mac 19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations

[edit]
Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be a POV fork of Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations and is written in such a way to suggest that the United Nations is antisemitic. At the very least the article should be rewritten so that it reviews the United Nations stances against antisemtism as well as the accusations by some that it is or has been antisemitic. Be in Nepean (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment Since the title of the article has been reverted to "Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations" it's necessary to point out that this title narrows the scope of the article to such an extent that it essentially begs the question of whether the UN is anti-Semitic. This narrow scope means the role of the UN in assisting Jewish refugees through the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration cannot be mentioned. Also, the section on the 1940s now focuses on the case of a single delegate who was allegedly anti-Semitic. Why was she anti-Semitic? Because she lobbied against the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine which means the fact that the state of Israel was created by a United Nations resolution is not mentioned as evidence that the UN assisted Jews but the fact that one individual opposed it somehow becomes evidence that the UN itself is anti-Semitic. Also not mentioned are various UN statements against anti-Semitism because that doesn't fit into the scope of the article. Also, the article assumes as a given that opposition to Israel is ipso facto anti-Semitic when in fact the anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism syllogism is heavily contested. The article appears to be part of an ideological campaign to delegitimize the UN because of criticisms the body has made of Israel. Be in Nepean (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Certain titles cannot ever become encyclopedic, no matter what's in the article, unless they are titles of art or science written about something else. I expect 9/11 never happened and Bavaria and domestic violence to be redlinks until someone writes a bestseller with that title. This also applies in this case. Changed to No opinion after the title was improved; I still don't like the article and believe it is biased but this might be sorted out with editing. Thanks to Be in Nepean for notifying me about the new development, and self-whack for not checking the article's history before making above comment. --Pgallert (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object to AfD process The nominator changede the article title, mangled its scope and contents, and then took it to AfD. I have restored the article to its former scope. Any discussion about renaming it or revising its scope should be discussed first, and shouldn't be done in an effort to delete the article (obviously). Nominator has also been canvassing editors whose editing history has been hostile to subjects about Israel and anti-semitism such as user:Bali ultimate. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Frankly, the grounds for deleting the article are even stronger under the title you've changed it back to. I changed it initially in hopes the article would be salvagable but quickly realized it wasn't. Also, I contacted one editor (not editors), Bali, in hopes he'd be able to help clean the article up. The reasons for deleting this article, as stated in the opening, stand regardless of what it's called and are even stronger given the reversion to the old, POV title. Be in Nepean (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is a content fork from Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. To be NPOV, it should present both the allegations and the counter-arguments, however that is a content issue so not relevant at AfD. This article is just as permissable as Israel and the apartheid analogy, which is a content fork from Human rights in Israel. Neither is a POV fork, they're both drilling down on a specific content issues. The relevant guideline in both cases is notability. Are the subjects sufficiently notable, independently of their parents, to warrant their own articles? How many high-quality reliable sources are there dealing with the subject of allegations of antisemitism in the UN in depth? At a glance, there seem to be enough, but I could perhaps be convinced otherwise by a breakdown of the sources. It's certainly a notable enough subject that I have heard about it in mainstream news articles relating to meetings like Durban, without having sought out such articles. I'm not sure whether the title is correct, if a title can be found that is more even-handed or specific (given that there are also allegations that the UN, especially the security council, is pro-Israel) then a move to such a name might be preferable. But the subject appears notable, and renaming doesn't require AfD. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a mess essentially the logic for retention would argue for dozens (if not hundreds of articles) in the form of Antisemitism and XXX where x has been accused of "anti-semitism" by advocacy organizations, usually for Israel (the old equation of criticism of Israel with "anti-semitism.") This subject should be handled in Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations from which this is a POV fork. There will be more eyes on that article, there's more space to examine a range of views, and it doesn't have an immediately prejuidical title (really, there should be no Allegations of X forks. Imagine of the array of US Presidency articles alone this would spawn Allegations that Obama is a socialist Allegations that Bush is a fascist and on and on it would go. I was asked to take a look at this -- just don't have the time (or i suppose, the inclination) to attempt to fix this myself at the moment (which would involve a redirect, examining the state of the "Israel, Palestine..." and seeing what, if anything, needed to be placed there)`.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a fork from Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. Antisemitism has existed long before the the UN and the modern state of Israel were established. Article needs some cleaning up, but that's not what AFD is for. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is clearly a fork from that article, the only argument is whether it's a content fork or a POV fork. Content forks are legitimate, POV forks are not. That article has a section titled "Claims that the UN is antisemitic" that summarises this topic, with this article listed as the "main article" (i.e. content fork) for it. If the article is a content fork, and on an sufficiently independently notable subject, then it should be kept. In my opinion, the title "The United Nations and antisemitism" would be preferable for this article, as it doesn't prejudge the subject matter and includes all POVs in its scope. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as per User:Brewcrewer Im going to make some improvements now.AMuseo (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Brewcaster.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Allegations of the UN being impartial through Israel, serving as tribune for anti semitic and racist spokers like the Iranian president and the Malaysian prime minister and taking decisions which are to be seen as anti semitics, are being made all the time. The article is therefore, not a fork.--Gilisa (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By removing sourced material on anti-Jewish State activities at the U.N. in 1948 from the article I do not believe that User:Be in Nepean is playing a positive role in this discussion.AMuseo (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By adding questionable material during the discussion and inferring something about the UN based on one delegate you are making the article worse. Be in Nepean (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Improving an article by adding scholarly material during an AFD is standard procedure. The material I added is about an organized movement. See Committee for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land. and the notes to the section.AMuseo (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An organized anti-semitic movement? You're POV-pushing. You also ignore the fact that they were lobbying against the UN's Partition Plan for Palestine ie if they are anti-semitic this is not an example of the UN being anti-semitic but of anti-semites opposing the UN. Be in Nepean (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How much hate towards Israel and Zionism is in rolandr comment!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. You tell me how much. RolandR (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the Universe as big as your hater towards Israel. I believe that the users, who display at their user pages hate propaganda images such as crossed out Flag of Israel with the sign "No Israel" beneath it should be topic banned indefinitely because their hater prevents them from improving encyclopedia, and has just the opposite effect.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mb1 do you believe that criticism of Israel equals antisemitism? RomaC TALK 01:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many of the sources explicitly allege antisemitism. To say that some of them are not actually alleged antisemitism because their allegations relate to Israel or zionism would be an original research reinterpretation of their explicit statements. The same poor argument could indeed be made about Israel and the apartheid analogy by saying that the sources aren't actually about apartheid, they're about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't see why these allegations about the UN, which are regularly reported in the press, should be treated any differently to allegations about Israel. That's not editing to make a point, it's editing with even-handedness. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celinna Katherine Cruz

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

More and more convinced that this is an elaborate hoax. I've checked several TV series and films that links to the page, and her roles are not mentioned in their respective IMDb pages. The references and prose (which I've now removed) were copied from JC de Vera. I can't find anything but Wikipedia mirrors mentioning her. decltype (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep --Mike Cline (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of convicts on the First Fleet

[edit]
List of convicts on the First Fleet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A year has passed since I previously nominated this list for deletion which ended in no consensus. Since then, no improvements have been made to the article as those !voting keep suggested could be made. I still cannot see why we should have this article - whilst it is verifiable, it goes against WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO. Our policies and guidelines surrounding lists, for example WP:SALAT make it clear that every item in a list should be notable by itself, clearly not every person on this list was. Previous !keeps were essentially nationalistic, it would be good if this discussion could move beyond that and judge the list more critically. Smartse (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Smartse (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that at the previous AfD it was named "Convicts on the First Fleet" - I'm not sure how to get the template linking to it. Smartse (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD
Perhaps that wasn't the best thing to say, but arguments such as "but this is a list of the British first people in Australia" aren't particularly relevant in my opinion. My whole point is that the list should be looked at critically for what it is, rather than it being any judgement on those discussing it. Of course Australian editors can participate - just please cite policies as to why it should be kept, like I have done to say why it should be deleted. The list may be "non-indiscriminate, historically important and well-referenced" but that doesn't mean we should keep it - just because it can be verified does not make it suitable for the encyclopedia. I've never said that poor formatting is a reason to delete it. Smartse (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not think that this article should be deleted. Other editors have put together a good list, even though it does badly need re-formatting. Please do not delete. There are other worse, poor, non notable and even hoax articles and comments that are still in existence on WP. Cgoodwin (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But why do you think it should not be deleted, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Smartse (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "No definitive list of people who travelled on those ships exists; however historians have tried to piece together as much data about these pioneers as they can." line makes me extremely suspicious. No sources are used for all the names as far as i can tell. Reaks of WP:OR or copy pasted data dump from here Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am completely uninvolved here, but the list seems a useful base for future improvements. The deficiencies in the list warrant appropriate tags, more sources, and other improvements, but not wholesale deletion. It is a very interesting topic and given that many historically famous persons (such as Montana territorial governor Thomas Francis Meagher) who ran afoul of the law and wound up, however briefly, in Australian penal colonies, it is a useful cross-reference. Just because no one has cared to finish building the house yet is no reason to tear the whole thing down. Montanabw(talk) 23:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These names have been set in stone in the First Fleet Garden and surely this article deserves to be retained here. These people essentially contributed to the foundation of European settlement in Australia and some already have links to biographies. There is also a very high degree of interest in genealogy and history in Australia and indexed lists such as this are a very good starting point.27.33.237.1 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Every person on the list is notable in their own right as the first European colonists of Australia. Not all will be notable enough for their own articles, but IMO all verifiable passengers on those ships are worthy of inclusion. I'd make a suggestion that there should also be a list of officers and marines on the First Fleet, either merged with this article (as a "passengers of the first fleet" article) or separately.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nom states that this should be deleted for failing WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO, and WP:SALAT. I do not see how this list fails any of them. The list is not indiscriminate (there is an end to it), it is not a repository of loosely associated items, it contains no statistics, no lyrics, no description of fictional works. WP:SALAT says that "Lists may include people who are notable for a single event or activity and therefore do not have their own article, if they are of particular importance in the context of this event or activity." which seems to provide an exception for the more general rule the nom noted. This list clearly needs cleanup, but I don't see how the encyclopedia will be improved by removing it. And if it helps, I've never even been to Australia. Matt Deres (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily Deleted per G10/A7 (Non-admin closure) Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calum drysdale

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

Bad grammar and unsourced biographical material T3h 1337 b0y 17:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archenemies in television

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

Generally unencyclopedic, mostly OR/subjective content. No reliable sourcing; the most frequent reference is to tvtropes.com, user-generated content failing WP:RS by a country mile. Most of the listed pairings are comic foils for each other, rather than dramatic characters, for whom the melodramatic label "archenemy" is inappropriate. There are no useful inclusion criteria; one could with equal accuracy add pairs like Ralph and Alice Kramden, Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly, and Gabrielle Solis and Gabrielle Solis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has come under criticism, or since deletion is proposed, should we say attack. Let me address a few of the complaints. First a blanket statement: All interpretation of what is "meant" in literature is subjective. We are discussing Fiction and a technique for creating conflictive characters within such drama. Unless you are actually quoting the direct intentions of the author, it is an opinion. Lots of material on WP is opinion. In order to maintain the WP:NPOV and avoidance of WP:OR such quotations of opinion should be sourced, which this subjectivity is. The fact that other people have made similar analysis of these character relationships, verifies the broader acceptance of this subjective opinion. Progress on expanding this article has been limited by the need for sourcing.

Before posting the prod, the nominator removed some sources that may have redirected to mirrors of WP. While that might have been a technical mistake, the fact that this "opinion" is expressed by other WP editors over years of edits accentuates that this is an accepted analysis of these characters' relationships. There are plenty of other sources available.

As to terminology, the criticism was specific about a couple of characters; claiming that Buddy Sorrell was not a lead character. Granted he was not Dick, or MTM, but he and Rose Marie were next on the credits. I consider somebody in the title credits sufficiently important to merit mention as a lead character in a television drama. Perhaps the header needs to be changed to "main character" to make it technically correct. Perhaps another editor can suggest a different term. Calling a semantic issue as inaccurate does not merit acceleration to deletion of the article--the death penalty.

In posing such argument (not on this page), the proposed deleter mentioned other characters not (yet) mentioned on this page. The bickering conflict between the Kramdens or any other husband and wife could broadly be interpreted as them being archenemies in a dramatic sense, they both are acting to make each other miserable, but deviates from the premise in the sense that being married, there must be some underlying love for each other encapsulating the infighting. We could create a list of fictional bickering married couples as an adjunct to this list including The Bickersons and the Barones from Everybody Loves Raymond.

But the point was, whether for comedic or dramatic effect, this concept exists and here are examples of such usage. There is great potential for expansion of this article which ultimately is support for such categories as (poorly) organized on the master article archenemy. Because this is such a potentially long list, it will exceed the reasonable space available in the master article.

That was posted on July 10. Regarding the unreliability of the blog oriented tvtropes site, keeping with the above, this article is sourcing corroborating opinion about these relationships, confirming that this is not WP:OR. Many additional examples have not yet been entered because corroborating sources haven't been found.

As good lists on WP serve, there are internal wikilinks to the supporting articles. In the currently 60 year history of television, there are certainly more cases of such dramatic tools being used. In table form and at 17 examples, its already superior to the mentions within the article it might be potentially merged to (and certainly is in support of). There will come a day, I suggest sooner than later, where this list of examples will outgrow its space on the main article. There are several other forms of media (film, literature, cartoons, comics, anime, let's add video games) where this kind of technique is used. You should be able to see that 8 examples listed in the television category of the main article should ultimately end up in these, yet to be created, lists. Combining all those examples each will ultimately contribute to making the master article unwieldy with examples. Nipping this article in its infancy will not only cause that future logjam, but with the deletion record will make it that much harder to solve. I've got about 40 examples to work into these various lists as I get some free editing time. However today I've lost my edit time having to write a defense for this article. Good grief, have some patience. Sarcasto (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have removed sets of archenemies whose "sources" were blank pages, blogs, wikis, or did not mention archenemies at all. There's not much left. Edward321 (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the comment Thank you for the "courtesy" of decimating the article while it is under review. However in the attempt to make the article look bad, you've proven my point of the potential of the article and other articles for this same kind of usage in the different categories that I propose will follow. By leaving Helium as an "acceptable" source, I used that one source's search feature to find a couple of additional examples to add to this article and probably a dozen that will fit into the other categories. That emphasizes my contention of the potential of expansion of this article. Your removal of other examples, while making the article look weak in this debate--good timing--it only denies the sources of the article, NOT the fact that these examples are not valid. The other dozen removed examples just need to find a WP acceptable source to verify them. Other people obviously share the opinion about the use of this dramatic technique, these are not obscure TV shows or obscure characters within those shows. Sarcasto (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Block

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

a completely or near-completely unsourced biography which does not establish notability of the subject. BE——Critical__Talk 16:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep - Notable engagement - renaming is advisable and should be discussed on talk page. Mike Cline (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Brazos Santiago

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

This topic does not exist. I've read multiple scholarly works (with publication dates ranging from the 1940s through 2010) on the Texas Revolution, and none have ever listed a battle by this name, or with these events. The Handbook of Texas, an encyclopedia compiled by the Texas State Historical Association, does not list an entry for a battle by this name. A search of Google books and Google scholar for "Brazos Santiago" lists only a few mentions of Civil War skirmishes (but none called "Battle of Brazos Santiago". Scholars do not recognize this as an offical battle. The article on the ship already contains information on the skirmish; no more is necessary, and the title is not a good redirect because no scholarly sources use it. Karanacs (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following connected article. Like the first, this "battle" appears to be not recognized under this title, or as a true "battle". There is no entry in the Handbook of Texas, no hits on Google books or Google scholar, and no mention in the various scholarly works about the Texas Revolution. Small naval skirmishes like this are frequent in times of war, but rarely rise to be notable in and of themselves. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Brazos River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you mean they didn't exist? You appear to make two arguments, one being that the battles didn't exist, and then you go on to say that the battles were not notable. Do you think they did not exist, or do you think they are not notable? I'm not an expert on the Texas War of Independence, so I'm unaware of their notability, but the articles are not sourced improperly and I have little doubt they occured. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge As I understand it, the nominator's essential argument is that while these conflicts took place, they are not notably referred to by any particular name. In other words, the Texan schooner Invincible did engage a Mexican foe at Brazos Santiago, but there is no "Battle of Brazos Santiago." Regardless, my take is that while the content is fine, the topic is essentially a manufactured name for a real conflict that is already covered on the separate article on the Texan schooner. The sources are all covering the schooner, not any particular battles, and do not offer names for any of these singular engagements. I suggest merging any additional content from this article to Invincible and deleting -- assuming that there is any content in this article not already present in the article on Invincible. The same holds for the Brazos River engagement. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is what I meant. There were naval skirmishes, but no scholarly sources to establish that this was notable as a battle, and no sources that even give the skirmish a name. Karanacs (talk)

Comment - Is this the same engagement? (I don't have the full article now): "...a cruise near Tampico, fell in with Mexican schooner-of-war Montezuma and brought her to action, which lasted several hours, when the Montezuma, after sustaining much damage, succeeded in retiring into port before she was entirely disabled, leaving the Invincible uninjured." History of the Texas Navy, George F. Haugh, The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 4 (Apr., 1960), pp. 572-579 . Probably doesn't give the engagement a name, but wanted to pass it along. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be, yes. Granted, I am completely unfamiliar with the history here, but based on the description offered at the sources used in this article, that sounds like the same engagement. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, the battle is sourced and did occur though it does not have a name. It should be noted that in naval literature all events involving conflicts such as a hostile capture, fleet engagement, skirmish, or single ship engagements are all grouped together under the term action. The current naming conventions used for unnamed naval battles follow the Action of (insert date here format). There are dozens upon dozens of articles using this format including several good articles and featured articles such as Action of 1 August 1801. I suggest that this article be renamed to Action of 17 April 1837.XavierGreen (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although possibly rename, I agree with XavierGreen. There are two issues here, is this action notable, and if so is this the best title? The sinking of a cruiser does seem notable. The title could be a problem, we had a previous dispute about OR titles for naval actions, see talk at Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran. Possible legitimate titles are "Action of (the date)", "Action between Texan schooner Invincible and Mexican cruiser Montezuma", "Texan schooner Invincible v. Mexican cruiser Montezuma" and "Sinking of Mexican cruiser Montezuma". It is surely US-centric to assume that everything can be dealt with in the article on the Texan ship, doesn't the Mexican ship get its own article given time? Are we sure its name really was Montezuma and not Moctezuma? PatGallacher (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen R. Smith

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

Apparent autobiography by subject. There is sufficient indication of significance that I didn't tag for speedy deletion, but there is a serious lack of independent sources to indicate notability. Subject/editor removed prod tag. RL0919 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torie Lynch

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of GNEW of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn. Someone fixed it to a reasonable stub. — Timneu22 · talk 15:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph James

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

Absolutely no sources, no indication that the person is significantly notable. — Timneu22 · talk 15:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bizerk Da Jerk

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

Unsourced BLP about non-notable rapper. Karppinen (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sockpuppets have been ignored, and apparent single-purpose !voters have been very heavily discounted here. Courcelles (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valeri Lilov

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

Non-notable youth chess player, previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov. This is essentially the same article with somewhat more puffery, and the same external links from the body of the article formatted as references. While possibly impressive if you just glance at the wall of text in the "References" section without reading them, they are either trivial, primary sources, written by himself or his employers, or a combination of all three. The only reference that is independent and nontrivial is this, and if shaking hands with a sitting head of state met WP:BIO, I'd have an article too. Falls well short of WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:ATHLETE. —Korath (Talk) 14:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sock comments collapsed. T. Canens (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Admins,

This is Wangshujuan, the creator of the article “Valeri Lilov.” After an extensive research on why my article was repeatedly declined to be published, another Wikipedia admin/associate told me to read through the official Wikipedia article on notability and find proofs on why my article is about a notable subject, whose information is proven by independent secondary sources. The admin also mentioned that my article is completely publishable by all Wikipedia rules and if he was responsible for it, he would definitely let it be published in its present form.

Here are a few proofs I took from the following Wikipedia page on Notability of people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO) which clearly define my subject, from the information provided in the article, as notable by Wikipedia standards.

1) “Basic Criteria: […] If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.”

The article ‘Valeri Lilov’ certainly does not provide one independent secondary source with deep coverage of his work and achievements in his field of tournament chess and private chess coaching, yet many secondary sources – websites with tournament final standings and short articles published on the internet regarding his awards in tournaments - do prove that he is a notable subject by the criteria described in the original Wikipedia passage cited above. (For more information please, review the references supporting Valeri Lilov’s tournament achievements in different countries.)

2) “Additional Criteria: […]

1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. “

Valeri Lilov has won a number of prestigious tournaments throughout Europe during his chess career so far and all the verifiable events won have been cited and properly supported with legit references on his proposed Wikipedia article. One of the most significant awards is that he became a European Champion in his age division (also cited).


3) “Creative Professionals: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors”

As seen from the references provided about Valeri Lilov chess coaching career, he is widely cited for his published works, two DVDs by ChessBase, and is also regarded as “important figure” – popular coach – by his peers and successors.

I hope these proves are enough to show why the “problematic” article ‘Valeri Lilov” is about a notable subject and should be created to be part of Wikipedia. Please, let me know if you need more proofs for notability or more precise citations from the actual article ‘Valeri Lilov’ itself. Please, take some time and review the many references provided to support this article’s information and you will be convinced of the legit notability of this person.

Thank you for your cooperation!

Sincerely,

Wangshujuan

Wangshujuan (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sock comments collapsed. T. Canens (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Valeri Lilov, currently nominated for deletion, provides a number of additional secondary sources, citing Valeri Lilov's achievements in different internationally recognized tournaments and competitions. The present references provide also an article, written in Bulgarian and translated into English via online translator, showing Valeri Lilov, receiving an award from the president of the Republic of Bulgaria. The contents of the article is carefully filtered from the previous deleted version and new information is added, as well, so that the new form of the article is properly verified statement by statement through each of the references given at the end of the article.

Wangshujuan

Wangshujuan (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Much of the fuss relates to the fact that chess is considered a sport in Europe and a board game in America. One could argue for inclusion of this subject as clearing the ultra-low "pro athlete" bar and perhaps that is the right call. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics" criterion? There isn't even a claim that this individual has done so—those listed are far from the highest levels. —Korath (Talk) 18:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sock comments collapsed. T. Canens (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valery Lilov is an innovative and already well-known chess trainer using the latest internet technology to coach chess players worldwide. Like Dan Heisman, Danny Kopec, Jeremy Silman, Yasser Seirawan or Arthur Yussupov he also provides high-level chess trainings on one-to-one as well as on top chess websites like chess.com, chessbase.com (DVDs) and many more. With his great pedagogic talent he is professional in teaching chess players on different levels. As he is already very present in the chess community I think that Wikipedia should present him as young up-coming chess player and already known chess trainer on his website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.188.206 (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sock comments collapsed. T. Canens (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worthwhile addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.139.148 (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Keep it. I have been in touch with Valery for some time during the last year and a half. I believe he's a pure person as well as a great chess player and a coach. He's really committed to diffuse the chess game around the world, specially on Internet. The article someone is looking to delete is just his real history and provides a background of what is his mission in chess playing and chess teaching.

--Dmncmm (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The proposed Wikipedia article written for FIDE Master Valeri Lilov is strongly supported by his many achievements at such a young age. Contrary to some of the previous statements, many Wikipedia articles about FIDE Masters have been published successfully and it’s not only IMs and GMs who have place on Wikipedia. If you review the Wiki articles for the following FIDE Masters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Monokroussos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauri_Shankar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Heisman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_De_La_Maza http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leontxo_Garc%C3%ADa you will be ashamed to claim that they are more notable people than FM Valeri Lilov. Why are they on Wikipedia and FM Valeri Lilov has to be deleted? I ask contributors who are also professional chess players to comment here. FM Valeri Lilov has many achievements (isn't European Champion a notable title?) both in his chess and coaching career and they’ve been achieved at such a young age. Isn’t that called “notable” for Wikipedia? Please, before deleting indiscriminately, check up what you have accepted in the past as notable.

Thanks, Alexis Alexis880507 (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it! FM Valeri Lilov is a great person. He has many great achievements in chess and chess coaching at such a young age. He is sharing his gift for chess with many others and helping those people benefit in their chess career. I don't see any reason to delete his Wikipedia profile because he is such a notable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.204.253 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete this article, although I do eye a possibility of a neutral article, by this, I mean an article based on sources independent of Mr. Lilov, not necessarily one which balances praise and criticism. As per Glenfarclas, the current article looks like a promotional piece, with all the sourcing being based on self-published commercial links. Articles like that are unfortunately detrimental to Wikipedia's aim to be a neutral and fair enyclopedia, unfettered by commercial interests. Now, Mr. Lilov's ChessBase DVDs on the Queen's Gambit Accepted and the Sicilian Kan Variation have been reviewed independently [22][23], and that independent reviewer agrees that Lilov is an excellent teacher, although he was less-than-impressed with the Kan DVD. If there is additional independent coverage of Lilov as a chess player (which would probably be in Bulgarian), beyond just tournament results, then there may be place for a biography on him. FM-strength is usually below what we expect for chess player bios though. While attaining the FM title at 16 is a very good achievement indeed, it is not an outstanding one, there are people who attained the much more exclusive grandmaster title at a considerably younger age. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sock comments collapsed. T. Canens (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP

Valeri Lilov is a very respected teacher and is known for his high quality and pedagogic way of teaching. After a thoroughly examination of your games he will send you the video recorded session as well homework.

There was mentioned that he does not give lectures and lessons for free; who does? Can you get a professional painter painting your house for free? There are dozens of teachers on Playchess.com and ICC, and NONE of them give lessons for free, so that is a strange, to say at least, comment to make.

As for his FM title, well, he has one, plus 2 IM norms.

And for his games, which as far as i know were also doubted to be real, a real chessplayer simply can check them on a database, in my case Chessbase 10.

All the allegations are therefore false, and if someone wants to say otherwise, i would be glad to reject them.

Yours sincerely,

Laotse1970 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laotse1970 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - This has the potential to be a strong article on a notable person. There many far weaker articles on far weaker topics on wikipedia KnightFireNC (talk) 16:16,2 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "KEEP"' Valeri Lilov is a respected Chess coach and respected Chess player. He is an ethical teacher and a kind person. In no way does his Wikipedia page/article infringe on any person or body. It should be kept for all to be aware of Valeri's love and appreciation for the chess community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earwax2010 (talk • contribs)
  • "KEEP"' Valeri is very qualified chess player and the chess trainer. His lectures and trainings-course on a game server playchess.com are very popular and make very big success among players of the most different level. I wish him success in all its undertakings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malysch (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP Valeri Lilov is an established chess coach and is thus significant enough to deserve his own wikipedia article. Since the facts about his playing career were also verifiable, I see no reason to delete the article. Phmilet (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Grand Master probably merits an article - Master not really. There are a lot of people at that level. (Been through this in another AfD...) Not happy about the promotional aspects of the article, either. Nor about the flock of socks sorry, the influx of single purpose accounts enthusing about the qualities of the subject without troubling themselves to read the policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, no matter what some people think, and article status is governed by certain policies. OK, there are articles 'weaker' than this - go ahead and tag them. This isn't Pokemon - we can't catch 'em all. Not all at once, anyway.... The more of these SPAs that appear, the more I am usually convinced that an attempt is being made at gaming the system. A word of advice: This is NOT a vote by numbers. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sock comments collapsed. T. Canens (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is absolutely no reason to delete this page. There is no comparable chess coach using all the new internet technologies and beeing really dedicated to his students at the same time. At his young age he is allready training hundreds of chess players and i can't remember any other coach to do that at this age, not even in history! Saying Masters don't deserve an article on Wiki is complete nonsense especially if they are very good trainers. The strongest trainer in the world (Mark Dvoretzky) is "only" a Master and he deserves the article before most of the Grandmasters he trained. If there would be a rating for coaches Valeri Lilov definately would be Grand Master Level in there way before most GM's on Wikipedia. As for a chess player: He is still a youth player 2400+, one norm away from the IM-Title. In my opion he fits every demand to have a WIKI article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaskins de (talk • contribs) 19:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep[3:09:16 PM] Amy Walker: Valeri Lilov is the chess coach--and player--I admire the most, above all others except perhaps my Uncle Wesley, who first taught me how to play and thus introduced me to this wonderful game! How high must someone reach, and how much must they accomplish, before they are deemed worthy of an article on an encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit? If I myself were to write a Wikipedia article about my chess accomplishments, that would be ludicrous because I have not made a name for myself in the chess world yet. Valeri has. He is a certified FIDE Master and legitimate chess tutor, and not some random "patzer" who posts poor-quality video chess lessons on YouTube without ANY formal ranking or ELO rating and expects people to follow his instructions. I owe this man EVERYTHING when it comes to who gets the credit for teaching me such great chess while being a fantastic player himself! If you wish Valeri to become a GM before he finds his way into the Wikipedia spotlight, I guarantee you that he'll get his norms before he's 25. If you delete this article, you delete an article about a maven! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakhmaty (talk • contribs) 20:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valeri Lilov is a very bright talented young man who has the respect of chess players of all playing strengths world-wide. A FIDE Master and dedicated coach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charl.chess (talk • contribs) 21:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To say most 'KEEP' messages are sockpuppetry is a cop out, because the KEEP messages are true. FIDE Master Valeri Lilov is very noteworthy, he is one of the most popular chess teachers there is today. He is more popular than most IM's and even GM's. His dedication in chess with lectures, teaching, training is phenomenal. When he started teaching at the age of eleven, he never looked back. Vastly becoming one of the most versatile trainers using the latest technologies with the most services I have seen. Don't delete him because he is not an IM or GM. He spends most of his time teaching. If he spent most of his time playing chess, he would have been a GM a long time ago. Valeri is a very bright, upcoming prospect for wikipedia, to delete him from your resources is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.100.130 (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have investigated the matter and from my online research it looks that Valeri Lilov is a professional chess player as he has a high designation of a FIDE Master. Also, because of his high achievements in the last few years (extremely high rating for a FIDE master (2400+), DVDs with chess lectures and articles) I think that the Wikipedia admins should give him a chance. I believe that our idea is to stimulate and encourage the development of such people, not to delete the profile and claim that they are not "notable" when it appears that many other less famous chess players/trainers are allowed to have an article here. In addition, it looks that he is a prominent chess coach and instructor on the internet and has provided guidance to aspiring amateurs for which reason, it looks that so many Wiki users are supporting him about. I am neutral to the matter, as I just saw it in the Sportspeople-related deletion discussions, but in my opinion that young man deserves an article here. Sandons (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandons (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Sandons (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC) — Sandons (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What are the independent sources that have written about his importance? I couldn't find any articles about him in the chess magazines and web sites that I checked- I did find things he's written about himself, but that doesn't really demonstrate anything other than his ability to make a web site. Three articles that are about him, in real newspapers or magazines, would eliminate the need for him to create so many sockpuppets (or send his students)- doing so doesn't serve any purpose other than to associate him with bad behavior on the internet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I searched, and I was able to confirm that he exists, and plays chess competitively, but couldn't find any significant writing about him in independent, nontrivial sources. Without such sources, there is no verifiable information that can be included in an article- when you remove all the information that is not verified by independently from the article, you are left with nothing at all, and so an article can not be written about him at this time. If the enthusiasts who are coming here to say 'keep' want to help, they should do so by submitting articles about his significance to chess magazines, newspapers, and significant web sites- Wikipedia can only publish information after it has been published in independent sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Elo rating too low to be notable, and no notable achievement in chess. He is only FIDE master, which is not a great achievement by itself. SyG (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm one of Valeri's students. Nevertheless I wouldn't ask the community to keep this page if I did not want it to be so myself. I'm 31 years old, and when I first got my lesson from Valeri he was only 17! He is very talented in chess and teaching, and I'm sure he will become a very famous chess teacher. I can understand that being talented on itself is not enough to have a page on wikipedia. However, the fact that he:

- is an author of two chessbase DVD's (Chessbase is the most famous puplisher of digital chesscontent, at least in Europe) - records lectures on very popular chess websites (chesslectures.com for example) - gives lives broadcasts on playchess.com (for free, not that it matters in this subject) Makes him a publicly known person in the chess community, which is, in my opinion an interpretation of the wikipedia rules a reason for leaving the page on wikipedia. This can be verified by searching on the chessbase.com website for the word 'lilov' in both the homepage and shop section. Everyone involved with chess will recognise Chessbase as a valid source.

Thank you for reading my comment, I'm not a regular Wiki contributor (I am a regular reader!) so I might made a mistake in doing this. 81.83.18.153 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Today I came across this article for deletion and after reading the comments and the article itself, I tried to correct it appropriately and also include more links to secondary sources to verify the information, provided for this young Bulgarian chess player. Tomorrow, I hope to find and supply you with more links to independent sources. Please, don’t delete this article outright and give a chance to the young to develop and receive recognition from reknowned websites like Wikipedia. I hope that if someone else helps me correct this article and/or provides me with valuable advice on how to further improve it, it has place on Wikipedia. Thanks! IvanSokolov (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giving "a chance to the young to develop and receive recognition from reknowned [sic] websites like Wikipedia" is not what Wikipedia is about. It is not for promotion of anyone. I always find it amazing how many people who haven't edited Wikipedia before just accidentally come across an article up for deletion and immediately set about trying to rescue it. Rather heart-warming in some ways, except that we never usually see them again anywhere else..... Peridon (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia admins must remain impartial/unbiased in their decision on whether to delete an article, regardless of the attempts made to save it by anyone. The decision to delete or keep an article should be solely based on the merits of the subject presented in a proper and neutral Wikipedia format and not on comments, attacking the creators/editors of the article. I am Valeri Lilov's compatriot and naturaly want to help him. Lilov is already famous enough and won't tangle over a Wikipedia page for the purposes of executing his marketing plan or increasing his sales, etc, etc. If you google 'Valeri Lilov', you will see that there are four other results emerging before his Wikipedia page and many more after it. Those, interested in his services will not look for a trainer on Wikipedia, will they? Obviously, some Wikipedia contributors pay too much attention on being a perfect Wikipedia writer by deleting whole pages, rather than taking action and correcting them themselves, so that an article becomes permissible to be kept on Wikipedia in its form and contents. IvanSokolov (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would still go for delete here even if he were my compatriot. Nationality doesn't come into it. If Lilov were famous enough - and this were reliably attested - we wouldn't be having this discussion. Having a Wikipedia seems to be seen as a mark of prestige. This is witnessed by the numbers of minor professors, personal trainers to famous people we've not heard of, obscure martial arts trainers and little known financial consultants who try to get pages for themselves. (To say nothing about the garden maintenance contractors and computer repairers...) Peridon (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You, and others who are supporting keeping the article, say that he is famous. However, there's a very, very simple thing that you can supply that will help us keep the article: links to three articles about Valeri Lilov's importance that have been published in newspapers, magazines, books, or significant web sites. That's articles about his importance- not discussions about him on a forum, or advertisements for his products, or links to his web site, or blurbs about his wins and losses. There are several significant chess magazines. A famous chess player will have been the subject of articles in more than one of them. If, as you say, Lilov is a famous chess player, simply add links to the articles about him that those chess magazines have published. And then we'll keep the article. No amount of simply saying 'he is famous' will be helpful, but citing real sources will solve the problem completely. If he hasn't been written about in any depth by any chess publication anywhere... then he isn't famous. He might be a good chess player, a nice guy, kind to animals, an inspiration to his students... but that doesn't mean that an encyclopedia needs an article about him. Right now, he's giving the impression of a person who isn't famous, and so would like to use Wikipedia to advertise his products. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. It's just an encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To further support the legit nobility of the subject of this article, I have provided a number of additional independent sources, citing various information about Valeri Lilov. Among the additional independent sources, cited in the present form of the article are The Official Bulgarian Correspondence Chess Website, The Official Website of Rakovski Middle School in Varna, and the completely unrelated to Valeri Lilov website www.BgSever.info.


You wrote that “if he hasn't been written about in any depth by any chess publication anywhere, he isn’t famous”. The fact is: he has been written about in considerable depth in many chess and non-chess publications. Should his Wikipedia Page be deleted? Can anyone help further improve this article, if anything else is needed in terms of formating, proper Wikipedia language, or anything else? I am looking forward to reading Wikipedia experts’ responses here! IvanSokolov (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPC Skincare

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

Promotional article for a non-notable product. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:RS andy (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Purdom

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

I believe this biography fails WP:PROF. Precedent includes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Lisle. In short, being a PhD hired by a creationist company doesn't confer notability upon an academic. Rather, we need to see substantial contribution or mention in third-party sources. I don't see either of that. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waspit

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

Unremarkable just-launched company with no significant third party references - just a couple of press release replicas. Biker Biker (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to your comments, this entry was not put up to promote a company, but rather to define a new and innovative technology platform that is the subject of a patent application.


In response to your comments; - Yes Waspit has just launched but that should not be an issue; the page is about a new technology in an industry sector that is just emerging. An historic presence will evolve with time, but surely Wikipedia is not to be considered oblivious to new technologies that have only recently emerged? - The references follow the same format as on the ‘Zong’ page, a platform comparative to our own – albeit their platform is primarily centred on PSMS. We invite commentary on any further references that might be considered reasonably required. - Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia edited by the people and I am assuming most people that read and use Wikipedia would be interested in new developments and new technologies as and when they emerge. - New technological advances do not have a history, or much info. It is the type of page that can be added to and changed over time (is this not the point of Wikipedia?) - Also it seems some of you writing comments here, have pages very similar to Waspit’s (with few references other than a personal interview and website – Mutant Pop) so how is this any different. To delete the page would in my opinion undermine the fundamental model behind Wikipedia. I don’t want the page to be deleted. Please let me know what I can update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.192.197 (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. No outstanding delete comments- the nominator has now !voted to keep the article, so, we're done here. Courcelles (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia Tchoumitcheva

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

Despite trying, waiting, and trying again, I can find no reliable secondary sources commenting on this person. This article, like the many google hits, is essentially promotion, whether created and maintained by the subject, her agents or her fans. Information in this article, such as date of birth, cannot be reliably sourced. Even her name is disputed on the talk page. There is no content here that we should be publishing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Michael, that was my early impression, but I cannot find any such source that is independent, and thus the GNG is not met. An independent source that contextualises is exactly what is needed, and is what I could not find. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the greatest of respect, I agree with the conclusions of the last "Keep" AFD, as the G-news results show numerous non-English sources. If the articles are not PR, and address her directly and in detail in media sources accepted as RS, the GNG is met. And I sympathyze as all the articles will require translation... but non-English notability is perfectly fine with en.Wikipedia. For instance, following links from the subject's official website, these few are all articles about her, not blurbs or press releases, and all dealing with her woman directly and in detail: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] And these are just the tip of the iceberg, as a quick search through the news results gives: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] and many more from 2006 through 2010[51] Gosh knows, I dislike fighting through translations of French, German, and Italian.... I agree it would be a lot of work... but might you agree it could be done? That becomes the crux of the matter... her meeting of GNG even if no one has yet taken the time to properly improve an improvable article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharath Haridasan

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

Unreferenced, no google results though tags have been up. Whenaxis (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pambokancha

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

Needs to expanded. Only one reference that is not detailed or directly related to the topic. Whenaxis (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I created this article I was unaware that there was only a single source. That being said I debate your claim that the source is not detailed or related. The 'abc' news article talks extensively about the site and includes quotations from the archaeologist who excavated it. It's extensive 'closing ceremonies' and unique architecture make the topic notable. I had plans to expand the article, but haven't yet finished the draft I was working on in my userspace. Since the site is so new, it is likely that no further information has yet been published on the topic. I understand though that due to lack of further sources it may be best to merge the information.- France3470 (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would think an ancient Incan religious site in itself would be automatically notable. Archaeologists have found evidence of Incan social behavior at this site which furthers its significance. The ABC source demonstrates notability. Coverage also comes from the Archaeological Institute of America. [54] "Needs to expand" is a reason to expand it or place an expansion tag, not delete it. --Oakshade (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well if it is so notable why wouldn't it be long from the beginning. If its this short (one line) since the beginning I would expect that its not notable since there's very little available information on it. Plus, if the site is new you should wait till there is enough sources to back-up the article then you can put on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia has a major problem with these 'expansion' tags and other tags I see them everywhere that's been posted for years and yet nobody wants to expand because there is no further information on it. That's why I nominated this article because people see the tag that says 'It needs to be expanded' but nobody cares about it. Whenaxis (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it might not be your intent, these comments indicate this AfD is a case of WP:POINT, that you don't feel there should be articles that you feel will never be expanded and this is some kind of test AfD. There are many reasons other than notability for articles to remain short for many years. I created the article for Independent Spirit Award winner Debra Eisenstadt over 3 years ago and yet it's still a stub. I can't explain why, but non-notability is not the reason. If you'd like to start a meta-discussion on the articles that haven't undergone any significant expansion in a while, you're free to do so on the relevant policy and/or guidelines talk pages. Starting an AfD for the purpose of expressing your general feelings about this project is only disruptive. --Oakshade (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The site's history as an Incan religious site and its archaeological significance confer notability on the article. The nominator's comments are hardly valid; stubs are still legitimate articles, and the source is devoted entirely to the topic. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I say the article would never be expanded? I just said that since there's very little information on the Wikipedia article that it would of been non-notable its just a description of the location - from the one source you (the creator) could of added information on the many facts and a description of what may of happened at this historical site. I also said that people aren't willing to expand on articles like this one that don't have many sources that back it up that's why this one isn't be expanded. Besides this AfD is inter-related to the article and the Wikipedia expansion project AND its a free country I have the right to freedom of speech and say my opinion. Whenaxis (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sapan Desai

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

If half of the claims in this article are true, this is indeed an exceptional young man. However, exceptional does not necessarily equal notable. Most claims are unsourced or sourced to the subject's own websites. Many claims are over the top (for instance, he seems to be a resident at Duke and the article was categorized as "Duke faculty"). I have cleaned up the article thoroughly, so it may be best if editors participating in this AfD use the version before my edits, containing all original claims and sources, to make up their minds. The claims to notability are mainly three. 1/ Research accomplishments. As a graduate student (and postdoc?), Desai has published several articles. As their are several people named "S. Desai" (or even S.S. Desai), it is difficult to do an exhaustive search, but WoS lists several articles that should be from this person. The most cited ones have between 30 and 40 citations (the articles numbered I and I in the Journal of Neurophysiology). While very decent for articles published in 2005, this is considerably less than what generally is taken to satisfy WP:PROF. 2/ Business. Subject is claimed to be founder of three different companies. The most notable one of these seems to be "Apex Testing" (the others don't even have websites). A Google search for "Apex Testing" renders thousands of Ghits. However, almost all seem to refer to other uses of the term. A search for ("Apex Testing" medicine -"Apex Testing Labs" -"Apex Testing Laboratory" -"Apex Testing Laboratories") gives only 17 Ghits, among them this WP article and the subject's own websites. This company does not appear to be notable. 3/ Charity. The subject has founded the "Desai Foundation". A Google search reveals the existence of many different foundations with "Desai" in their names. A search for ("desai foundation" -"neil desai foundation" -Jaswantiben -balasaheb -justice) removes most of the others and gives 68 Ghits, most of them still about other subjects. This foundation does not appear to be notbale either. Finally, under "Biographies and profiles", a newspaper article is listed, which covers the fact that Desai graduated just one year after leaving high school. The newspaper seems to be the [[55]], a local newspaper (and the article appears in an even more local subsection of this newspaper). This source alone does not appear to satisfy GNG's requirement for multiple independent sources either. In all, this article does not appear to meet WP:PROF, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the article panned out because the supposed research and patents would be notable. The above entry and exhaustive research by Crusio is compelling enough for a delete consensus. I did check one inline link, Journal of Neurophysiology and references, and found the following under Footnotes;
  • The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
This is not a good reference so, also considering the above, I would concur with Delete. Otr500 (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2010
  • In all fairness, it is not uncommon at all in scientific publishing that authors contribute to the cost of publication of their articles. US law then requires that such an article is marked as an "advertisement", but no self-respecting journal (and J. Neurophysiol. is certainly a respectable one) will let this influence their decision to publish a particular manuscript or not. --Crusio (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right Crusio concerning the federal law and it may be "a respectable one.", However, in the lead of the Journal of Neurophysiology it states, "It publishes original research reports..." and this would be a clear violation of WP:OR correct? As I said, I would hope that the "multiple sources", but at least one to start, referred to by OverlordvI, can be provided. I am sure they (sources) are out there. I may be wrong and someone can correct me with proof, but OR such as, Ph.D. thesis, [56], and other such "papers" would not qualify. If just patents alone met the criteria someone could spend several years starting new stubs. Otr500 (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is WP:PSTS. However, a scientific paper published in a scientific journal cannot "violate WP:OR"; WP:OR deals with editors on Wikipedia constructing an article by (ab)using primary sources to reach a conclusion that is not supported by secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 07:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per a well researched nom. Being talented is not the same as being notable. Nsk92 (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple sources corroborate this information, including newspapers at the local and regional level, scholarly publications as indexed in PubMed, third party and personal websites, and available correspondence. Some subjective opinions from third parties not well-versed in this particular arena or in these topics may not be familiar with the specific conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OverlordvI (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, a standard overachiever with no particular claim of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 07:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheena Harrell

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

Ludicrously over-the-top biog of a Michelle Obama lookalike who is also the best violinist in the world and can even read music. OK, she looks like Michelle - but does that make her notable? Not as far as wikipedia is concerned. Fails WP:BIO and also WP:NPOV andy (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no concensus. I withdraw. Maashatra11 (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of British pop musicians of the 1930s

[edit]
List of British pop musicians of the 1930s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See wp:IINFO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:LSC, WP:SALAT, etc. I'm not sure, but I think pop wasn't invented until the 1950's. We already have category:British pop musicians so we can tag entries into the relevant or new categories. In List of British pop musicians of the 2000s, Most of the entries could be classified as rock and not necessarily pop (although some people say rock is a subgenre of pop and vice versa), so a title called List of British rock musicians of the 2000s may be somewhat more suitable. British pop music is only a combination of "British" and "pop" (but unlike Arabic pop or K-pop which are established subgenres). The inclusion criteria is not clear : How do you define a "pop musician"? Do they have to be born In Britain? And how are the decades contributing to the whole mess? Is it "born in the 1930s", "active in the 1930s", or maybe "living in the 1930s"?... See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli rock artists which I recently nominated. I am also nominating the following related pages because the same reason:

List of British pop musicians of the 1940s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of British pop musicians of the 1950s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of British pop musicians of the 1960s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of British pop musicians of the 1970s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of British pop musicians of the 1980s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of British pop musicians of the 1990s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of British pop musicians of the 2000s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of German pop music performers and genres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The inclusion criteria is not clear. There's not such a thing as "German pop" but rather "Schlager" and other terms. Entries can be merged to category:German pop musicians.
List of Israeli pop music performers and genres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - same as above. Entries can be merged to Category:Israeli pop musicians.
List of Russian pop music performers and genres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - We have a cross-named category, category:Russian pop musicians. Russian pop is not quite a subgenre but rather pop music made in Russia.
List of Australian rock and pop musicians born overseas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Something even more odd.
List of South Korean teen idol musical bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - another odd list

--Maashatra11 (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - inclusion criterion not clear. What the heck is "performers and genres" (why the and genres really)? For the British pop of 19xx, how is the period chosen (because some performers span decades, by longevity or by pure chance of starting in the late parts of a decade onto the next)? And Australian rock and pop musicians born overseas is about as unencyclopedic crosscategorization as it gets.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and consider individually if there is a deletion rationale for them. This omnibus nomination is too broad and covers too many items, which are not all functionally identical. The original deletion rationale is also unclear. Lists and categories are not redundant, so it doesn't really matter that there are categories that could cover the same articles. Renaming some of these lists (though not all) and improving the inclusion criteria should be a simple enough task. Kate (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not supposed to have only two voting choices (keep or delete). You can say which to keep and which to delete. Also, I'm not saying that lists are redundant to the categories, I'm saying that the lists are redundant per se. British is not clear, Pop is not clear, and 1930's is not clear. We could include every musician or group that that can claim some level of popularity and "Britishness" and then you would see how redundant these lists are. The same is true for all of the other bundled articles. Please see WP:CSL. - sometimes there are subjects that may be inappropriate for a SA list, but not as a category. Maashatra11 (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see WP:Bundle Kate (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it. I think I know that already. Nothing particular there, merely examples. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Also, please see the article on pop music. Pop music is not simply music that is popular. That may clear up some apparent confusion here. Currently, these lists do not include every popular British musician - for example, Tito Burns was wildly popular in the 1940s, but is not included in the list, because he wasn't a pop musician. Kate (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw The Who in one of those lists. If you think The Who is pop, I really don't know what pop is for you. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:BEBOLD and take The Who off the list if you don't think it belongs. Kate (talk)
I think being called "pop" is subjective opinion because the term itself is not clearly defined and is as broad a it can get. That's the whole problem. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could see a lot of entries in the lists which I have doubts whether they should be considered pop or not. Because pop is such a broad and vague term, every "list of pop musicians" is inherently redundant. It's harmless in the category context because it's in categories' nature to join two broad main topics together, such as, for example category:English footballers. If we made a list called List of English footballers, I think the Wikipedia servers would crash. Even if it was organized in alphabetical order. And even then, it would be an unnecessary list, because there would be lengthy pages for unrelated footballers, better classified under their team, or whatever, but not under their "nationality". Cheers, Maashatra11 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pop musicians aren't footballers, ergo that's irrelevant. Please see WP:WAX Kate (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that. It was just an example of a list to avoid. And I also added an explanation why, which I doubt you have read. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I read it. I just don't agree with your deletion rationale. Kate (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You said "Renaming some of these lists (though not all) and improving the inclusion criteria should be a simple enough task." I agree there might be an alternate option to deleting, but I currently cannot see how, and I would be very grateful to you if you could elaborate on the exact actions that should be taken , because as far I can see, there's a sense of agreement that something ought to be done with the articles anyway and their present state is not very good. Maashatra11 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the usual first step in improvement is either simply doing it, or if there's an active community of editors working on the page, to take it up on the talk page and hash it out.Kate (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you know what to do in order to improve them, please do it. My opinion is that they are useless for the moment and there's no grounds for improving. If you can make substantial changes that will address my concerns, I'd be happy to help making them better articles. Maashatra11 (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't address the concerns I raised. Which inclusion criteria? Maashatra11 (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion about each of the articles, for example List of Australian rock and pop musicians born overseas? Maashatra11 (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Every person that voted here agrees that the articles' current state is unsatisfactory and a change should be made. A debate about which changes and how (here or somewhere else) and subsequent resolutions would be helpful. Secondly, considering the fact that the pop music term wasn't invented until the late 1950's, how can this article even exist? Maashatra11 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redudant comment. The term Industrial music didn't exist prior to 1976, but the music existed before then, for example. Lugnuts (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean pre-industrial music? Or music who preceded industrial? Which bands for example? If they're considered industrial, it's only after 1976. But let's leave it, we talk about pop music here. If the pop music genre didn't exist prior to the 50s, you can't say you have a list of pop musicians from the 30s. It's simply wrong. Maashatra11 (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even the article shows that the term pop song comes from the 1920s. This is a mis-guided group nomination (IE trying to apply the same criteria against all these articles). Lugnuts (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment re: List of South Korean teen idol musical bands - just prior to the nomination I had done a first sweep attempt to clean up the article, including inserting a more objective criteria. I am not familiar at all with K-pop music to determine if my new definition would actually be meaninful/workable/encyclopedic and there was only 1 feedback comment so far which appears mostly to be in response to this afd rather than the inclusion criteria and general clean up.
In general, I am not yet convinced that List versions of any of these topics provides meaningful organization to the data that isnt better handled by categories. Active Banana (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What keeps you away from voting? You have a standpoint. :) Maashatra11 (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh - the Afd has just begun! I have noted my concerns and will see if anyone can convince me otherwise! Active Banana (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of South Korean teen idol musical bands - What I think that this list does not help me too much either. I usually go to Category:Korean musical groups. But this list allows me to see which band debuted first and when it disbanded in comparison to OTHER bands. For example: which band had comparatively more members? etc. So I think this list should not be deleted because it is useful when it comes to comparison. Although, the column of references and notes (the one with a lot of 'citation needed tags') should really go away as readers could go to the individual articles of bands from the given links. Also, since it serves as a portal to all k-pop articles. On other thought, we could involve other korea based editors in improvement of this list, since they would know better sources than us obviously. Almost all the bands listed have their own individual articles with links provided, this is not a too bad list. It helps when it comes to comparison since nobody wants to jump from article to article only for sake of comparing who debuted first. It is not a too short or a too long list either. Also it does carry the criteria. Farjad0322 (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drug combination

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

Article is redundant; Poly drug use already covers the topic in a much better manner; in fact, the original incarnation of this article consisted of material currently covered by that one. In addition, it's mostly just an explanation and listing of one particular bit of drug terminology that doesn't even particularly cover the topic at large.

Also, the only source the article cites is itself. The "needs additional citations" template has been on the site for a significant amount of time now, but regardless, this article simply isn't necessary to begin with. G-Flex (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is both completely non-notable as well as original research. The fact that it cites itself is particularly amusing. Even if these concepts were accurate, this would most likely still be deletable, per WP:NOTDIC. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. 15:44, 22 July 2010 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) deleted "Love But Not Betrayed" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD A1, was a very short article providing little or no context. using TW) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love But Not Betrayed

[edit]
Love But Not Betrayed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined the speedy on this myself because it's borderline. I then prodded it but the creator contested it. Point blank: what's going on in this article? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Article was speedy deleted, and author has been indef-blocked for threatening users. Closure requested. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentDelete. It looks like it's about a TV series, but I can't see much beyond that. The creator just removed the AfD template; I've warned him for vandalism and put it back. It looks like this is about some project a few friends got together and put on youtube or something like that, but I really can't tell for sure. The only reason I didn't nominate it for speedy deletion as a hoax is that it isn't quite as blatant a hoax as one would want for that, and I don't think this is covered under the notability-based criteria for speedy deletion either. We might WP:SNOW this, however. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (I still favor speedy), no context, likely a hoax or complete nonsense. No references at all. Appears to be a TV series, but who can tell for sure? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps speedy delete. Finding about this via Google was very easy and took almost no time. It is not a television series. It is a "fan fiction" series written by an amateur on a web site. The article is full of misinformation: for example it says "It had the most viewers in TV history", which is nonsense, as this is not on television. I think this is borderline for speedy deletion under at least two counts: hoax and no context. Realkyhick has also already said "I still favor speedy". Anyone else think speedy deletion? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Kerep, nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will Page

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

Possibly non notable and self promotion, procedural nomination, unreferenced, its hard to find references with a simple name associated with music. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No prejudice on a real article about this or similar programs should be implied here. Courcelles (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of International Hotel and Tourism Management

[edit]
Bachelor of International Hotel and Tourism Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable academic program article created by an SPA. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It may be appropriate to have an article about Bachelor's degrees that relate to tourism and hotel management, sure. But let's not start with this. The text is unsalvageably tainted by the intention to spam. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Bachelor of International Hotel and Tourism Management which has it's own Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachelor of International Hotel and Tourism Management. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BIHTM

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

Spammy page without content or an assertion of notability. Probably linkspam. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yann Duzert

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

This article has a big COI problem and appears to be little more than self-promotion. Eeekster (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lookout! It's The Lookouts

[edit]
Lookout! It's The Lookouts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and I can find no significant coverage of this demo. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. could have being an A9 (book version) JForget 01:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A punk ambition

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

Definitely unnotable unfinished book by unknown author with zero Google hits. Is there no CSD that applies? Schuhpuppe (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge/redirect. I will redirect to National Council of Young Israel#Young Israel of Cherry Hill; editors are free to merge verifiable material from the article history. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 16:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young Israel of Cherry Hill

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

Local congregation with no defined notability. Does not meet WP:N. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi cyrus

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

No major roles [58], being related to someone famous does not make her notable. Schuhpuppe (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

County Route 1E (North Dakota)

[edit]
County Route 1E (North Dakota) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable road that fails WP:N Imzadi 1979 → 02:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grace City Road

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

Unremarkable county road that fails WP:N. Imzadi 1979 → 01:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets along the former U.S. Highway 99 in Washington

[edit]
List of streets along the former U.S. Highway 99 in Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary to have a tabular list of every street the road follows Dough4872 01:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination by a banned user. NW (Talk) 05:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Active Worlds

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

There are multiple issues on this article including that references are almost entirely made up of reunions, a city site for a city on the community, and some user's local page. The other ones not linked to a paragraph or a sentence don't cut it either. Golden Glades Talk, My master 01:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add on, if you were to remove every source that is primary, links to self-published websites, or non-reliable websites, this article would be a stub. Golden Glades Talk, My master 01:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is poorly written and unsourced. However, there are sources out there. This needs to be rewritten, likely from scratch, but I think the subject is notable. AniMate 03:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This alone has prompted me to change my retirement status to semi-retired. I'm not leaving permanently, I'll just be noticeably less active on Wikipedia. That said, this is an obvious sock of User:Pickbothmanlol. I'm actually wondering when the user will be classified under WP:LTA. This article has potential. It's been around for about six years, so something must've been done right. Like AniMate said, people within the community always thinks their community is notable. For that reason, I won't be contributing to its cleanup (as I'm not really sure where to begin). -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 04:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Aprilov

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

Conflict of interests: The article has been completely, entirely, solely and uniquely written by Aprilov's daughter. Магьосник (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Melrose Place (2009 TV series) characters

[edit]
List of Melrose Place (2009 TV series) characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - redundant to the existing List of Melrose Place characters. Fails WP:PLOT as nothing but a recounting of the story lines of the various characters. PROD declined by editor who routinely removes PRODs from fiction articles under a questionable interpretation of the process with the claim that this is a breakout list per WP:SS, but the existing list is hardly so large as to require a split, nor has the original list in fact been split since the 2009 characters are still on it. Given the amount of overlap between the original characters and the 2009 cast (three of the original characters were regulars on the new series and several additional characters made appearances in multiple episodes) a single list suffices. None of this material is referenced to secondary sources and this article's name is an improbable search term so no merge or redirect is necessary. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as PROD decliner. If you look at the List of Melrose Place characters, two things are obvious: 1) this content is primarily unique, and 2) this article is a summary style breakout of that parent character list. It might be reasonable to merge this content back into the parent article, since "list of X characters" articles seem to generally ignore WP:LENGTH, just like it might be reasonable to trim the content... but both are editorial decisions and don't need AfD. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qomo Linux

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, seems to be a copy-paste, so advertising concerns as well. PhilKnight (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted. The article has already been speedy deleted by TexasAndroid per CSD G7. (Non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hull

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

No assertion of importance or significance. Obvious WP:COI here. — Timneu22 · talk 00:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Collar Wrestling Alliance

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 01:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle, thank you for your comments, however you may wish to have a read of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as it covers :
  1. Other stuff exists
  2. Does no harm
  3. Crystal ball; and
  4. Notability is inherited
Codf1977 (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. no arguments (aside the nom) for deletion after basically three weeks JForget 01:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Kamali Dehghan

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

Fails WP:BIO. Page created by single page editor, possibly the subject himself. Many of the article statements (like: he is the first, or he is one of few are disputed.Farhikht (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Scott Mac 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic House

[edit]
The Magic House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mrluke485 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject appears to be non-notable children's tv show (1993-5). Article unreferenced. Can find no substantial coverage of this to show why it was notable. There are the books of the same name which appear to be more notable than the show. SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable short-running children's television show in the 90s.Yousou (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could somebody please address the issue of how a programme that aired across the ITV network can be non-notable as everybody here is claiming as I just can't see it. This article needs improved not deleted (hence why I have now tagged it for rescue as well as expanding it a bit). The books referred to by Christopher Connor could also be incorporated into the article. Keresaspa (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some don't like thinking for themselves, and deciding what is notable and what is not, so unless you find two or more news results that specifically say its notable enough to talk about it, then they try to delete it. Dream Focus 00:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a rude little tag to put up there. It brings more people here which will do a Google news search, visit the official website for information, potentially help improve the article, and offer additional opinions. Dream Focus 00:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It also brings a lot of people here who are more apt to !vote "Keep". The instructions on WP:ARS#Instructions clearly say that the deletion discussion should be notified when an article is tagged for rescue, and there should be a brief explanation for why it was tagged for rescue. In the absence of these notifications and explanations, I believe the closing admin needs to be notified so that he/she can look out for a disproportionate quantity of Keep votes by ARS members, indicating that the votes might be skewed as a result of canvassing. SnottyWong confess 22:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to the Beatles discography. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles videos

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

I do not find this article to be notable enough. There is already a videography section in The Beatles discography. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saddleworth Transmitting Station

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

Article about a local transmitting station is not notable, per WP:N. (Article was previously tagged with a PROD but the template was removed, so I'm listing it here.) elektrikSHOOS 19:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read the "main" article but wonder why this article is here? Is this a transmitting station or a type of relay station. "If" there is a main station article that can not reach an area without this "relay" station this would be worthy of mention in that article. If this is a fact then the preferred approach, as I understand it, would be to tag the article with a merge to request. I am not sure how it works now but it does seem the information from this unassessed stub could be pertinent in that article where it probably should have been from the start. Otr500 (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Method Man. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Crystal Meth

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS Not enough coverage in reliable sources. No tracklist and no confirmed release date Red Flag on the Right Side 23:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The album is advertised in the liner notes of Blackout! 2, and is mentioned on his myspace page (under the first video in text). It's also mentioned in this interview with MTV, this article in Hip Hop Galaxy, and this article in Prefix. Once the album is released and more information is released on it, this article will obviously contain more sources and information. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not reliable secondary sources except for MTV. It can be recreated when more is known about it. Red Flag on the Right Side 01:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.lordsofmetal.nl/showreview.php?id=15874&lang=en
  2. ^ http://www.bravewords.com/news/108734
  3. ^ http://www.metalglory.de/metalopedia_bands.php?band=3008
  4. ^ http://www.lordsofmetal.nl/showreview.php?id=15874&lang=en
  5. ^ http://www.bravewords.com/news/108734
  6. ^ http://www.metalglory.de/metalopedia_bands.php?band=3008
  7. ^ http://www.graspop.be/2010/en/bands.php
  8. ^ http://www.lordsofmetal.nl/showreview.php?id=15874&lang=en
  9. ^ http://www.bravewords.com/news/108734
  10. ^ http://www.metalglory.de/metalopedia_bands.php?band=3008
  11. ^ http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=7566
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_July_19&oldid=1142641331"