Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 23

< 22 September	24 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Wright Pte. Ltd.

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

Spam. Œcolampadius (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7: non-notable company. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any evidence of notability. Speedy does not seem necessary/appropriate because the article has been around since 2007. --Kvng (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The age of the article is immaterial. "Speedy" doesn't imply haste, it refers to the process whereby an article can be deleted without the need for AfD if it meets one of a number of criteria. A7 is the notability criterion, which this article clearly fails. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy != Haste. My brain hurts. --Kvng (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing of note here.... Sailsbystars (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it were solely a problem of spammy text, that could be fixed by editing, not deleting. However, I tried looking up the organisation and all I found was mentions in business directories, job ads, &c - not substantial enough coverage to establish notability under WP:COMPANY. bobrayner (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RCA Country Legends

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

Not notable compilation series. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. Addendum: It is just a list of non-notable albums.Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not clearly non-notable. Not particularly commercial. I don't see anything in violation of WP:NOTDIR here. Perhaps Armbrust (talk · contribs) would like to explain that claim. --Kvng (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Armbrust. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 00:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Armbrust. Jimmy Pitt talk 13:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep on the issue of keep/delete, no consensus on the issue of merging. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Enemy

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

Delete. This limited series is the first part of a three-part trilogy that make up one continuous story. The entire trilogy already has its own article dealing with all three parts here. Friginator (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ultimate Comics: Enemy Trilogy. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ultimate Comics: Enemy Trilogy like Ultimate Galactus Trilogy.Crazy runner (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Start with some merge banners. It strikes me as hostile bring this straight to WP:AFD. What's up with that? --Kvng (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage of it at Comic Book Resources and elsewhere to count. I added into the article a quote from a reviewer at newsarama I found through Google news search. Dream Focus 22:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. Recommend a merge discussion be started on the article's talk page or at WikiProject Comics. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Mystery

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

Delete. This limited series is the second part of a three-part trilogy that make up one continuous story. The entire trilogy already has its own article dealing with all three parts here. Friginator (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ultimate Comics: Enemy Trilogy. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ultimate Comics: Enemy Trilogy like Ultimate Galactus Trilogy.Crazy runner (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Start with some merge banners. It strikes me as hostile bring this straight to WP:AFD. What's up with that? --Kvng (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just Ines

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

Film has not received a premiere, is not otherwise notable and fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). ukexpat (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for now per WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wait till it wins some prizes, sorry. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 14:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at its pages I can see that the film is clearly not insignificant. It has a budget of £500,000 and high production values. It's not out yet, give it a chance. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see those listed in the guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (films). – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homeodynamic agriculture

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

Non-notable concept. Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources unconnected to the topic. ^Bongo_matic 17:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have to let this squeak by given those two sources, and also since Nastati is cited at least once. I grant you readily it's thin, though: weak keep. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's significant enough in Italy and Greece as method of agriculture, adopted by over 400 farms. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. no sources have been found so the deletion arguments are unrefuted Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South African psytrance

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

No reliable third party sources that indicate the notability of this genre Drasticuo (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ With three record labels dedicated to this genre, I would give this article the benefit of the doubt pending better references. __meco (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and Question In my opinion the three labels mentioned are dedicated to psytrance in general. Apart from that, do you have reliable, 3rd party, independent sources that prove that these "three record labels are dedicated to "this genre""? Drasticuo (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I hadn't looked into it that deeply. I'm basically sad to see this article being deleted, but I realize rules are rules, so I have canceled my vote. I'll tag it for rescue though. Maybe that'll help. __meco (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would be my first option. In the list of artists, there is only one artist that has a wikipedia article, and that one is a stub. Although it contains an external links section, there are no references. I just removed a portion of unencyclopedic info from there. If there are to be sources added, I would be open to reconsideration, but this is my vote for now. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 21:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks references that may establish notability. Spatulli (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Although the article its self needs a lot of work, including better referencing, organisation and copy editing; I am of the opinion that this is both a relevant and interesting topic. The genre is large enough and distinct enough to justify a wiki article of its own. However it will need someone with a much better understanding of the subject then my self to sort this out. Alternatively this article could be merged into the Dark psytrance as a sub category of that genre.--Discott (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How did you conclude that this genre exists, and that it is "large enough and distinct enough to justify a wiki article of its own" ? Given the assumption that you live in South Africa (from your userpage), did you ever hear about it? I'm of the opinion that it has no references, and thus cannot possibly be called an existing "genre" or "genera" unless there are some sources that prove this. Spatulli (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment I added a merge tag to Dark psytrance as you suggested. Spatulli (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Merge + Answer & comment I have indeed heard of it before as a distinct genre however I have been in China for most of the past three years and only just got back and I don't think I can claim to be enough of an expert on this subject to mount a proper defense of it as a unique genre. I think that the merger with Dark psytrance is the best outcome.--Discott (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Regretfully, I'd say that a merge is a bad idea, because the article as it stands now completely lacks references and is thus unverifiable. So if aside from the notability issues it also completely unverified, I heavily doubt that a merger would be helpful. Spatulli (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two music news sites have been easily found through a brief Google news search. [1] They mention this is a legitimate genre. Dream Focus 03:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What?! haha. Dream Focus, You are totally wrong. This source quotes Wikipedia (!), most specifically the Rinkadink article. The other "source", [2], as can be inferred from your "brief Google news search", i.e. here doesn't even join the two strings of "South african" and "psytrance" together. Just, check yourself before you're !voting here. Thanks a Lot in advance, 03:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 -- the article did not assert notability. -Selket ^Talk 05:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S. Satya Rama Murthy

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

Google search suggests this person is not individually notable Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual, no significant coverage can be found. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 (as tagged), there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Mathew

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

No evidence of any real notability other than having been a Big Brother contestant. No evidence of any notability as an individual in any case - indeed, David Mathew is almost an exact duplicate. As such, even if it isn't deleted, we should at least merge them into Greg and David Mathew or similar. Smjg (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. They're already covered under Big Brother Australia 2005 and are not otherwise notable. . Jimmy Pitt talk 20:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Not notable, poorly sourced, and only deserves mention in another related article. Cresix (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. simply appearing on big brother doesn't warrant a separate article. LibStar (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playlist (album series)

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

Questionable notability. No sources, just a directory. Very few of the albums have proven notable enough for their own articles. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/16_Biggest_Hits and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Super_Hits. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These are all official releases by notable artists, and hence appropriate for a list. While it is true that Wikipedia is not a directory, neither is this list. Rlendog (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the series as a whole is not notable and create the disambiguation page, Playlist (disambiguation), to include these albums as well as other articles using the name (playlist.com for example). Also redirect Playlist (album) to the dab page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shilha (disambiguation)

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

I tagged this for speedy deletion, but it clearly needs some discussion. My problem with it is that the articles it is disambiguating between do not have remotely similar titles, and the disambig template says "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title." If the various languages are all known as "Shilha", then perhaps they should all be moved to included that name in the title? Or if that name is not actually appropriate, perhaps they should be added as "See also" links in the Shilha language article? I'm really not sure now, so I've brought it here to see if people think it should be deleted, or whether there are cases where the "articles associated with the same title" thing can be disregarded -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the guy who wrote it: "Shilha" is an alternative name for all the languages listed - I would understand that to be how they are "associated with the same title". People searching for information on Tunisian Berber, say, under the name of "Shilha"[3] are going to be rather frustrated if they end up at a page describing the not very closely related Shilha language of southern Morocco if there's no path leading from it to Nafusi language. (See the article's talk page for discussion.) - Lameen Souag (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I could be convinced (though the disambig page would need to be fixed up a bit), but I think we at least need each of the individual articles to mention that each language is also known as "Shilha" - currently the only one that says that is Nafusi language. Otherwise, we have a disambig page of links to articles that don't even mention the disambig subject. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's also mentioned in South Oran Berber (using the alternative spelling "Shelha"). I agree that it would be worth adding a mention to the other two. - Lameen Souag (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. In that case, you've convinced me, so I'll withdraw this - I'll make a couple of notes on the Disambig Talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: In the light of the discussion so far, I'd like to withdraw the nomination. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel democracy model

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

Delete. Original research. Hippopotamus Logic (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced since 2009. Nakon 16:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced page which also seems like original research, mostly. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced social science gobbledygook. Incoherent. Carrite) 18:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no scholar hits at all. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no print hits neither -> hoax/OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LoudArt Productions

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

Delete, non-notable company. Article is unsourced and I am unable to find any coverage online in reliable sources. The company might not even exist any more; its website has no news since 2007, when it ceased operations in London, Ontario and apparently did not resume elsewhere. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. SharedPlanetType (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whether the company is defunct or not is irrelevant. But with no coverage in reliable sources, there is no notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True in the absolute, but I think the fact that the company only existed for five years counseled further against giving the topic the benefit of the doubt. postdlf (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of probability distributions. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaussian minus exponential distribution

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

Non-notable content (Previous PROD was removed). No references provided and it would be wrong to have articles for all possible pairs of distributions Melcombe (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is indeed poorly sourced, but for hardcore scientific terms I found myself may times googling and eventually finding the wikipedia entry to clarify most of the questions I had. At worst, this should be merged, but I prefer an expert to provide some relevant references instead and keep the article. Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced article which appears to contain serious errors. GB/GS searches find no reliable publications: just one MSc thesis. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources appear to single out this distribution for discussion. For those unfamiliar, this is the distribution of the difference of a Gaussian random variable and an independent exponential random variable. (It is strange that the article totally fails to point this out.) There is no indication why this difference would be notable, as opposed to the difference of any two other probability distributions, and a literature search also turns up nothing in particular. Working out the pdf and cdf of such a distribution is essentially routine, so there isn't really any nontrivial content that deserves to be merged anywhere. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of probability distributions. This is a perfectly valid search term, and there is no reason to delete. --Lambiam 14:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devillusion

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

Fails WP:CORP/WP:N and WP:V: Non-notable game developer with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. I've looked through the WikiProject Video games guide to sources and found nothing. Using the WikiProject Video games custom Google search returns a number of hits but they're for the "dev[eloper] Illusion", not this company at all. The single claim to fame is being ~~an exhibitor at a notable LAN party, which anyone can do according to the Dreamhack exhibitor site~~ a partner for a notable LAN party, which doesn't even approach "significant coverage" in independent, reliable sources as required by WP:CORP. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cgenetwork, f2pgames and mmogamesite are not sources we should be using. Two hits on Google News - a press release, and a chinese site that sources BBGsite, which isn't promising. Marasmusine (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see that the sources I used are not valid enough. Sorry, I did not realise that those sources were not to be used on wikipedia. Markliamm (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any reliable, significant coverage. --Teancum (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy of humanity

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

No indication of notability, WP:OR. This appears to be nothing but a string of words that several people has happened to use, and one editor has started cataloguing those instance; there's no evidence of discussion of this phrase in reliable sources. Furthermore, the creators' motives for putting together this page are questionable, he has admitted that he put it together as an excuse to group Richard Dawkins with people like Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro, and Richard Dawkins is one of User:NBeale's academic "opponents" in real life (see search results here, and particularly posts like this, in which he both canvassed off-wiki to get "keep" votes for an autobiography at AfD and in which he suggested that any editor deleting his autobiography is a "Dawkins Defender"; clearly this editor is not in any position to be using Wikipedia as a soapbox to criticize his perceived opponents). rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: As WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. That said, it did give me quite a laugh in the bare-faced shamelessness of its attempt to equate Dawkins with Hitler. It's quite a feat to run straight off the blocks into Godwin's law. Nice work NBeale. --PLUMBAGO 15:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FWIW User:Rjanag has quite a history of WP:Wikihounding me but even so it's quite impressive to AFD an article within 1 hour of its creation and with no discussion at all. The user who PROD-ed it did so because he said I was attacking the Pope, Rjanag says I am attacking Dawkins, but all I am doing is recording the various uses of this term which will enable, given time, a sensible and balanced article to be created. There are 484k GHits and masses of use of the phrase in RS. Give some time and don't be so absurdly trigger-happy. To AfD an article within an hour of its creation without discussion is against policy. (and here come the usual suspects) NBeale (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, even less is it a dictionary of three word expressions. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If kept we obviously need an article on Friend of humanity as well. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a page with no meaningful content other than as an attack on various people named therein. Suitable material for a bigot's blog, but not for Wikipedia. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a turn of phrase. No encyclopedic significance. Might as well list all notable users of any idiomatic phrase such as "the best thing since sliced bread". PamD (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NBeale's antics are always fun to follow, and while I am not opposed to a not-overly-promotional biography of Nicholas Beale on Wikipedia, I see no hope for this article. Of course, I am more than happy to change my mind if someone can produce a couple sources with significant coverage of this phrase, i.e., a sources that "address the subject directly in detail", as WP:N would require. Forget about the detail, actually, I'd just like to see NBeale acknowledge the difference between using a phrase and directly addressing it, e.g., the way a linguist, sociologist, or historian might. Are any of these sources about the phrase, NBeale? (Oh, and I did try to search for sources on google scholar, but the machine will return usages of the phrase rather than articles about it. It seems that google scholar much like NBeale does not distinguish between usage and coverage of a phrase.) Vesal (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have just come across Enemy of the people, which has been around for over 6 years. If there is any useful content in Enemy of humanity, it should surely be added to that article. But no, that does not mean I'm in favour of using that article as yet another platform to indulge a certain editor's fondness for being rude about Dawkins. And I'm doubtful if the phrase "enemy of humanity" has enough currency as a likely-to-be-sought-for phrase to merit a redirect. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The object seems to be to make a list of every time someone has been described with that exact sequence of words, which wouldn't be that difficult to cobble together by typing the phrase into google. So far as I can tell, none of these instances of one person calling another an "e.o.h." has been notable. Even the page for the more common enemy of mankind redirects to Hostis humani generis, but I don't see a point in making this a search term. Mandsford 16:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are already over 18k GHits on the Dawkins instance, and according to Google News there are "127 related" reports of the Castro instance, "757 related". So in what way can thee be considered not notable? NBeale (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The fact that Dawkins described Mr Ratzinger as an "enemy of the people" may be notable, but that does not make the phrase itself notable. See comment by Vesal above. Where are the sources discussing the phrase, as opposed to simply using it? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is an entire book "Enemies of humanity: the nineteenth-century war on terrorism" and a substantial article in a learned journal "Enemy of Humanity: The Anti-Piracy Discourse in Present-Day Anti-Terrorism" both of which I have added to the article as references. This article now has far more RS references than the ones which are proposed as redirects. And it is only a couple of days old. NBeale (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read a word of any of the deletes here? We're not looking for more random books that happen to have this phrase in their title; we're looking for sources that discuss the use of the phrase in an academic way. You and your supporters already have a reputation for piling random useless sources and passing mentions into articles just to make them look fuller (any third-party observers, just see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (5th nomination) and search for terms like "puffery" and "passing mention"), don't do it again here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, NPA please (but then isn't this why you made such a rapid AfD?). We have an entire academic book and an entire article in an academic journal which are explicitly devoted to this concept. We also have a vast number of WP:RS for the use in these notable instances. And it is a term extensively discussed in the academic and legal literature. NBeale (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crying NPA again? What part of my above message could possibly be construed as a personal attack? Calling your sources "useless"? Sorry, but I refuse to be guilt-tripped by whining about NPA from someone who only cares about NPA when he's the one who feels "attacked", but who doesn't mind jumping on the bandwagon when an editor he doesn't like is the subject of one (17:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC) and 19:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)). When your talk page and numerous AfDs (including this one) are full of people saying how appalled they are at your COI editing practices and all you can do is whine that meanies are attacking you, then clearly you are the one who needs to remove the beam from your eye. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an irrelevant ad hominem argument. Question is, has the author done enough to show that the article should be kept? IMHO no. Does anyone else stand up for it? No. Do lots of completely independent editors think it should be deleted? Yes. andy (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for every reason you can imagine: dicdef, POV, attack, OR and so on. andy (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To quote Wikipedia is not a dictionary, "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history." By that standard, this article -- which is nothing more than a list of examples of the usage of a common idiomatic phrase -- belongs at Wiktionary, not here.Jimmy Pitt talk 16:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In agreement with the balance of the above. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR and in particular a SYN violation. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SYN violation. Spatulli (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Crimes against humanity. See Enemies of humanity. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the subject has a lot more to do with Enemy of the people than Crimes against humanity, as per Snalwibma's comments above. andy (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, enemy of the people is a political term rather like traitor - an opponent of a particular state rather than humanity in general. Crimes against humanity or enemy of mankind seem better targets in that they refer to offenses which are especially repugnant to all civilised states - slavery, genocide, piracy, terrorism &c. They are well-established concepts in law and a reader who is searching using the title in question is likely to want one or both of these topics. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, that's no good here. NBeale is after a definition that allows him to lump Richard Dawkins in with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. It's no good if it only covers trifles like slavery, genocide, piracy or terrorism - it's got to have "militant atheism" somewhere in there as well. --PLUMBAGO 11:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well at least it is clear that the reason many editors want this article deleted is because it is by NBeale, rather than on the merits of the case :-). What NBeale might or might not want is neither here nor there. I can see no obvious objection to merge/redirect Enemy of humanity with Enemy of mankind - in most languages they would be synonymous I think. Though we should then have "hostis humani generis" as a sub-article of Enemy of mankind, since the Latin tag is a bit of a bizzaire way to have the main title (and anyway it literally means "enemy of the human race"). BTW whatever Dawkins may be accusing the Pope of it is not "militant atheism". NBeale (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original essay. —Carrite, Sept. 24, 2010.

Hi Carrite. I'm a multiply published author. If I wanted to write an "original essay" I'd do a much better job :-). Seriously, Enemy of mankind could perhaps be said to be an "original essay", very few refs, a lot of opinion. This isn't an essay at all. It is a collection of impeccably referenced notable facts. Which some people don't like, by an editor that some people don't like, and against whom Rjanag has a long-running Wikihounding campaign. That is why it is likely to be deleted. Mob rule, not policy. What a pity. What an abuse of admin status. NBeale (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! Not merely an author, not just a published author, but a multiply published author. That makes you sound so incredible, and I mean that in the truest sense of the word. Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per Plumbago. Edward321 (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NBeale has once again posted on his blog asking his readers to come to this AfD. And he is still spouting about how anyone who deletes his article must be a "Dawkins Defender". rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Please do not abuse your admin privileges yet again to mislead and make personal attacks. I do not ask my readers to come to the AfD. And if you can't see the difference between "the Dawkins Defenders are doing X" and "everyone who does X is a Dawkins Defender" then what on earth did you learn at your university? NBeale (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC

Here you go again with your nonsensical whining. How is the above message an abuse of admin privileges (where have I used my admin tools at all here?)? How is pointing out your own blog post a "personal attack"? I think you just have a rolodex of stock complaints ("personal attack", "abuse of admin privileges", "i am famous", etc.) that you pull out whenever you're not getting your way.

And by the way, your post specifically calls me a "Dawkins Defender" (by saying this AfD was started by "one of them"), regardless of the fact that I didn't even know who Dawkins was before I started seeing your disruption around this project, and I still don't give two hoots who he is. Again, like I said above: you have a habit of trying to discredit everyone who opposes you as a "Dawkins Defender", and refusing to face the clear fact that your behavior around this project has major problems. For at least a year now multiple editors have noted this problem, but you still have the delusion that scores of other editors have a problem and you don't. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh! Can you explain in what sense accusing someone of "spouting", "nonsensical whining" and saying "you have the delision" (etc.. ad nauseam) confirms to WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA? You have already been told off at least once on the Admin Notice Board for this kind of blatant violation of these fundamental policies, and probably we will have to re-visit this. Admins are suppsoed to understand and exemplify WP policies. Furthermore every single substrantive item of your nomination in thie AfD is either false or an irrelevant ad-hominem attack. You have a long history of wikihounding me and even nominating the artilce within 1 hr of creation as a stub is against policy. You are skilled at getting your own way on Wikipedia but this does not make your behaviour right. NBeale (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hom or not, Rjanag has made some solid points relating to WP policies whereas NBeale has no other strong arguments for keeping this article other than disparaging the motives of anyone who is against it, on the basis that if they're against it their motives must be suspect. How about some real counter arguments to the claims of OR, SYNTH, RS and so on? andy (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

< Comment So we can agree that Rjanag should stop these personal attacks, and that whether he and others do not like the author and impute bad motives for the article should be irrelevant. Let's look at the substantive claims:

RS Every statement in the article is sourced to reliable sources (unlike many/most long-established articles including the one that people want to merge this with, which no-one has ever suggested should be deleted). There are many many references to these instances and they are all by pretty notable persons. In addition the concept of "enemy of humanity" has been extensively discussed in the academic literture, including at least one book and one substantial article devoted to it.
There is no element of OR or WP:SYN. The article makes no claims at all about any connection between for example the people who use this trope. If the article were to say "the people who say this are all X" or "we can therefore deduce Y" then such a statement could be reverted as OR/SYN unless we could find a WP:RS to which we could attribute this comment. But in no version of the article I have seen are any such statements made.
Even if there were parts of the article which were OR, SYN or not RS, the solution would be to improve the article by amending or removing these parts. They are not reasons for deleting an article. NBeale (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is OR/SYN, and claims are made about the connection between the people. Note the first sentence: "An Enemy of humanity is a person, entity or group of persons who, in the opinion of the speaker or author, has a widespread and extremely negative effect on the rest of the human race." Until a unified concept of what an "enemy of humanity" is, and examples of persons using the phrase in the same way can be sourced, the article is not useful for any purpose, and even harmful, BLP wise, to Dawkins among others. Quigley (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^express 15:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. SnottyWong ^communicate 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nobody, except NBeale himself, seems to want this article, so it will probably be deleted. I find this worrying. I do not like the article and I do not like what seem to be the implications. But when I was in University and studied philosophy, my social philosophy professor dicussed with us the rationale of the Inquisition. It opened my mind to implications I had not previously thought about (and is that not what philosophy is about, in general). I am a great admirer of Richard Dawkins, I have read most of his books and I think he can explain complex matter in a very effective way. But as he once explained himself, he is not God. And I disagree with some of his statements, although I understand them. It is the same with this article. I would like to be able to discuss it before it is deleted. But I will probably not have the chance. Pity. Sometimes you are better informed by an article, sometimes you will be wiser. --JHvW (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give us the reason you think the article should be kept, rather than just your life story? That will make it easier for the reviewing administrator to evaluate your input. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes uncomfortable suggestions. But that is not a reason for deleting it. --JHvW (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it a reason for keeping it. andy (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic discussion, not about the article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye. Oh and by the way, two final remarks. The remark that an administrator is abusing his powers (by NBeale) is correct (as I have found out by posting the only Keep argument), the other is that in the NBeale post, NBeale keeps referring to Asberger when it should be Asperger. I have no stomach for this discussion as I do not believe this is what Wikipedia is about but constitutes hate mongering. Do not worry, no more big words from me. I am about to retire from Wikipedia. --JHvW (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain what you mean by "an administrator is abusing his powers"? This is a serious accusation and shouldn't be thrown around lightly (don't learn from NBeale). If I have abused my admin tools on you, please provide links or diffs to show what I've done. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(As a side note...where has anyone talked about Asperger syndrome here, under any spelling?) rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with people who are stuck in policy and guidelines is that they forget what they were about. But in answer to your question. I have never suggested that you were the administrator misusing his powers but I find it interesting that you should think so (smoke and fire etc.). As Wikipedia policy is about civility and assuming good faith I will deal with this administrator myself if I feel this is an appropriate course of action. This discussion is an AfD debate. As to your question about the spelling problem: one of the contributors to this debate suggested looking at the NBeale post (as is clearly stated), in that post (which you have obviously not looked at) there is a spelling problem (intentional or not). You are wasting my time. As I am wasting yours. Stick to the issues in this debate without trying to resort to hate. As I no longer consider myself a member of this community, you will understand that my signature will come from an Autobot (JHvW, in case anyone cares). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.198.125 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out this discussion on my (no longer existing) talk page. I find it interesting that you have decided to roll this part of the discussion up. For two reasons. First, I made my keep statement when I was still an active contributor. I feel that questions that were subsequently asked should be answered as part of the debate. It has nothing to do with my decision to leave Wikipedia (although rolling this discussion up might suggest otherwise). Secondly the fact that I am no longer an active contributor to Wikipedia should not discount my original !vote (which was made when I was an active contributor). But there is one thing that I would like to point out (as this seems to be an off topic disussion). Have you thought about the reason why NBeale has posted this article? Is he interested in the contents of the article or in the ensuing deletion debate? If the article is deleted, it will be lost. The AfD debate, however will be archived. For a professor in social philosophy this is interesting stuff. If you keep the article that says something about Wikipedia. But the AfD debate also says something about the community. Either way the contributor will get the fodder he was after. As I am no longer an active contributor I feel I am in a position to make a few remarks that to some may seem to be humorous (although I am perfectly serious). One of the contributors to this discussion has observed that "enemy of" is a rather generic term. Why not write articles like "Enemy of Wikipedia" (I have already sourced this, should make a good article) or "Enemy of French fries" (maybe a little more facetious but when properly sourced another interesting article: watch "Pulp fiction" if you have not already seen it). Wikipdedia has a lot going for it, remember what it's targets are! And if you have forgotten: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. I can not help but reference an expression from popular culture: "live long and prosper". --JHvW (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The phrase is entirely the invention of the author, possibly to denigrate Richard Dawkins, and active harm to that living person may be done by keeping the article in this state without any reliable sources. The quotes from people also uttering the same three letters in succession is meaningless, because they all mean different things. This article is insalvageable synthesis and libel, regardless of the author, whose self-promotion and distractions from the substance of the policy should be ignored. Quigley (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on what conceivable basis can the phrase "enemy of humanity" - which has 539k GHits, can be traced in Google News back to 1883, and is the translation of a Latin Tag, be said to be my invention?? NBeale (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"after dinner" has more ghits than that. Random numbers from google don't prove notability; see WP:GOOGLE. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do however prove that the phrase is not an invention NBeale. :-). NBeale (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Calling someone the enemy of humanity, the enemy of reasonable people, the enemy of America, or even the enemy of french fries, all get Google results. It isn't an expression, its just someone stating their opinion, such as "the car as ugly" which gets 29,600 Google hits. Dream Focus 07:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No really, this is a well established term with a clear cluster of meanings that go back to Cicero. Please read the article. NBeale (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding Quigley's concerns about libel, I did a quick search for other people than Dawkins who have used the same phrase, and can you imagine the irony: lots of Israelis, including David Ben Gurion, have used the phrase "enemy of humanity" about Hitler. For the article, I added a source discussing a well-respected German author who actually seems to have developed the concept of an "enemy of humanity". While this is not enough to rescue the article, maybe we can be less worried about the ad Hitlerum attack on Dawkins. Vesal (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Versal. Thanks. I think with this very helpful ref we can formulate the lead of the article so that it only depends on Reliable Sources. I have restructued it accordingly. I would urge every unbiased editor who is interested to look afresh at this article, which now has 19 refs and is the work of 4 Editors, whereas the original stub (AfDd within an hour of its creation) had just 5 refs and was the work of 1 author. NBeale (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still ad hom, I'm afraid. Many articles with contested prods or speedies go to AfD quickly, so that's irrelevant. Also the assumption must be that every editor who contributes to an AfD is unbiased unless proved otherwise - your personal beef against one editor can't be allowed to contaminate everyone who agrees with him. Let's stick to the facts, and in this case we see an editor who says "this is not enough to rescue the article" which you seem to interpret as meaning the exact opposite. Please deal with the points raised in the nomination and by the overwhelming number of editors who have !voted for deletion rather than continuing to argue that the article ought to be retained because there is a conspiracy against you. andy (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not ad. hom. to point out that putting up an AfD within 1 hr is against policy. The present article has more than 2x as many refs for its length than the current FA, and is certainly neither OR nor SYN. As fair-minded editors will I hope accept. NBeale (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the policy that states that an article should not be referred to AfD within an hour of its creation?
Where are these "fair-minded editors"? Are you hoping to round them up by canvassing on your blog? Are you suggesting that none of the independent people who have contributed to this debate, not one of whom agrees with you, is fair-minded?
Please explain how the number of references you have managed to stuff the article with has any bearing on its inherent value as an encyclopaedia article. On second thoughts, don't bother. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No prejudice to recreating the article if the game does attain enough coverage to meet notability requirements. Mandsford 01:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aloriah

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

Fails WP:WEB/WP:N and WP:V: Non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. I've looked through the WikiProject Video games guide to sources and found nothing. Using the WikiProject Video games custom Google search returns a single hit and it's a forum post, not a reliable source at all. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - A single hit would never be enough to satisfy WP:GNG, even if it was a reliable source. --Teancum (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding a lot of coverage of the word and (36K ghits) and some coverage of the game in blogs and the like, but nothing reliable. [4] includes 2 non-English sources that might be of some use, but... delete Hobit (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a lot of chatter about the game, so it may become notable some day. Quite honestly, the game does look pretty interesting to me, but of course that has nothing to do with notability. I looked at those links, wondering if we could pull some information from them, but one is a press release and the other links back to BBGsite, which is specifically excluded as a reliable source by WikiProject Video games. Maybe sometime in the future it'll get some proper reviews. Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Syrthiss (talk · contribs) at 17:30, 24 September 2010 per G5. (NAC). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Fantastic (film)

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

Contest PROD - reason was "Homemade movies are not notable - but I can't see a suitable CSD category" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD or no CSD, there's no reason to let this sit 7 more days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:NFILM. Jimmy Pitt talk 16:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fail notability criteria for articles. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. SharedPlanetType (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per waaaaaaay WP:TOOSOON. Userfy to its author if asked. When this "homemade" film gets finished and released, it may surprise a few folks and actually get coverage to meet guideline... or not. But currently it fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 (block evasion). Author is clearly a sock of Beyonceloverlove. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without demonstration of non-trivial sources, the consensus here is clear. Courcelles 02:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Lil Boy

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Not even an album yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No RS, no notability (except by association, which doesn't count). Jimmy Pitt talk 16:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable artist, not even any albums or significant coverage. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Im sorry but once again here it is.

4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.T-Pain tour with DJ Lil Boy in Australia. (http://www.b105.com.au/entertainment/music/galleries/akon-t-pain-2009-australian-tour?selectedImage=8) Major Australian radio station.

6. 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. DJ Lil boy is part of the performance of T-Pain. (http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=2R2y6cj4cjM) This is an example of a performance.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. DJ Lil boy is on the roster of Blazin 102.3 (http://www.blazin1023.com/airstaff/ http://www.blazin1023.com/airstaff/programming.php) Nappy boy radio which was made famous by the song Chris Brown feat T-Pain - Kiss kiss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCYlNHLG0Cg) Nappy boy radio(http://www.nappyboyradiolive.com/djs)

DJ Lil boy has released Mixtapes with T-Pain which are albums but not for sale. DJ Lil boy is an essential part of T-Pains act, also the hip hop community in Florida and has earned credit based on his own merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbybobbie (talk • contribs) 18:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pr33 Ringz (http://www.realraptalk.com/f18/pr33-ringz-t-pain-dj-lil-boy-explicit-rs-213564/) Much like DJ Drama who is on here Lil boy host and produces mixtapes for Nappy Boy Record artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbybobbie (talk • contribs) 18:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC) *Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Good try, but not quite.

4 - This hardly constitutes "non-trivial" coverage. Not even close.

6 - Being part of the performance is not part of a group. This article is about an individual, not a group.

11 - A single station is not a national network – nation network means multiple station throughout the nation. He is only played on a single station, probably because he is a DJ on the station. ttonyb (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't look notable to me on the basis of the article. Touring with, being part of the act of, and making unreleased albums with do not necessarily confer notability. (Side note: Nappy Boy in British English means a kid in a diaper - might cause amusement if he comes over here.) Peridon (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-Notable artist. No third party reliable sources. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mixtapes that he prodouces / hosts / djs such as "Pr33 ringz" are known worldwide! Such as other famous DJs that are deemed notable. As stated in the article this is what he is best known for. This is an unequivocal fact! These are major mixtapes with and for major artists not something that is done on a small scale. If other DJs are notable for their mixtapes then I do not see any valid reason as to why DJ Lil Boy should be deemed otherwise.

The is written to in an educational / informative manner. DJs are known for their solo performances, production work, and mixtapes. The mixtape culture is a very important part of hip hop culture and a key marketing tool. There are articles that have been writen for wikipedia which you may want to take a look at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixtape#Mixtapes_in_hip_hop) After this the album release of Th33 ringz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Ringz (See performance)

The deletion of this article would set the precedant to delete articles of other DJs that have pages on wikipedia. It doesnt make sence...

I do apologize Tony that was a bad link, my mistake. DJ Lil Boy is hired also by other notable artists due to his own notability. Here is a link to an upcoming tour that he is doing with Lupe Fiasco (http://events.godanriver.com/winstonsalem-nc/events/show/137160545-lupe-fiasco-and-dj-lil-boy) Bobbybobbie (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The deletion of this article would set the precedant [sic] to delete articles of other DJs" - if they are not truly notable then they should go. Then the "Fred Bloggovitch is a footballer" (end of story) ones can go too.... (Sorry - personal gripe.) Peridon (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I also agree but I was talking about DJs that are notable and have been an impact on the DJ scene. DJ Lil Boy is a huge part of the mixtape industry in Hip Hop. 110.20.25.71 (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skill U.T.I Crew (Los Angeles Graffiti Artist)

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

Non-notable graffiti artist lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable auto(?)bio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This author is much more notable than most of the others included in the Graffiti artist category. check the History of Los Angeles Graffiti website, and this link, which was written by the currently most notable graffiti artist in the world - http://revok1.com/blog/2010/06/heavily-influenced/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncastleman (talk • contribs) 05:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Unsourced. Likely self-promotional. Cresix (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DeleteMandsford 01:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alliancep2p

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

Non-notable software. No reliable sources to indicate that this passes WP:GNG. Deleted G11 twice and only came up with a non-overly promotional article by copying the text from OneSwarm. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'delete' - unreferenced software article with no indication of notability, or 3rd party sources to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources that show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a hoax, and the author indef blocked as a vandalism only account and a sockpuppet account. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Agent Lupin III

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

Article was prodded as a hoax and prod was contested. This is an unreferenced article on a supposed animated cartoon series. I can find no references to substantiate the article's contents. Suggest deletion as unverifiable, probable hoax. Muchness (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 15:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious hoax. There are no reliable sources at all which support the claims made in the article. It actually sounds like WP:SOMETHINGMADEUPINSCHOOLONEDAY to me. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Given the prominence of the actors who are claimed to have voiced the cartoon, it is not plausible that sources would be difficult to find. Also, the article creator User talk:EddBaker has a history of creating hoaxes. 98.122.178.110 (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3 Article is a Hoax. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basic research

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

Delete Seems like an essay. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article (like its counterpart Applied research) is a stub with plenty of potential for development as a decent article. The fact that it reads like an essay may be a reason for tagging it for cleanup, but isn't a good reason for deleting it. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can clean it up to make it sound less like an essay, i'm happy to remove the nom. I wasn't aware that it was a specific term, Applied research seems to be, but i'm not an expert on the subject being discussed here. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per our deletion process, you ought to familiarise yourself with a topic by searching for sources before nominating it for deletion. By taking this simple precaution, you will be spared the embarrassment of being buried in snow, as in this case. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Blue skies research which is "sometimes used interchangeably with the term basic research." BSR while still short is considerable more developed.--Salix (talk): 21:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question can anyone tell me the difference between basic research and Blue skies research? If so then keep is a viable option, otherwise merge of the two still seems to be the best option. I'm not too bothered about which way round, but we don't need two articles on the same topic.--Salix (talk): 20:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Basic research, is research to find out why something is, happens &c, usually with a defined end point. BSR is the same except that it has no defined end point.

Basic research is about fundamentals - establishing the groundwork, the elementary facts and the theories which explain them. Blue sky research is more about applications at the cutting edge - a space elevator; quantum computing; genetic engineering &c. There is an expected result from the latter but, because of its pioneering nature, some surprises may be expected. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Basic research is the start of exploration in any form of research and if found to be useful is often the starting point for applied research (as the name implies, applied research is the research of application of outcomes of basic research). I do not agree with the redirect because it should be the other way around, blue skies research could be an example of basic research. Nowadays funding for basic research (especially when the end point does not seem to have impact value) is often hard to get, so funding for blue skies research will become increasingly harder. Unfortunately it is also increasingly difficult to estimate where basic research might lead, but one thing is absolutely clear, without basic research there would be no Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JHvW (talk • contribs)
Keep click the Google news link at the top of the AFD. [5] I see results like that in it. It is clearly a notable subject, and thus deserving of a Wikipedia article. AFD is not cleanup. If you have a problem with an article, fix it or discuss it on the talk page. Don't just send it straight to AFD. Dream Focus 01:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basic research is a major concept in science. The term is used to distinguish between fundamental science and applied science. This terms belong in an encyclopedia, not just a dictionary. Could this article be merged with other similar articles? Probably. Should it be deleted. No. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a stub. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is a stub. It just needs to be fixed. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a reference from Nature. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mandsford 01:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable university alumni magazine. No third party sources to establish notability. No sources at all, in fact. There's not even a claim of notability. GrapedApe (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not notable. bobrayner (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius (Robot)

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

Non-notable competitor on robot battle TV show Robot Wars. Article consists almost entirely of show summaries. I can find no sources that mention the subject outside of fansites and the like. Lord Pistachio ^talk 14:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, with possible merge of relevant material into Robot Wars (TV series). Jimmy Pitt talk 17:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but Cassius does deserve particular mention on the Robot Wars (TV series) page, due to its innovative self-righting mechanism, a concept which was subsequently copied by many other combat robots. RobertJWalker | Talk 20:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Robot Wars (TV series). SharedPlanetType (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. too soon per CRYSTAL Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akonic

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

No notable per WP:ALBUMS and what is listed as a track listing is actually a list of recorded songs. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 14:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. The albums was not released and thus did not chart. TenPoundHammer's Law can be applied as well, as no reliable source confirms tracklist and title of the album. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I only created this article and re-directed to his main page, as the title was announced. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 19:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - articles for this upcoming album were already deleted twice (at least). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stadium (Akon album). The previous articles were written in the belief that the title and release date were "official" and "verifiable." Is anything different this time? --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment, nothing is really different. I've removed all of the speculation and unsourced information that people have added because they were trying to bulk out the article. Although the name appears to be confirmed, as does the first single nothing is is really set in stone. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I'm going to close this per CSD A7. Therefore, if somebody writes a sourced article that asserts IoS then CSD G4 will not apply. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Thiong'o

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

Autobiography of a journalist that fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Writing in a newspaper is different than being covered by a newspaper. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 as article that makes no reliable claim to notability about a person. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of jewel box baseball parks

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

This page seems redundant due to the section Baseball park#Jewel Box ballparks, which does a better job of describing what Jewel Box parks are and incorporates all of this information. Muboshgu (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep the info... somewhere - I agree, it's redundant. I think the info was copied into the other article, rendering it so. Be sure to look for anything that links to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those can be delinked through Twinkle. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for list. On the other hand the section in the main baseball park article could be transformed into an article. I am assuming that the info is correct and can be sourced. Sources should be easy to find. Baseball parks are a topic that authors and journalists like to go on and on about. No one ever lost his job writing about a baseball park. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now wait a minute - the list is basically already an article, with the section in the ballpark article being the same list except in a tabular form. If you want a separate article, how about renaming this one to something like "Jewel Box ballparks", structuring it like its copy in "Ballparks", and then replacing the copy in "Ballparks" with a link to this one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing that works against splitting it out is that the main article has several such tables in it. Splitting out just one of them doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe other lists on that page could be spun out as articles as well. The main article on ball parks should give general information for readers, not lists of every possible subspecies. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - But that should be up to the Articles editors to decide, not AFD. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it stands, the parent article is unreferenced an pretty long, so there is no reason we couldn't put a {{main}} tag on the section linking it to the standalone article. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And if more specific referencing is needed, I know of several websites that have a wealth of information on this topic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per BaseballBugs.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic University of America and The Knights of Columbus

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

I've never been quite sure why this relationship is considered notable enough to have its own article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after merging any relevant (and referenced!) material into the two subject articles. This present article contains a great deal of material, all of it lacking references, that is not directly related to the title subject. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - intramural trivia. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. If merged, a redirect will need to be left behind for attribution purposes, on the second !vote, whether or not something is "trivia" is kind of subjective. A little more input here would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is absolutely no referenced material here so there is no reason to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) by King of Hearts. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Paranormal Investigations

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

Restored as contested WP:PROD some time ago: listings at specialist sites, blogs and the like do not seem to amount to sufficient notability. Tikiwont (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE as there are no reliable sources found that confer notability. Content such as "This group has its own Facebook page" is also a likely sign of WP:VANITY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation, I do not see silent consensus here for any particular close. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someplace Closer to Here

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

I am also nominating the following related album article:

This band achieved some notability, but they also have articles for two albums that do not meet notability requirements. No reliable third-party sources or reviews can be found for the albums, just the usual lyric, download, and social network sites. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: with Lapush. As said in WP:NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 08:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Snoop Dogg. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doggystyle 2: Tha Doggumentary

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

Too early to nominate, as it is mere speculation. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Snoop Dogg, as article fails notability criteria for albums and TenPoundHammer's Law. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 05:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Snoop Dogg. Actually I could also argue for complete deletion, but I'll recommend a redirect as the previous voter did, so we can reach a consensus. Either way, it's way too early for a viable album article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL (first choice) or Redirect to Snoop Dogg. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luzon Moo Duk Kwan

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

Should be speedily deleted under A7 or perhaps G11, but page creator keeps removing the speedy deletion tag (6 times so far, three after final warning given on his/her user talk page) TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 and/or G11. Speedy deletion tags added back. Creator should be short-blocked for repeated removal. ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. No indication of significance. VQuakr (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Became of the Squishies

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

Unremarkable book, likely self-promotional. I predict a snowfall. — Timneu22 · talk 12:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squish Likely self-promotional? check the first editor's name... Totnesmartin (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. I didn't read the article thoroughly enough; a quick glance led me to see this was rubbish and quickly create the AfD. :) — Timneu22 · talk 13:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant self-promotion. --Lord Pistachio ^talk 14:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for books. Every fictional work has a plot and a set of characters. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although seemingly written by the book's author, the article maintains a neutral POV, so does not qualify for deletion as "self-promotion" (which is not in itself necessarily a reason for deletion anyway). But the book is clearly not notable per WP:NBOOK. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I'd definitely hit it. --Œcolampadius (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, with encouragement and warm regards to the author. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would need reviews to help us accertain notability, Sadads (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but resubmit after it meets notability requirements for books, which are nominal. SharedPlanetType (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of curiosity, why doesn't Jonathan Eldred get a mention in the article? He is apparently a co-author in the Amazon listing, and on TeenClassics is 'creator' while Chilton is 'author'. Odd. Interesting that despite publication on August 17th, 2010 "This item is no longer available" there. One month out for a new author is a little soon for any real notability (as opposed to publicity push and buzz) to show. If and when, come back. Till then, good luck. I won't be buying it (I do read children's/young adults' fiction - some of it, anyway - but I need to be convinced by characters, names and setting; here, I'm not...) but that doesn't mean no-one else will. Someone obviously bought Barbara Cartland's books (but try finding anyone who will admit to it...). Peridon (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteLooking at it on Amazon it says Eldred is the Illustrator not co-author and it's not listed as a picture book, so I assume he's not listed as most novels don't include the illustrator with the author - unless its a collaboration like the Edge series. Chilton is clearly the author by the publication. I'm a fan of teen fiction so I might give it a try though, it'll be a nice change from wizards and vampires to read something original. But yes seems a bit early for notability. Resubmit at a later date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahmilnes (talk • contribs) 22:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Almost a CSD G11. Article appears to be copied from this site with some rewording. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Langdales Essence of Cinnamon

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

Notability not sufficiently established for a minor product which has a (possible) minor mention in Dickens' "Barnaby Rudge." Appears to be a stealth attempt to promote the modern product and the company that makes it. Quartermaster (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it fails WP:GNG and appears to be an advert, which Wikipedia is not. Nolelover 20:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE (A7) Alexf^(talk) 15:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBasha

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

From the the way this is starting out, it looks like it's going to be a detailed technical document, which is not what Wikipedia is for. I was unsure whether to wait a while, as it is only just started, but I want to save the author from doing what could well be a lot of wasted work. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 (non-notable). Absolutely no Google hits other than this article. Appears to be an earnest effort at software development, but not off the ground yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK - I'm happy to withdraw this AfD and go with the Speedy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayla polat

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

No assertion of notability other than acting in a few movies that show no results on Google. ZhongHan (Email) 11:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors and models. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. No reliable third party coverage.-Reconsider ! 05:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. !votes casted after additional information was found + the nominator's withdrawal suggests that he now meets WP:NSPORT. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ernandes Dias Luz

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

Contested Prod, Non notable footballer who hasn't played at the highest level fails WP:ATHLETE Mo ainm~Talk 11:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 11:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and improve: Luz plays for Ceará Sporting Club which, according to its Wikipedia article, plays in the Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, the highest level of professional football in Brazil. That qualifies under WP:ATHLETE as far as I can tell. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is signed for them the article states that he has not played for them thats the difference look at this AfD player is signed to Fulham FC but has not appeared so the article was deleted, so until he plays a competitive game then he hasn't played at the top level, his club are notable not him. Mo ainm~Talk 12:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Doc Quintana (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that fine point. Thanks for pointing it out. !Vote changed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup Keep I don't agree with the Fulham example above. Even signing with a team is enough for WP:ATHLETE in my opinion. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you have made up your own interpretation of what Athlete says as it clearly states A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Maybe you should propose that addition to Athlete and see if you can get consensus for it.Mo ainm ~Talk 14:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The snarky reply aside (anyone can change an MOS with a click, and there are rarely clear consensuses over grey areas like that), if this player is going to get playing time with Ceara very soon, then it makes no sense to delete it only to see it recreated sometime soon. This is why I think a Delete is inappropriate versus a Cleanup Keep. More information is needed to determine the notability under WP:ATHLETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc Quintana (talk • contribs)

Sorry if it seemed that my comment was snarky as it wasn't meant to be, and I said you should make an edit to ATHLETE to see if it gains consensus, but as it stands it fails the guidelines we have at present about football players and per WP:CRYSTAL we can't have a place holder article for someone who may or may not get a first team game. No amount of cleanup can make this article at present pass GNG or ATHLETE, as he has not played at the highest level. Mo ainm~Talk 20:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is entirely the product of one user, userfying it until such time as the player gets a first team game (if he does) would solve the placeholder problem. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without appearances in a fully professional league, or significant coverage, this player fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with the newly added sources he passes WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the subject attains notability under WP:ATHLETE. It makes sense to remove and then recreate. --Stormbay (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all relevant criteria. Argyle 4 Life^talk 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cleaned up the article a bit and added some sources. I couldn't find any reliable information about his earlier career (it seems strange that a lower league Brazilian club has been loaning out a player for four years, often to higher divisions). He definitely seems to have played in the top division of Brazil this season though. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Ernandes has made over 20 appearances in the Brazilian top flight and clearly satisfies NSPORTS. He is very likely to pass the GNG, once someone has the time to clean up the article. Thank you to J Mo 101 for finding that he had indeed played in the Serie A (I also added a match report showing his debut). Jogurney (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NSPORTS by a fair distance with the new sources and the information is verifiable. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep source indicates he has played in notable football league (Brazilian Serie A) Eldumpo (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw AfD With the further evidence added to this article I withdraw this nomination as I would now !vote keep. Mo ainm~Talk 18:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ferguson (footballer)

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

Footballer who has never played at a professional level (or even high semi-professional level, having spent his entire career to date in regional competitions in Devon and Cornwall). Quite a few references cited, but all make only passing mention of this player. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a keen user of wikipedia and think it is a fantstic site. However, I am very unhappy that this page is even being considered for deletion. He has also played at Step 5 and has been paid to play the game for several years now. The term, semi-professional sums up Ben. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmplymouth1 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Torquay United, Plymouth Argyle, Ipswich Town and the Welsh FA are all professional bodies; therefore, this page merits a space on this site due to complying with WP:ATHLETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmplymouth1 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

........however he never played at a professional level for any of those teams (according to the article he was at Torquay as a 13-year old academy player and all he had with the other three was unsuccesful try-outs), hence he does not in fact satisfy WP:ATHLETE. Note the part that says "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think both points have been pertinently made so I, therefore, leave it to whom will make the decision to delete this page. I personally have spent a lot of time on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmplymouth1 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply being on the books of a professional club is not to sufficient to pass WP:ATH. Also fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hasn't played in a professional competition so fails all relevant criteria. I would suggest that the creator works on articles that do meet said criteria. The article looks much better than many that I've seen during my time on here but unless he plays professionally any time soon then it can't be saved. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Brittas

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

Appears to fail the WP:BIO guidelines. Being a managing director is not, of itself, notable for an encyclopaedia entry. Since creation in 2007, the article has been tagged for improvement with no signs of any improvement apart from the tags being removed. The award mentioned appears to be a scholarship scheme and is unlikely to be sufficient to address notability. Fæ (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ the Ramnath Goenka Awards appear to be fairly prestigious, (speeches thereon by India's chief justice of the supreme court), but it's hard to find out much about it. That said, if this award is Brittas's only claim to notability then the article stands or falls on the award's status. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Ramnath Goenka Award may be prestigious; but can anyone verify whether it was awarded to John Brittas? Do they (the trust) have a website. Is this (the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism award to Brittas) covered in any mainstream newspaper; at least in Indian Express which is associated with this trust. Did anyone get anything other than this Wikipedia article for a Google search of this "Journalism Educational Award".180.149.48.245 (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The guidelines are that if a BLP depends on an award, that the award should be "well known". I would interpret this a needing to be internationally recognized. If basic searches reveal so little information that we are not sure exactly what the significance of the award is and there is no Wikipedia article for Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award, then it must be considered not notable enough by itself to justify the existence of BLPs for awards winners. The award was created in 2006 by the Express Group for Indian journalists. Fæ (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "we don't have an article, therefore it's not notable" isn't much of an argument. Wikipedia's coverage of India isn't as good as it should be, perhaps we missed something somewhere? Incidentally, googling Ramnath Goenka Awards turns up quite a few hits, although they seem to be mostly Indian news outlets trumpeting winners from their own staff. The award is seemingly well-known within Indian journalism (and worth an article here?), but I'm starting to doubt whether simply winning one makes Mr Brittas notable enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You seem to have missed the word "and" in my statement and inadvertently misrepresented my comment. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        aaargh. Thanks for pointing out my phail. I shouldn't be doing this on a Sunday morning! Totnesmartin (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a single reliable source has been produced so far to establish that John Brittas is a recipient of the Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism.180.149.48.245 (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a mention of the award here. Salih (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, however the keral.com profile appears to support the facts of his BLP but does little more to establish the award itself as sufficient to justify notability. Fæ (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - He appears to be notable even without the Ramnath Goenka Award. See the list of celebrities mentioned here. The article says that "We are presenting the profiles of prominent Malayalees living today." Salih (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keral.com is not a reliable source, by any standards. The simple fact that emerges is that we have not found any reliable source to establish the notability of this person. 180.149.48.245 (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the nominator my opinion should not be seen as a consensus, however it is clear that after reasonable discussion with several people looking for sources that none has been found to support a claim of notability in the sense of WP:BIO. For a deletion it is not required to demonstrate non-notability, only to show that notability is unlikely to demonstrated in the near future. Fæ (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've come round to the delete side of this discussion. There really doesn't seem to be a source to establish his notability. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if kerla.com, the website that published the subject's detailed profile, can be considered as a reliable source, otherwise delete. Salih (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable people can be listed and profiled on notable websites, for example not everyone with profiles on myspace, IMDB or bwfc.co.uk is automatically notable even if the organizations running those websites are. Fæ (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's not fair to equate keral.com with myspace, IMDB etc. where a registered user can add their own profile. Salih (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Managing director or dceo of a notable company is notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that statement is not supported by the notability guidelines. A MD or DCEO or any other executive has to be notable in their own right. Fæ (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting (2nd nomination). Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008 Peshawar bombing

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS as there is no indication of any "enduring notability and should be Deleted Codf1977 (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NOT NEWS. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Carrite, Sept. 24, 2010.
Keep. Not routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities for which NOTNEWS was intended. This is also a classic example of WP:BIAS. A similar incident (with 35 deaths) in a Western country would not for a second be nominated for deletion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments for deletion above are based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of NOTNEWS which in intended to scene out articles on routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. Politically-motivated attacks by armed gunmen who are part of a large, organized campaign of political violence are not routine news. A WP:CONS has evolved under which individual acts of political terrorism are considered WP:Notable.[6] This attack qualifies for Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Notability (events) because it received extensive international coverage.[7]. Moreover the attempt to delete this article, but not articles on similar events in Europe and the United States reeks of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Surely we do not accept the implication that life is cheaper in the Middle East.[8] Finally, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. [9] "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..."AMuseo (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Amuseo--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AMuseo and Brewcrewer. Mar4d (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTNEWS is policy and arguing retention the grounds that its notable is a misapplication of a guideline. Does this have enduring significance? No. Should it be covered in another article dealing with unrest and terrorism in Pakistan? yes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AMuseo.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because this event is not likely to have enduring notability in the United States (where, let's face it, a loud plurarilty of WP editors reside, including me, and if it didn't happen "in America's backyward" we tend to forget about it rather quickly) does not mean that it is not enduringly notable in Pakistan or even in the wider Asia region. Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting (2nd nomination) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

28 September 2008 Baghdad bombings

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS as there is no indication of any "enduring notability and should be Deleted Codf1977 (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NOT NEWS. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Carrite, Sept. 24, 2010.
Keep. Not routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities for which NOTNEWS was intended. This is also a classic example of WP:BIAS. A similar incident (with 32 deaths) in a Western country would not for a second be nominated for deletion.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Brewcrewer. Arguments for deletion above are based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of NOTNEWS which in intended to scene out articles on routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. Politically-motivated attacks by armed gunmen who are part of a large, organized campaign of political violence are not routine news. A WP:CONS has evolved under which individual acts of political terrorism are considered WP:Notable.[10] This attack qualifies for Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Notability (events) because it received extensive international coverage.[11]. Moreover the attempt to delete this article, but not articles on similar events in Europe and the United States reeks of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Surely we do not accept the implication that life is cheaper in the Middle East.[12] Finally, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. [13] "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..."AMuseo (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the WP:BIAS argument - it is just a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, in this case there is no indication what so ever that this, news story any "enduring notability, the article has no ref's at all and the only link is to a BBC news page written BEFORE the date of this attack. WP has a clear policy on this and for all your words you have not provided anything that shows this has any "enduring notability. Codf1977 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Amuseo. significant event. agree with WP:BIAS argument. such an event in a western city (NY,London,paris) would never have been nominated--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nom, Not News. Yet if this was a single incident, it would get massive amount of coverage, yet it just another in a series of incidents in an ongoing war. Not every single skirmish during WW2 would have an article, so this shouldn't either.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "article" is one paragraph and one source, hardly even qualifies for stub status. WookieInHeat (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge if it's not expanded. A series of incidents where 32 people get blown up is inherently notable, and it's not even necessary to point out the absurdity of comparing this to "announcements, sports and celebrities". Ideally, "every single skirmish during WWII" should also be covered by Wikipedia, either as standalone articles or collectively in groups. Wookie's argument is directly contrary to WP:DEMOLISH, and even if accepted it's an argument to merge, not to delete. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'll losely base this on my close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting (2nd nomination) but in this one the "keep" arguments are just a little but stronger. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12 September 2008 Dujail bombing

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS as there is no indication of any "enduring notability" and should be Deleted Codf1977 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this seems notable to me. Plenty of news sources out there on it. --E♴ (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was undoutadly covered at the time as a news story, but I am unable to find any reports that demonstrate "enduring notability" as per NOTNEWS, which is the reason for the nom. Codf1977 (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NOT NEWS. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Carrite, Sept. 24, 2010.
Keep. Not routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities for which NOTNEWS was intended. This is also a classic example of WP:BIAS. A similar incident (with 28 deaths) in a Western country would not for a second be nominated for deletion.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Brewcrewer. Arguments for deletion above are based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of NOTNEWS which in intended to scene out articles on routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. Politically-motivated attacks by armed gunmen who are part of a large, organized campaign of political violence are not routine news. A WP:CONS has evolved under which individual acts of political terrorism are considered WP:Notable.[14] This attack qualifies for Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Notability (events) because it received extensive international coverage.[15]. Moreover the attempt to delete this article, but not articles on similar events in Europe and the United States reeks of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Surely we do not accept the implication that life is cheaper in the Middle East.[16] Finally, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. [17] "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..."AMuseo (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the WP:BIAS argument - it is just a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, in this case there is no indication what so ever that this, news story any "enduring notability, the article has only one ref from the BBC written on the day of this attack. WP has a clear policy on this and for all your words you have not provided anything that shows this has any "enduring notability. Codf1977 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep life is not cheaper in the middle east. classic WP:BIAS situation and people dont even seem to realize it. show me evidence of one incident in the "West" where 28 people died and the article on it was deleted per WP:NOTNEWS and I will gladly change my !vote.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No bias, I see that you have been updating the article, but you seem not to be able to find any coverage from anything other than the day - I will gladley withdraw the nom if you can provide any significant coverage in reliable sources from anything other than the 24 hours after the event, faling that there is zero indication of lasting significance, just another crime story.Codf1977 (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to withdraw. I think we can all predict how this AfD will close now. Cheers.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems properly sourced, maybe someone could make an entry for it on List of terrorist incidents, 2008 since it is linked to there. WookieInHeat (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Loukinen

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

No indication of WP:notability. External links given mostly do not mention him. The American Atheists lists him as being a member but nothing that establishes notability. Very little on google. noq (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he is listed in every link and is featured in the "freedom walk video", I listed his full name an am unsure how to list him as Ken Loukinen which will show him on the first 10 pages of a google search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FLatheist (talk • contribs) 13:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless better sourcing can be found; I couldn't find anything else VASterling (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Seems to be a top atheism activist in Florida, which means that adequate third party sourcing may well be out there. As it currently sits, that sourcing is not showing, however. Carrite (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. No referencing, just links. Give us some real sourcing, and I could very well change my mind. Peridon (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject seems to be more commonly known as "Ken": Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. He has also attracted a little news coverage as a firefighter. This confirms that that is the same person. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless notability can be demonstrated with reliable sources. Cresix (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1.CFL Karlovac 2010./11.

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

Deprodded by author. No real content or context. It doesn't have any sources or even scores (perhaps beause it's too early) and I don't know how notable the league itself is. There is NK Karlovac, which I think is the league, but I'm not sure about the notability of this league and I can't find a corresponding article for it.

Articles need some prose in any case and otherwise it's pure WP:Stats.

(As a side note, the naming convention for this article is very wrong) Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - NK Karlovac is a top-division team in Croatia, whereas this seems to relate to a small regional league at the fifth level of the Croatian football league system, there is no connection between the two........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since the team itself is non-notable, so is a season article for said team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned above, 1.CFL Karlovac isn't a team, it's a league -- 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that its notable enough to merrit an article of its own. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not an extensive listing of statistics. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - team isn't notable enough for a season article. GiantSnowman 18:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned above, 1.CFL Karlovac isn't a team, it's a league -- 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Small county league that isn't notable enough for an article like this. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable regional league. Argyle 4 Life^talk 02:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ranczo (TV series). Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ranczo (season 4)

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

Unreferenced and no real content. The list of episodes is found at Ranczo (TV series) and has been copied from there. Should be a redirect to Ranczo (TV series), but other the that, doesn't deserve it's own article. There isn't a lead either. Nolelover 16:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nom. In fact there are similar pages for seasons 1, 2 and 3 - the only extra information on them seems to be the precise start and end dates; so that information could be added to the main article, then all the (season X) pages redirected to the main article.--Kotniski (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator argued it should be a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom with no prejudice to de-redirection if someone was going to add more content (e.g. plot summaries, ratings statistics, critical reception/reviews) to make it a proper season article. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and merge any different content. I could only see separate season pages if the series continued for something ridiculous like 20 seasons. 124.207.81.2 (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ranczo (TV series). per nom. Spatulli (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Realtech VR. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space Girl

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

No evidence of notability, coverage or discernable information that warrants an independent page. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Realtech VR as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 05:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - use WP:PRODUCT where unnotable, and redirect to publisher or developer. Brief mention at IGN (although from 2007). Note there is a substantial 2009 IGN review of No Gravity, so perhaps move if another good source can be found. Marasmusine (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Find video game sources: "No Gravity" -"The Plague of Mind" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk
Comment - It seems the sequel appears more often in sources than the original, which makes it hard to locate more data. I can't tell which of the two is being discussed when doing a web search. SharkD Talk 04:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not notable psp game to publisher Realtech VR. There should also be a redirect for "No Gravity" the psp video game to the same location as they are associated to each other. Pmedema (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Marasmusine and WP:PRODUCT. --Teancum (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Accidentally bombed the redirect (non-admin closure) Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National kiss day

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

Highly unencyclopaedic; needs massive rewrite to meet guidelines. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs); rationale was "A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.nasheedsnow.com/2009/07/talib-al-habib-rahma-album/. I have requested salt at WP:RFPP. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talib al-Habib

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

Non-notable person, article has been speedily deleted at least twice but has been recreated each time. Subject does not meet WP:GNG, WP:MUS or WP:TEACH Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice. Past deletes suggest the same. This guy is using Wikipedia to promote his own career and trying to legitimize it with the Islamic Culture snippet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.207.81.2 (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G12, as a direct copy from [18]. Closing admin should also wp:salt the the page to prevent recreation. Yoenit (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music Success in 9 Weeks

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

Non-notable book. Article reads like a thinly-veiled press release, probably written by the book's author (she is a PR person and promoter, after all). References provided are all blogs or from the publisher's own web site, none of which qualifies as reliable sources. I can't help but wonder if promoting one's band on Wikipedia is part of the book - and is leading to the two or three garage-band articles I mark for speedy-deletion on new-page patrol almost daily. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author, apparently very bright and fairly innovative, appears to have written a book, initiated a blogging contest for those who utilized her book[19] then once enough volume had been generated via this contest, written a Wikipedia article. I have no issue with newbies not being familiar with COI, and we have no rules prohibiting people for writing for companies and products with which they are associated - so long as they write from a NPOV. However, this does appear to be advert. When this was brought to the attention of the author, the body was cleaned up considerably, which is a hopeful sign, but unless actual third party reliable, notable sourcing is available I concur that the subject is non-notable and the article should be deleted as an advert. Note that the blogging contest site appears to be defunct so no specifics are available regarding that.

Current sources are:

emusician appears to be a legitimate interview.
is a self-advertisement used as a source, that's got to go
rockstarlifelessons is an interview on what is clearly a blog
promotional site
Gig Hive. from "thebuzz" appears to be legitimate review
review from author's site
Midwest book review is a blog, not certain if it has any standing at all (some blogs do, take Roger Eberts for example)
Rosebud Book Reviews. appears to be legitimate review
same advertisement as source 1, just because you advertised in Bluegrass Journal does not mean they wrote an article about you
Author's web site.

Blog evidence. http://www.sethums.com/2009/12/9-weeks-to-music-success/ KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 10:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gig Hive is a blog, and I'm pretty sure Rosebud is, too, but not absolutely certain. Midwest BR does not have RS standing. Good find on the "blog contest," which confirms my belief that this article is the end result of a PR campaign. Given Hyatt's job, that's not surprising. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
stubify removing promotional sources, Sadads (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Blogs and reviews satisfy our reliable sources requirements, so long as they are independently edited and otherwise notable within the industry (and we're not talking about derogatory information). SharedPlanetType (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately in this case, it appears the author of the book actively recruited bloggers to write about her book by means of a contest, which pretty well throws away any credibility that most of these entries may have. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, which is why I took the trouble to post all of that, carefully indicating the two sources which appeared might be legitimate blog reviews - which we do accept, but not accept as sole indication of notability - and not when they almost certainly resulted from the contest, which is documented in my post above. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published and no indication of sufficient notability. Rosebud is at Wordpress, which strongly suggests blog to me. Is it notable and independent? Don't know. I tend to be very suspicious of all bloggish material. I'm open to correction, and to being convinced by new more reliable evidence.... Peridon (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up, I removed several of the references that seemed to lead to un-notable blogs, and also found a review from the Country Music Television (CMT). Though I'm honestly not sure if CMT has the reputation to stand up as reliable evidence. Michizane (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the CMT entry is not CMT itself but the CMT blog. Same issue as the other blog entries. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs

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

There is only one source for any of the content in this article: the discogs website and forums. The creator of the site is the most cited source. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Long established, very well-known database with high volume of traffic. WP:ATD Keristrasza (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Adding this article to the log for the first time (as far as I can tell) on 20 September. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no non-trivial sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Weak keep if it's the largest, why aren't there more sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. this one paragraph discussion is the only source I could find, and it's in Spanish! Bigger digger (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep. I was looking for an excuse to swap. Per the additional book note below, I think there's sufficient basis for me to call this notable. It ranks higher than the en.wp article for a "discography" Google search, which can suggest the strength of sites linking to it. WP:WEB also suggests "Google sitelinks also provide evidence of site importance and credibility." and this seems to apply here. Not the strongest grounds for a keep, but if a site is useful enough for wp to regularly use as a source, has some sourcing and can meet part of a notability guideline then that's 3 reasons... Bigger digger (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD was open since the 9th but AFD template was never placed on the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Keristrasza. One of the biggest music databases around, with significant history. Also used through {{Discogs}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a few relatively minor GBooks hits for it - including this one that says its the "...largest online database of vinyl discs and one of the largest online databases of electronic music releases". I realise that as far as significant coverage goes this is slim, but I feel sure there's more out there, and we could let it go with a refimprove tag for now. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's the largest database of this kind for vinyl, that alone makes it notable. Here's the ref for that claim. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does need improved, but the basis of the article is factual. More citations can be added, some of the sources are already listed here. Discogs has it's own Wikipedia template used on many artist articles.Record collector 1000 (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil rights movement in Japan

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

Advocacy article with blatant POV. No reliable sources. Article title is overly broad in scope and misleading. (Contested PROD). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

either rewrite so it's wikifabulous, or Redirect to Human rights in Japan. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV essay. No prejudice against future recreation of an article on this topic, which would seem potentially encyclopedia-worthy. This article needs to be completely blown away, however. Carrite Sept. 23, 2010.
Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox WP:SOAP. SharedPlanetType (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can you be a citizen of ANY country if you are born there but neither of your parents are citizens? This is just soapbox stuff. I think I can hear an axe being ground somewhere... Peridon (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, some countries. It's called jus soli, also known as "birthright citizenship". To oversimplify things a lot, most of the Western Hemisphere countries do allow it, and most of the Eastern Hemisphere countries don't. There's a controversy about it in the United States now, because we do have birthright citizenship (children born here become citizens even if their parents are illegal aliens), and some people think that should be changed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Peridon does NOT know the immigration law. He is ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloo123 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peridon does not know the immigration laws of every nation. Nor do you. He does usually know whether an article is suitable for Wikipedia or not... Peridon (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is clearly a notable subject. However, it needs to be improved with regard to WP:RS. The author should be given the opportunity to improve the references in the article. Further more, the title is too broad for the subject matter, which appears to be the legal rights of ethnic minorities in Japan rather than civil rights per se. BlueRobe (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~.Peridon wrote "Can you be a citizen of ANY country if you are born there but neither of your parents are citizens?" Now Peridon says, "Peridon does not know the immigration laws of every nation." Peridon's remark is contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloo123 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC) strikethrough because of previous !vote. Only one per poster allowed. Peridon (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've made my day there. Just HOW is that contradictory? (By the way - only one !vote per poster and remember that multiple appearances of single purpose accounts count for little in the final analysis - unless they make real valid points. They rarely do...) Peridon (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~.Peridon does NOT know how contradictory his remark is. Read again your own remark, Peridon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloo123 (talk • contribs) strikethrough because of previous !vote. Only one per poster allowed. Peridon (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, but a little POV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will new account posters please note that they should sign their posts with ~~~~, and also note that only one !vote of keep or delete is allowed per poster. Other remarks are Comments. Excess !votes will be struck through. Peridon (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethnic issues in Japan, which overlaps in coverage with this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peridon admitted he does NOT know the law. Peridon does NOT understand how contradictory his remarks are. Peridon is nothing here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloo123 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the repeated warnings on your talk page, you must stop making derogatory remarks directed to Peridon (or any other editor), or you will be blocked from editing. Your conduct here is unacceptable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peridon started. Peridon does NOT know the law. It's true. You cannot hide it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloo123 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Peridon asked a question which was politely and helpfully answered by Metropolitan90. He has never claimed to know the law. He still thinks the article is a soapbox. Peridon (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would also note that whether any editor participating in this AfD knows about the immigration law of any country is not the issue here. It is just irrelevant and not worth focusing on here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Oda Mari (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Human rights in Japan or Ethnic issues in Japan. The person/group that keeps showing up to create these articles is overly biased and has consistently had their articles deleted. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peridon said, "Can you be a citizen of ANY country if you are born there but neither of your parents are citizens? " ANY ANY ANY... Now Peridon tries to cover up the fact that Peridon is ignorant and stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloo123 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that does it. Off to the penalty box for you, Gloo123. And here's the AIV referee now: "Gloo123, personal attacks, 55 hours." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Mix Club

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

Very low on sources, minimal notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since the early 1980's the Disco Mix Club (DMC) and it's many offshoots, eg DMC World DJ Championships, DMC Publishing (Mixmag) etc, has been instrumental in the development of DJ culture. There is a huge amount of scope to expand this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LePett (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TPH is correct that there's not many sources in the article, but as the founders of both Mixmag and the DMC World DJ Championships, the assertion of minimal notability is off the mark. Massive scope for improvement here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD. [20] The articles require payment to view, but you can easily spot major newspapers mentioning this thing. Dream Focus 22:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable & his article has been nominated for rescue. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Kiser (musician)

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

Poorly sourced BLP and doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines for musicians. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for musicians. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced BLP, and one that fails its respective notability guideline at that. Nolelover 21:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Manda

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

Dubious notability, sourcing is minimal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - existing sourcing is trivial in regards to the individual, a reliable sources search didn't turn up anything either. --Teancum (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - finalist in a competition nobody has ever heard of. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although at an editorial level, I would agree with Mkativerata and would have ivoted similarly, while closing this AfD, I do not see consensus being clear. At the same time, should this decision be perceived to be wrong, kindly do contact me on my talk page. There is no prejudice against opening up an early AfD on this article in the near future in case the article is not improved. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 11:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Socialist Party (Australia)

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

A never-registered ultra-minor splinter of a very minor party. Gained some limited coverage because of Rudd's nephew standing, but the entire reference list is composed of party press releases and one article in an Indian magazine. Frickeg (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Frickeg (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The lowest of all possible bars should be placed for political parties, leaders of political parties, and their youth sections. If it exists, it should be covered in Wikipedia on the basis of per se notability, in my estimation. Not all political parties run candidates for office, I add. Carrite (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources of the party, as opposed to V Rudd. I appreciate Carrite's argument but it just isn't accepted by the community. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Carrite, and as a matter of historical record. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Van Thanh Rudd, or delete. Mr. Rudd is the only reason this splinter of a splinter group is in any way notable. It's not even clear that the external sources are really independent of the group, though further digging by someone with more stomach for petty Trotskyist sectarianism may prove otherwise. Argyriou (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite's argument. Article is sourced and covers more than just V. Rudd.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I respect Carrite's argument, it is in complete contravention of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This party has zero coverage in reliable, independent sources that is not directly related to V. Rudd. Carrite's argument is one to be raised in relation to changing the guidelines, but can hardly be used in an AfD that is supposed to be decided based on the guidelines. Frickeg (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my understanding of Wikipedia's theoretical construct is that guidelines change in accordance with the evolution of practice. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.

Anticipating objections, this is what I'm on about: An accepted policy or guideline may become obsolete because of changes in editorial practice or community standards, may become redundant because of improvements to other pages, or may represent unwarranted instruction creep. * * * Policies and guidelines aim to describe community norms. When a norm changes there is usually a specific discussion. However when the way it works in practice as seen by experienced users is poorly described, the policy is often updated to reflect it better. (from Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion as the current discussions do not seem to have reached a consensus stage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the artist Rudd's article. The sources I looked at are either self-published, or legally obliged to take notice of the party's existence, or sources that are only tangentially related to the subject (a story about X that mentions the name of the party in passing). Wikipedia is not here to "document history", and I'm very nervous about basing an article about a political party on sources that do nothing more than name the organization. For example, I saw nothing in the sources that indicated that anything in the ==Campaigns== section was an official action of the organization, rather than a private action that happened to involve two members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snook da Rokk Starr

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

Despite a few local sourcesm, this rapper doesn't seem to meet the notability standards of WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A search brings up myspace, facebook, and twitter. --E♴ (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jad Haber

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

Non-notable film cast member. The only reference is to an award he won while at university in 2004. Since leaving school, he has two minor movie credits to him, per IMDB—not as a director. Accordingly, I do not see a sufficient claim of notability per WP:BIO nor enough sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles lacks sufficient WP:RS reliable sources within the Wikipedia definition of reliable sources per WP:BLP, and does not credibly demonstrate why the subject is notable as defined in WP:BIO. See also: CSD#A7 for speedy deletion citeria. --Kudpung (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jad Haber has won the Murex D'or, and this award has a great recognition. C. Fred you can google Jad Haber + Murex D'or and you will find the results. In addition, as a sydney based director he has created a great recognition in the advertisement industry. I do not agree and object the deletion of this guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joudi29 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real evidence for notability.--Grahame (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 04:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Paul Gourges

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

BLP of person only notable for marrying a princess. No evidence he was ever considered a genuine prince, which might provide notability. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no indication of notability, which can not be inherited. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The DRV closer was right... this did produce another difficult to parse discussion. At the core, this debate is about whether NOTNEWS or EVENT controls this article. NOTNEWS, however, is a policy, higher ranking than EVENT. Also, teh allegations of canvasing, and the very real evidence of it provided on one side, do render that side's numerical presence here less impressive. All in all, consensus to delete. Courcelles 04:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010 West Bank shooting

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

Nominating per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 13, primary concern involves WP:NOTNEWS. Procedural nomination only, I am neutral. T. Canens (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 10 of the 11 sources used in this article are news stories from the day of the event. The other source focuses on another similar event a month later and mentions this shooting in passing. This is a news story, and as Wikipedia is not the news this does not belong on Wikipedia. Countless news stories can be used as sources for countless news events, that does not make those news events worthy of inclusion as a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. nableezy - 03:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy makes a false argument. The question of whether this event has received ongoing attention in the weeks since the attack may be relevant. And, in fact, the attention has been ongoing. The argument that the sources in the article are "news stories from the day of the event" is a false argument since such sources exist, but have not been added to the article. I am now adding them.AMuseo (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can demonstrate what false argument I have made I expect you to withdraw that line. What I wrote is demonstrably true. You adding references that discuss another event and mention this one in passing does not in any way change the validity of my argument. nableezy - 00:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion debates are about the notability of the event, not teh quality of the article. Your argument that the article should be deleted merely because it is (was) sourced to the week of the attack was false on two counts. First, because addressing the quality of the article rather than the notability of the event is a false argument, Second because it is false to argue, as you did, that the notability was fleeting on the gorunds that the articles were all form the day of the event when numerous sources form later dates exist.AMuseo (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting something does not magically make it true. WP:N is a guideline to help determine whether or not an article should exist on a topic. WP:NOT is a policy that says what does not belong on Wikipedia. The "sources" you added are either a. unreliable, or b. make only fleeting mentions of this event. None of them demonstrate any sustaining notability of this event. At the time I wrote my comment I was 100% accurate and continuing to say that the argument I made was "false" does you no favors. This article fails WP:NOT and as such should be deleted. I understand the tactic of attempting to make an AFD so confusing for a potential closer by posting arguments so that the conveniant choice for a closer is "no consensus" so I dont plan on responding to any more of your comments, but if you continue to assert that I have made a "false" argument without demonstrating exactly what was false with my argument I will be taking this to another venue. nableezy - 00:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS and User:nableezy above.--Kudpung (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. 124.207.81.2 (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing more then a news story: WP:NOTNEWS --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just the same as AfD #1 which unfortunately was brought to DRV for "I disagree with the result" reasons". This is WP:NOTNEWS|news]], this is not a significant or historic event. Maybe it's a sad commentary on the state of world affairs that such attacks are considered almost routine news, but that's the way it is. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle to prop up importance of one's personal causes and interests. Elevating this event to an article does exactly that. If appropriate, reuse/recycle some of the sources in a larger article on Israeli-Palestine conflicts. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NOT NEWS. -- Y not? 16:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Every source is within one week of the incident except one, where is only a passing mention. It may be newsworthy, but not notable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As coverage of a news event with no lasting historical importance. This was run through AfD with a DELETE result earlier this month, appealed to Deletion Review and restored, and round and round we go... AfD had it right the first time... Carrite (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NOT NEWS. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW JeremyMcClean (Talk) 20:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the arguments above are flawed since they depend on an assertion that WP is NOT NEWS. In fact, the WP:NN policy specifically refers to routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities The apppropirate standard to judge this event is WP:EVENT, which this terror attack passes easily since it received wide international coverage and since a terror attack is intrinsically notable.AMuseo (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also proof by assertion. nableezy - 00:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This incident received another round of international coverage when it was discussed in almost every article about the August 2010 West Bank shooting.AMuseo (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:EVENT as an event with persisting widespread coverage in reliable, independent sources. Here are a few such sources from the three months since the event to start off with: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. The article shouldn't be deleted until a couple of simple questions are answered:

Since all the substantiated delete votes in this discussion so far are based on the assumption that all the sources covering the event are from the day of the event, and since it takes about a minute to see that this assumption is false, did those editors spend that minute? If so, why did they stick with the false assumption? If not, why did they vote in an AfD without doing the most elementary relevant research?
Most of the deletion advocates so far have simply voted, with a WP:VAGUEWAVE to WP:NOTNEWS. Is simply noting the existence of a policy without any attempt to show its applicability considered a contribution to an AfD discussion? Can an article be deleted based on such votes? Can any article be deleted based on such votes? If the answers to the last two questions are "yes" and "no", where is the limit?

Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My "assumption" was not an assumption. I wrote that 10 of the 11 sources in the article are from the day of the event, and the last is a brief mention on passing. Not only is that not an assumption, it is something that can be easily proven thanks to the magic of the internets. Of the sources you gave now four of them are from the day (or day after) of an arrest (I bet you will be able to find a set of news articles from the day a trial starts, if there is a trial of course, which isn't a certainty or even likely in these cases). Every murder in the city of Chicago, of which there are hundreds yearly, has a set of news stories when it occurs, a set of news stories when there is an arrest, a set of news stories when a trial begins, and a set of news stories when a verdict is reached. Each of those murders however remain news stories not suitable for encyclopedia articles about them. This "event" is a footnote in an article, it is not an article. nableezy - 01:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia isn't news, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict receives 10,000 more times the attention than any other war. Any incident could very well lead to its own wikipedia article. Terrorist attacks are notable and this was a blatant act of terror committed by an internationally-recognized terrorist organization. Compare a non-casualty car bomb ATTEMPT to successful acts of terrorism against civilians as was the case here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above two rationales. NOTNEWS does not apply to events reported internationally. Seriously--go read what it says. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, where does it say that - it says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews" - I don't see anywhere where it excludes internationally reported events. Codf1977 (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Political and military shootings in Palestine are notable - clearly, such a topic will receive many hits by those researching the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The article is well-referenced. Claims of WP:NOTNEWS are inappropriate - this article is not about a relatively trivial criminal homicide on the streets of New York, this shooting is directly related to an on-going political conflict that (for whatever reason) has the attention of a substantial part of the world. BlueRobe (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS, unless we are going to have separate articles on every Palestinian attack, and every Israeli retaliation, from the last 10 years or more - not to mention an article for every U.S. drone strike in Pakistan, every suicide bombing in Iraq, and so on. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EVENT and Jclemens. --Shuki (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities for which NOTNEWS was intended. As anyone somewhat informed of world events know, these types of incidents have international ramifications, as attested by the multitude of coverage these types of incidents receive.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments for deletion above are based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of NOTNEWS which in intended to scene out articles on routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. Politically-motivated attacks by armed gunmen who are part of a large, organized campaign of political violence are not routine news. A WP:CONS has evolved under which individual acts of political terrorism are considered WP:Notable.[26] This attack qualifies for Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Notability (events) because it received extensive international coverage.[27]. Moreover the attempt to delete this article, but not articles on similar events in Europe and the United States reeks of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Surely we do not accept the implication that life is cheaper in the Middle East.[28] Finally, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. [29] "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..."AMuseo (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment:::: I see a strong, recent tendency to propose articles about incidents of terrorism that take place in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Gaza and the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority for deletion, while articles about incidents of violent terrorism or even about minor, failed terror plots in Europe and in the US, Canada, Australia and Britain are not proposed for deletion, or were not until someone followed a comparison that I made between the treatment of terrorism in the Near East and the treatment the article on the 2010 Newry car bombing to that page and proposed it for deletion. My larger point is that there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of articles about individual incidents of terrorism outside the Near East. They are rarely proposed for deletion, not even the poorly sourced articles about very minor plots and incidents such as the 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot I will just mention a few, all of which, including the 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot and the 2010 Newry car bombing appear notable to me. Wikipedia, after all, "is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." We have articles on the [[ Los Angeles Times bombing, 1973 New York City bomb plot, 2001 shoe bomb plot, 1991 Toronto bomb plot, Wood Green ricin plot, 2004 financial buildings plot, 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot, 2002 white supremacist terror plot, 2005 Sydney terrorism plot, 2006 German train bombing plot, 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, 2007 London car bombs, 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting, 2010 Pentagon shooting, 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing, March 6, 2008 Times Square bombing], Wall Street bombing, Preparedness Day Bombing, Bombing of the Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple, 2009 Bronx terrorism plot, Alleged 2007 bomb plot in Copenhagen, Bomb plot against the Thomas Jefferson Cultural Center, Columbus Shopping Mall bombing plot, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack, Connetquot High School Plot, 22 May 2008 Exeter bombing, 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack, Holsworthy Barracks terror plot, Hudson River bomb plot, 2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot, 2000 millennium attack plots, New York City landmark bomb plot, 2009 New York Subway and United Kingdom Plot, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting. I could go on. Truly. There are many hundreds of articles on individual acts of terrorism, or individual terror plots no more, but no less, notable than these. What I do not see is the grounds on which to argue that these and the hundreds of article like them belong on Wikipedia, while the 19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks do not. Or that the [[30]] or the 2010 Pentagon shooting were notable, while the June 2010 West Bank shooting is not.AMuseo (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty TL;DR there for an WP:OTHERCRAP argument. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists clearly states that the question of which other articles exist can be usefully considered in AFD debates: "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."AMuseo (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you didn't do that, you just provided an indiscriminate list per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

This article fails multiple sections of WP:EVENT, including WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:PERSISTENCE and the depth of coverage section. Articles like this belong on Wikinews, not here. Gatoclass (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CANVASSING FROM PRO ISRAELI BLOG TO THIS AFD: [31] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting blog. thanks for the pointer. I particularly enjoyed the article about self-described Nazis editing on the wikipedia article about Hitler to protect the page from "anti-fascist progaganda." so outrageous it's funny. However, what's your point? That if a Wikipedia article is mentioned on a blog we should ....what...? If you see a bunch of sockpuppets or new users turn up, we could ignore their votes. But, I fail to see what exactly you want us to do about the fact that some blog links to this debate.AMuseo (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not "some blog", but a pro-Israeli blog run by a blocked user who has said that "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts." [32] and "I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site." [33] Examples of his blog posts being carried out right after he blogs: Syrian American [34], right after an IP carried out the same change as was talked about at the blog:[35] and another blog post about Oldest synagogues in Israel [36] right after a user carried out the same change as was talked about at the blog:[37].--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets to the point where new, non-autoconfirmed accounts are posting votes, and not !votes, I'd say we should have this particular AfD semi'd for the sake of integrity. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with that. Note, the consensus would roughly be the same, if not exactly the same, had this afd been semi'd from the start.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. LibiBamizrach (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the WP:NOTNEWS policy, no indication of any lasting "enduring notability", may be worth listing in list of terrorist attacks in 2010 but absent some reliable independent significant coverage outside just reporting on the attack then it's place is in wikinews not here. Codf1977 (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Codf1977, Did you mean to ask for something like the Recent Reuters article [38] in which Human Rights Watch cites this attack in its demand that Hamas cease attacks on civilians? Or perhaps this Wall Street Journal article [39] in which this attack is used to assess the operational capacities and rivalries of militant Arab factions operating in the West Bank? The article has other recent (this month) articles that cite this attack in meaningful ways. You could read the article.AMuseo (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the Reuters article before my !vote and the WSJ one is new to me, however neither of them is what you could call significant coverage of the event, they are mentions along side other events, so still think that my recommendation regarding worth listing in list of terrorist attacks still stands. Codf1977 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:EVENT. This is an event of a national scope with lasting effects. WP:NOTNEWS is a prohibition against routine coverage, and this is not routine. Linda Olive (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You assert that "This is an event of a national scope with lasting effects." - have you anything to back this up by way of ref's ? I think that you are misinterpreting the wording of WP:NOTNEWS, it says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." and as of this point, there has not been any ref's to show that. Codf1977 (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Part of history now and more than just news. Szzuk (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above, do you have any ref's to support that assertion ? Codf1977 (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The provided refs are sufficient. They span the 3 months since it happened indicating its importance has endured. Szzuk (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although wikipedia isn't news, I can see that this is an event, and is notable. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 21:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per which part of WP:EVENT? Smartse (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JClemens and the editors he cites. Guidelines like WP:EVENT represent the community consensus as to how the often-mentioned WP:NOTNEWS policy is to be applied. To read the two as being in conflict is to reject the established community consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:EVENT as far as I can tell - "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." I can't see ant indication of this having "enduring significance" from reading the article. Some !keeps have suggested because it received international coverage it is notable per WP:EVENT, this is not the case it says they are "very likely to be notable" if they have "widespread (national or international) impact" - impact is not the same as coverage and no mention of an international impact is mentioned. Smartse (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, for this shooting's impact on the Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in 2010, which has been considerable, as the article makes clear.AMuseo (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Smartse. The incident is already mentioned and placed in context in Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in 2010.--Jmundo (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Systemic bias I cannot help but perceive that there is an element of Wikipedia:Systemic bias at work when articles about terror attacks in the Middle East are nominated for deletion as soon as they are written, while, for example, 2010 European terror plot is not nominated for AFD.AMuseo (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep properly sourced, wide ranging coverage, seems notable. WookieInHeat (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'll leave the issue of whether or not something marked as "policy" should in every case trump something marked as a "guideline" which was an issue in the first AFD for another discussion. WP:NOTNEWS says routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The issue here is whether or not this event is "routine" and whether or not it has "enduring notability". Opinions are divided on this issue. If this happened in Billings Montana (and involved terrorists) there would be no doubt that the event would warrant an article. However, it happened in a part of the world where such events are unfortunately more common, this gives some strength to the arguments that it's routine. However, there's also significant international coverage about this event which supports those advocating WP:EVENT and WP:N. On the last issue of "enduring notability", in this case I think only time will tell. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010 West Bank shooting

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 13, primary concern involves WP:NOTNEWS. Procedural nomination only, I am neutral. T. Canens (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A straight news story no more notable than the 15000+ murders in the United States each year. Wikipedia is not the news. nableezy - 03:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misunderstanding of the WP NOT NEWS policy which refers to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Attacks on civilians by terrorist groups with political goals are not routine news. The are notable under WP:EVENT.AMuseo (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a misunderstanding and just saying so does not make it true. There is no evidence of enduring notability, nor is your belief that this is an "attack on civilians by [a] terrorist group" relevant to determining whether or not this article is notable. nableezy - 00:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying this shooting is no more notable than any random criminal homicide in the USA reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NOTABLE. BlueRobe (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comments "reveals a fundamental misunderstanding" of WP:NOT, a policy while WP:N is a guideline. nableezy - 02:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your case is not helped by your inability to recognise that a proper interpretation of WP:Policy is guided by WP:Guideline, (isn't this obvious?). Regardless, a political homicide, with enduring political ramifications across the world and across time, is clearly more notable than a common criminal homicide. To suggest otherwise seems absurd. BlueRobe (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS and User:nableezy above.--Kudpung (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing more then a news story: WP:NOTNEWS --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just the same as AfD #1 which unfortunately was brought to DRV for "I disagree with the result" reasons". This is WP:NOTNEWS|news]], this is not a significant or historic event. Maybe it's a sad commentary on the state of world affairs that such attacks are considered almost routine news, but that's the way it is. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle to prop up importance of one's personal causes and interests. Elevating this event to an article does exactly that. If appropriate, reuse/recycle some of the sources in a larger article on Israeli-Palestine conflicts. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Review was closed to rediscuss, despite that fact that the count was 19 to 11, 19 for keeping (overturning) and 11 for deleting. That is why it was reopened.AMuseo (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Every source is within one week of the incident. It may be newsworthy, but not notable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As coverage of a news event with no lasting historical importance. This was run through AfD with a DELETE result earlier this month, appealed to Deletion Review and restored, and round and round we go... AfD had it right the first time... Carrite (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NOT NEWS. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event was an attempt by the de-facto government of the Gaza Strip to cause the resignation of the President of the Palestinian Authority and to sabotage talks between the latter and Israel. So the notion that this was merely news with no significant impact is absurd. Add to that the fact that this was an uncommonly deadly and brutal terror attack in a relatively peaceful period in an important region, and it's easy to see why the event has received continuous coverage in reliable, independent sources until this very day ([40] [41] [42][43][44][45][46] etc.), making it a textbook case of a notable WP:EVENT. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Israeli-Palestinian conflict absorbs more attention than all conflicts combined. This event generated national-press in Israel and around the world. Articles with far less notability are hosted on Wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above two rationales. NOTNEWS is not to suppress reporting of attacks widely reported internationally. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS, unless we are going to have separate articles on every Palestinian attack, and every Israeli retaliation, from the last 10 years or more - not to mention an article for every U.S. drone strike in Pakistan, every suicide bombing in Iraq, and so on. Gatoclass (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my reason in the first AfD. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities for which NOTNEWS was intended. In addition, "routine murders" (as someone above coined the incident) do not have any Political ramifications, let alone ramifications that shape world events, as clearly demonstrated to anyone who actually reads the article in its entirety. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stop trying to censor clearly notable political events out of Wikipaedia. The political ramifications of this shoot make it considerably more notable than a routine criminal homicide. BlueRobe (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proof by assertion aside, try not to attempt to impeach the motives of each of the editors who feel this article fails WP:NOT, a policy of this website. nableezy - 02:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Arguments for deletion above are based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of NOTNEWS which in intended to scene out articles on routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. Politically-motivated attacks by armed gunmen who are part of a large, organized campaign of political violence are not routine news. A WP:CONS has evolved under which individual acts of political terrorism are considered WP:Notable.[47] This attack qualifies for Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Notability (events) because it received extensive international coverage.[48]. Moreover the attempt to delete this article, but not articles on similar events in Europe and the United States reeks of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Surely we do not accept the implication that life is cheaper in the Middle East.[49] Finally, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. [50] "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..."AMuseo (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're happy to have an article on every Palestinian and Israeli attack over the last ten years or so? Every Iraqi suicide bombing? Every US drone attack? Or is there some particular reason this attack is special and deserves its own article and the others do not? Gatoclass (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I see a strong, recent tendency to propose articles about incidents of terrorism that take place in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Gaza and the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority for deletion, while articles about incidents of violent terrorism or even about minor, failed terror plots in Europe and in the US, Canada, Australia and Britain are not proposed for deletion, or were not until someone followed a comparison that I made between the treatment of terrorism in the Near East and the treatment the article on the 2010 Newry car bombing to that page and proposed it for deletion. My larger point is that there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of articles about individual incidents of terrorism outside the Near East. They are rarely proposed for deletion, not even the poorly sourced articles about very minor plots and incidents such as the 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot I will just mention a few, all of which, including the 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot and the 2010 Newry car bombing appear notable to me. Wikipedia, after all, "is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." We have articles on the [[ Los Angeles Times bombing, 1973 New York City bomb plot, 2001 shoe bomb plot, 1991 Toronto bomb plot, Wood Green ricin plot, 2004 financial buildings plot, 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot, 2002 white supremacist terror plot, 2005 Sydney terrorism plot, 2006 German train bombing plot, 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, 2007 London car bombs, 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting, 2010 Pentagon shooting, 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing, March 6, 2008 Times Square bombing], Wall Street bombing, Preparedness Day Bombing, Bombing of the Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple, 2009 Bronx terrorism plot, Alleged 2007 bomb plot in Copenhagen, Bomb plot against the Thomas Jefferson Cultural Center, Columbus Shopping Mall bombing plot, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack, Connetquot High School Plot, 22 May 2008 Exeter bombing, 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack, Holsworthy Barracks terror plot, Hudson River bomb plot, 2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot, 2000 millennium attack plots, New York City landmark bomb plot, 2009 New York Subway and United Kingdom Plot, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting. I could go on. Truly. There are many hundreds of articles on individual acts of terrorism, or individual terror plots no more, but no less, notable than these. What I do not see is the grounds on which to argue that these and the hundreds of article like them belong on Wikipedia, while the 19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks do not. Or that the [[51]] or the 2010 Pentagon shooting were notable, while the August 2010 West Bank shooting is not.AMuseo (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is not routine but has political ramifications, as pointed out earlier, especially since Hamas has claimed responsibility for it, and now Hamas has issued a warning to the Palestinian Authority for having arrested the culprits. Implications are in connection w/ negotiations & Hamas-PA relations. As noted that the event still is receiving international coverage. KantElope (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CANVASSING FROM PRO ISRAELI BLOG TO THIS AFD: [52] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting blog. thanks for the pointer. I particularly enjoyed the article about self-described Nazis editing on the wikipedia article about Hitler to protect the page from "anti-fascist progaganda." so outrageous it's funny. However, what's your point? That if a Wikipedia article is mentioned on a blog we should ....what...? If you see a bunch of sockpuppets or new users turn up, we could ignore their votes. But, I fail to see what exactly you want us to do about the fact that some blog links to this debate.AMuseo (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not "some blog", but a pro-Israeli blog run by a blocked user who has said that "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts." [53] and "I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site." [54] Examples of his blog posts being carried out right after he blogs: Syrian American [55], right after an IP carried out the same change as was talked about at the blog:[56] and another blog post about Oldest synagogues in Israel [57] right after a user carried out the same change as was talked about at the blog:[58]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I surmise that instead of being run a "pro-Israeli", it is run by someone with diametrically opposite political leanings, and its being to post bullshit posts so that editors here can yell "CANVASS" every time they don't like the way their afd is going. It's at most a red herring.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A mere mention is not canvasing. Start being concerned when IPs show up randomly but until then it is nothing more than someone venting. NOTNEWS is not being applied correctly in the delete comments. It is not simply "routine news reporting" and isn't over emphasis on the potentially acceptable "breaking news" (and it has of course surpassed being a "recent [development]". It meets both the General Notability and Events Notability guideline with ongoing significant coverage from a wide range of international sources that also discuss its impact on the peace process. I would write up an exhaustive list with wikilinks but enough others have already done it so we should be all good.Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. LibiBamizrach (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EVENT. This was not routine coverage. I was in Israel at the time this occurred, and this was Israel's main news for several days. WP:NOTNEWS is against routine news, and this was anything but routine. This has had an effect on national security, with additional checkpoints being set up, and longer lines at the airport. This was related to the peace talks, an internationally covered event with lasting impact. Linda Olive (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (assuming it is not deleted) into the article currently named 2010 Hamas terror campaign. Whilst there has been significant coverage of this event, I feel it would be better to include it one article where it can be placed in context. Arguing for deletion on the grounds of NOTNEWS is incorrect, but I do question whether some of the minute details the article goes into at present are necessary. I feel that these could be condensed to produce one good article, rather than numerous, poorer articles. Smartse (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JClemens and the editors he cites. Guidelines like WP:EVENT represent the community consensus as to how the often-mentioned WP:NOTNEWS policy is to be applied. To read the two as being in conflict is to reject the established community consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cant see how WP:NOTNEWS applies here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need an article for every incident that is news worthy. The incident is already mentioned and placed in context in Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in 2010. --Jmundo (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Systemic bias I cannot help but perceive that there is an element of Wikipedia:Systemic bias at work when articles about terror attacks in the Middle East are nominated for deletion as soon as they are written, while, for example, 2010 European terror plot is not nominated for AFD.AMuseo (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

17 minutes. The time elapsed between my mention of systemic bias and the nomination of 2010 European terror plot for deletion. Terror plots and terror attacks are notable events.AMuseo (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Wikipedia:Notability (events). I see there is no clear agreement, so I've tried to form my own opinion. First I brushed through article's references. It seems sources define a topic here and it enjoys general notability, since it is reported both by primary reliable sources like Ma'an, Jerusalem Post, Ha'aretz, YNET and also major international secondary reliable sources around the globe: Wall Street Journal, AFP, Washington Post, Reuters. Now what about WP:NOTNEWS? There is violence in the region all the time. It seams to be routine. However not every violent event in the region reaches pages of Wall Street Journal. In this particular case, it appears sources discuss the event in context of current round of peace talks and it is reported and analyzed widely around the world. So I guess we have both historical significance & diversity of sources which are both Inclusion criteria. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of anything after September 2 (two days after the August 31 killing of four persons who happened to be Israeli citizens) pretty well shows that the original WP:NOTNEWS closing was correct. At best, this gets a mention in Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in 2010. To hold otherwise is to open the door for an article every time a civilian has been killed in political violence anywhere in the world and anytime in history. Mandsford 16:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are among articles sources, for clarity:

BBC reported on September 17 about continuation of surge of violence.
Ban Ki-moon released statement about this event

Wikipedia:Notability (events) guides us about WP:NOTNEWS application. Please see inclusion criteria.

Regarding Mandsford merging idea, it seams that Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in 2010 already includes section with 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign, which have section about this articles. All mentioned sections are wordy. Maybe we should consider readability. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Broad international coverage reflects the notability here.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Work on the article post the AfD being opened seems to have allowed it to qualify for the keep bordering on no-consensus that I perceive here. The references pointed out by the likes of SilverSeren add to weight of notability, however, the arguments of Kudpung and others cannot be ignored. Like I mentioned, I should qualify this as a keep bordering a no-consensus. There is no prejudice to an early AfD being opened if work on the article does not improve it beyond the doubts expressed here. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wollongong Conservatorium of Music

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

fails WP:ORG. current sources are only its own website. no extensive coverage. [59]. Just deserves a one line mention in Wollongong. LibStar (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge basic details to Wollongong article.- Fails as per nom. Further searches have not revealed WP:RS according to Wikipedia policy, or any entries other than directories or social networks. As it stands, It in in fact a WP:CSD#A7 for speedy deletion.--Kudpung (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will refrain from voting as I am biased by being involved with the Conservatorium (despite that, I will emphasise that the Con is a very important and vibrant part of the local community here), but I would dispute there being "no extensive coverage" of its activities. This is a non-trivial amount of coverage, of which I'm sure a lot could be added as references to the article, should someone find the time. — Jeremy 13:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS. a lot of those hits are simply event listings which is not indepth coverage required to establish notability. " a very important and vibrant part of the local community here" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very reluctant Delete - fails WP:ORG~~.
Question: is it affiliated with University of Wollongong? If so, possible WP:Redirect or search term? --Shirt58 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not affiliated with the universtity. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is affiliated with the University. — Jeremy 02:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

even if it is, there is insufficient evidence to meet WP:N or WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant local institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Do you have sources to back this up? LibStar (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with LibStar: Cite your sources, Xxanthippe and Jeremy--Shirt58 (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been cited by Jeremy above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

they are weak sources mainly event listings, and none have been incorporated into main article. currently it still only has primary sources. Xxanthippe !vote can be considered WP:ITSNOTABLE in the absence of evidence of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a number of refs and worked them in by creating a History section. While the coverage in the Illawarra Mercury newspaper doesn't count toward notability, as it is merely a local city newspaper, the significant coverage from The Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is enough to convince me of the notability of the Conservatorium. Silver seren^C 04:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the latest sources get it over the line. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't: The first of your references is a fleeing mention in the end notes of an article about the town and its tourist attractions. The long tourism article is not about the subject and : People interested in architecture should walk up the hill to Gleniffer Brae (now the Wollongong Conservatorium of Music), completed in 1939 for the Hoskins family. The chimneys (fascinating examples of the bricklayer's art) alone are worth the walk. cannot possibly be interpreted as significant coverage about a school, an academy, a conservatorium, or other institute of learning. I also had to put the entire newspaper article through a search routine programme to fine that fleeting mention. The second of your references is a very brief ABC online paragraph about money owed to the conservatorium and is also not significant coverage - however broadly construed.--Kudpung (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've struck my delete !vote in light of the above discussion, especially in light of Silverseren's referencing, but cannot find sufficient reason to change my !vote to keep. I assume it is part of or affiliated with UoW. I would argue that WP:UNIGUIDE would dictate that the notability turns on whether it is sufficiently autonomous from UoW to not be considered a faculty. If it is simply a faculty of UoW, then as per Kudpung's assessment of the references, it is not notable, and as per WP:ORG it should perhaps be mentioned in the UoW article. If it is "especially notable or significant" (emphasis mine) then it is "article-worthy". I focus on "significant". By a (somewhat controverted) general consensus, non-notable secondary schools are - for lack of a better term - "article-worthy". Arguing that that applies here would be a false analogy. Nevertheless, Wollongong Conservatorium of Music is a publicly-funded, degree-awarding tertiary institution: does that make it "significant"? I have no answer to that question.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Con is not a faculty. It is simply an affiliation and sharing of resources. Music courses at the Uni are taught at the Uni, and music courses at the Con are taught at the Con, although they may share facilities and hold joint functions from time to time.

However, as I have stated above, I will not comment on notability. — Jeremy 11:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cite your sources for this assertion, Jeremy.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still take a firm stance that inclusion should be backed up by our very clear policies regarding sources. If it is a recognised university in its own right, or a mainstream secondary school, there are clear guidelines for inclusion. But the conservatorium appears to be neither.--Kudpung (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot cite it as it comes from my own knowledge. Not all of us live our daily lives with an encyclopedia next to us every second of the day. I wasn't stating the above to be included in the article — it was more of an FYI. If you don't like it because it's not cited, well that's your problem. Ignore it. I utterly refuse to cite it, and if it means you won't take me seriously after this, so be it. — Jeremy 07:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Uni comments There is currently no source that states that the Conservatorium is a part of the University. I've seen nothing in the sources to imply that the Conservatorium is a facility of the University. The closest connection they have, according to the sources, is the University has considered buying the rest of the property so they can have creative arts classes there, though they would continue to allow the Conservatorium to lease the section it is in. This seems to imply to me that the University and the Conservatorium are not a part of one another, they just work together on occasion. And this is coming right from the sources in the article right now. Silver seren^C 18:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-) That is a very good point. From the references, there is little indication that it is affiliated with UoW. :-( Unfortunately, and again from the references, it's also a very good reason why the article should be deleted. If it's a stand-alone institution, then there are only passing references to it in reliable sources. Yep, I want this article to be kept, but I can't see reasons enough for that. I'm still neutral --Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well, this isn't a poll anyway, and the quality and the leaning of the comments will be taken into consideration by the closing admin, and actual consensus could well outweigh what might appear in a tally of !votes. I've got nothing against this school either, but per WP:NOHARM I still see no reason why it should have an article,and why we should risk setting a precedent by bending the rules. --Kudpung (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after creator blanked the page in good faith. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

What's up Mississauga

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

Non-notable future magazine, no coverage outside of Facebook Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability}}. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability. There are lots of magazines, and not all of them are included in Wikipedia. The muramasa (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless something demonstrating notability comes along. Hairhorn (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Young (artist)

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP of a non-notable artist. No independent secondary sources analyze the subject. Previous AfD was never completed. Abductive (reasoning) 02:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and reads like an advert. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and does not meet required BLP criteria for sources.--Kudpung (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an obvious personal advertisement. The muramasa (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable person with an article that's written like an advertisement. I can't see any way of saving this. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by JzG (talk · contribs); rationale was "A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alouette Snowmobiles

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

Doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 02:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article doesn't provide any secondary sources nor do such sources appear to exist. Roscelese (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Seems to meet criteria: A7, No indication of importance. I have tagged the article as such. Yoenit (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FSN Baseball Report

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuum Excavation

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

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

Keep for now and improve - I think there could be an article on this subject, even though it is somewhat obscure and specialized topic, there are plenty of references on it. (see for instance [60]) HOwever, several parts of this are probably copyright violations and appear to be copy and pasted from other websites. I removed one major copy/paste, but the rest needs a complete rewrite. Unfortunately, I don't have the time for such a task. However, I don't think it warrants deletion on the basis of being poorly written, it just needs to be fixed up a lot. And seeing that it was created only a few hours ago, this AfD seems somewhat premature, since not enough time has elapsed for potential improvement. Danski14^(talk) 22:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - Article passes WP:N and WP:RS and REALLY needs to be wikified. - Pmedema (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Bergkvist

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

Subject has not been proven notable, outside sources have not been provided. Due to non-notability of the subject and the apparent inability to give the article any real content, I feel a deletion is in order. 67.184.164.200 (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_{I've completed the nomination on behalf of 67.184.164.200 (talk · contribs). I have no opinion on the worth or the unworth of the article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete - Relevant sources are not either not independent or fansites and forums. Fails WP:ARTIST. Fæ (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There are sufficient claims of notability to retain.[61], [62]. The spanish version was prodded and then deprodded a few years back after sources were added.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gets 5 gnews hits [63] but not really indepth significant coverage. 13:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 04:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Van Thanh Rudd

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

Despite some minor coverage, this seems a clear case of notability not being inherited. The minor coverage his artwork has received has all been in relation to the fact that he's Kevin Rudd's nephew, and his political candidacy easily fails WP:POLITICIAN. Frickeg (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Frickeg (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm always a bit hesistant about WP:NOTINHERITED. First, it's an essay. But more importantly, it can be over-cited. Sure, many people wouldn't be notable but for a particular relationship. But arising out of the relationship, the person might have done things or received coverage that makes them notable in their own right. V Rudd is one of those cases. He's not a mere non-notable relative who has done nothing to warrant attention - he has actively sought and received it, through spades of coverage in reliable sources. All around the world. I think he well and truly passes WP:BIO as a political activist ([[WP:POLITICIAN being limited to professional politicians).--Mkativerata (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I cited WP:NOTINHERITED was not so much that because he's Rudd's nephew he can never be notable, but that virtually all of the coverage is "Rudd's nephew does something that might embarrass Rudd!", which is hardly significant coverage in his own right. Frickeg (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the painting that depicts Ronald McDonald (holding an Olympic torch) has nothing to do with K Rudd or federal politics. wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 12:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And what's the title of the story? "Rudd nephew's artwork rejected." Frickeg (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the nephew achieved media coverage in party because of his uncle's position. You raised the point all of the coverage is "Rudd's nephew does something that might embarrass Rudd!" My point is that much of V Rudd's art work has nothing to do with with K Rudd or federal politics (and see my argument below).

Shouldn't we debate the noteworthiness of Rudd's activism, and not merely the banality of the media coverage received because of his inherited celebrity? wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 23:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The more cynical among us may consider his political career an attempt to leverage his more famous uncle's notability into publicity for his political party. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - He's famous for making an idiot of himself, gautam gupta style, too YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep famous clown. About as famous as any other communist clown in Australia YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No this isn't a joke, but this guy is notable, mainly for deliberately being controversial, unfortunately, like the Lara Bingle of politics and other WAGs YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An inherited name combined with extreme idiocy is hardly grounds for notability. Do you expect Wikipedia to maintain articles about the children of every notable person in the world? The muramasa (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kevin Rudd is notable, but the same cannot be said of his nephew. Dolphin (t) 11:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep famous clown, or a famous curiosity, yes. Activism and celebrity become bedfellows inevitably. Some notable clowns have earned celebrity through their art (e.g. Banksy, Andy Warhol); others have inherited celebrity (like Paris Hilton). Australia has several artists from Vietnamese background; yet few are famous. Rudd's story ads colour to the mix, and he's is not the only artist and activist on wikipedia who is a VCA graduate (others include Azlan McLennan). Stirring up controversy is what activist do. Rudd would have been a fool not to have used his last name, and anyhow, the media wouldn't a have let him. wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 12:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not Australian, but based on a review of the article and some of the cited sources, he seems to pass WP:GNG based on his own activities. Notability may not be inherited, but neither does being related to a notable person set a higher bar for your own notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find significant coverage for him about things that he did. Whether the journalists who "took note" of his activities would have done so if he weren't the nephew of someone "more notable" who can say. This guy sort of reminds me of Billy Carter because some of his notability came from being the brother of the President of the United States. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SPA !votes discounted, no consensus to retain this article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Nash

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

AFD was attempted but not completed due to Twinkle glitch. Notability in question; A7 declined. Sources are thin, article created by COI account. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to have received coverage in reliable secondary sources, without biased opinion in article, my suggestion would be keep as this is a person of note but the article needs tweeking.Ktbothma (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at most the charity itself is notable, not the person; in fact most of the entry is about the charity. Hairhorn (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable. The only third-party RS coverage cited in the article is (1) a profile on the webpage for a local effort (The Kids Are Alright campaign) to recognize positive actions by young people and (2) a fairly lightweight, upbeat article in a local newspaper. I've not found any additional coverage in Google. I also don't think that the charity (which also is the subject of an article: Maranatha Care Children) is notable -- the only third-party coverage of the charity is in those same two articles about Mr. Nash. In any event, there surely isn't a justification for two articles about this nice young man and the charity he started. --Orlady (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for longer I would disagree with the comments by the above user on the charity itself not being notable, it is one of only 9 charities featured on Wikipedia that is based in South Africa, and is more current and up to date than some of the others (see: Category:Charities based in South Africa). The article is factual and has genuine sources, I would suggest keeping for longer to see if other news reports can further enhance the validity of this entry.--English mustard (talk) — English mustard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: The article's categorization notwithstanding, I don't believe that the charity is based in South Africa. It appears to be based in Plymouth, England. Regardless, being one of a small number of "somethings" does not by itself make a topic notable per Wikipedia's criteria. --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If suitable extra material comes up, the article can be re-created. Articles are not kept to see what happens next, or in hope of something. Better referencing is needed in both articles - I can't say what the 'thisis...' ones are like because they both don't seem to be working at the moment. The others are subject linked. Setting up or running a charity doesn't necessarily confer notability (nor does being one...) The charity doesn't appear to be UK registered, by the way. The number is not an English registration to my eyes (as a former chairman of a UK charity - not a particularly notable one). I can't find them in the Charity Commissioners list, and UK registered charities have plain numbers not alphanumeric ones. Peridon (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Orlady, or perhaps redirect to Maranatha Care Children, assuming that subject is notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Orlady that the article could be redirected to Maranatha Care Children at the moment, as Peridon made a valid point that the article can be recreated if extra material emmerges. The Maranatha Care Children charity carries out work in South Africa, but is a UK registered charity. It would not be found on the Charity Commission website, as it is a small charity, registered on HMRC (which provides you with there own registration number which is required for charities to use on sites such as Just Giving).--English mustard (talk)
Comment Any charity in England or Wales with an income of £5000 or more must register with the Charity Commission. Below that, one may apply to HMRC for their charitable non-profit status. If the charity in question here as the main point of the subject's notability has an income of under £5000, I wouldn't think it particularly of note (without some strange mediaeval origin. If their income is over this figure, then they should think very seriously about getting registered. http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Start_up_a_charity/Do_I_need_to_register/Types_of_charity_index.aspx#1 I feel this income limit might be of interest in assessing the importance of the charity - and the notability of its founder. Peridon (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To register with the Charity Commission (unless the policy has changed) you have to have £3,000 in the bank account as evidence this income. Many smaller charities cannot afford to keep their income in the bank account for a long period, hence why they would register through HMRC. The news articles linked do confirm that more than £5,000 has been raised, so I do not think it is justifiable to say that it limits the importance of the charity itself.--English mustard (talk) — English mustard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

At the page linked in my post there is no mention of money in bank - it's income that is the criterion. The Charity Commissioners also distinguish between a registered charity number and an HMRC charity number - which is not, to my reading of it, a registered charity as such. If this is not certain, I would suggest contacting the Charity Commissioners for clarification. Their rules do change from time to time, but this is the current version of their site. Peridon (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that this article can stay on Wikipedia in it's own right, as the subject of the article has appeared in other media sources including Plymouth Magazine (not accessible online but with a coverage of 50,000 homes) and on Radio Devon and Radio Plymouth (as I know being from Plymouth myself). In terms of Notability criteria he has won awards (albeit on a regional scale) and is also the youngest known Charity Director in the UK. Equally the HMRC registration is evidence of charitable status (as the link quotes also states), so unquestionably the Maranatha Care Children page also deserves its place.--MrBojangles2010 (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC) — MrBojangles2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Advert article by person involved in the orgainzation. No indication of importance. Please note All of the keep votes are from sockpuppets. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harrisonnash is related to this discussion. --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC) User:Ktbothma and User:English mustard have been confirmed as sockpuppets of User:Harrisonnash (who created the articles about both Harrison Nash and Maranatha Care Children) and MrBojangles2010 was determined to be "likely." --Orlady (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MrBojangles2010 and We really care (below) have now been blocked too. Peridon (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am a new user to Wikipedia, and I am a follower of Maranatha Care Children as I feel it is a worthwhile cause (and also one that rarely gets the highlight it deserves). I hope you don't mind me commenting that I do feel the achievements of this young man to be very noteworthy, though of course as a supporter of his work to date i'm sure you could described me as being biased! Anyway I would like to see this kept, and am also looking forward to being part of the Wikipedia community (I hope I have posted this correctly!)! We really care (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC) — We really care (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The status with HMRC indicates that HMRC regard the organisation as a low income body - in the same way they would regard the Little Twittering with Snodsby Guillemot Appreciation Society. Is a charity with little income and no ancient origins and history notable? This is the main notability claim for Harrison Nash - that he founded it. If it's not notable, nor is he. I feel the two sink or swim together and that Maranatha Care Children should be added to this discussion. Peridon (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular ^talk 13:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Andolsek Bradley

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

Seems to have originally been created as a copyright violation per the edit summary ([64]). None of the sources are reliable, and google searches don't show anything notable either. Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER. Nomader ^(Talk) 04:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and withdraw nomination. Points made by User:Schmidt show that Bradley meets the criteria at WP:ANYBIO, apologies for not having noticed the notability of his best actor award at the Method Fest. The article still needs work but it meets the notability criteria. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One of a group of articles begun by same account [65], all connecting to this subject and short of reliable sources. One suspects WP:COI issues.... JNW (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep No mater the article's origins, it now belongs to Wikipedia. I am of the opinion that the individual's career as actor and writer[66] meets the conditions as set in WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. Anything else becomes a matter of addressing through the course of regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMDB is not a reliable source, but even if we accept the resume as accurate, I don't see that this meets the criteria for WP:ENT:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable (italics mine) films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. JNW (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His career can be verified through the works themselves, and the notability of the works is determined through their own coverage in multiple reliable sources, even if some might (currently) lack a Wikipedia article. If you do not believe IMDB belongs as an EL to show his career, this is not the place to argue that point, as consensus has long allowed it as an EL and no one is asserting that being in the IMDB database confers any sort of notability. In meeting WP:ENT, verified to the works themselves, one does not need to also have a cult following, nor must one make some "innovative" contribution to a field of entertainment to still be determinable as notable through Wikipedia's criteria for such. While it is obvious you disagree, and you are entitled to such an opinion, my own is that 14 episodes of Squatters (TV Show), 3 episodes of The Legend of Neil, and named appearances in The Last Harbor, Love Conquers Paul, September 12th, Redwoods, and Meteor Apocalypse are enough to meet WP:ENT. And we have another consideration as well, as his works as a stage writer and screenwriter have themselves been critically reviewed in multiple reliable sources... bringing him in as notable under WP:CREATIVE. Again, no matter its origins, the article is now Wikipedia's... and style and tone are best addressed through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, you too are entitled to an opinion; Wikipedia is good that way! One is less invested in having their opinion validated than in getting this right. Your point re: tone being addressed through editing was understood the first time. I mention IMDB because you seemed to use it as a reference point above--I've no interest in debating whether it belongs as an external link. To the matter at hand: If it's established that the films are notable, and his roles were significant, then he would meet notability guidelines. Few of the current sources are valid, and I'm not clear about the multiple reliable sources you've referred to. JNW (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Bradley for deletion because I don't feel that any of the films he's participated in meet the criteria listed in WP:ENT: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (Emphasis added) None of the films he's participated in have been major roles in notable films per imdb (unless we're now considering an uncredited lifeguard in Lindsay Lohan's direct-to TV movie Labor Pains a notable role). If we analyze his plays, none of them have any significant independent coverage outside the subject, which violates WP:GNG for notability. I see where you're coming from, and I guess one could make the case that he's on a path to notability in the future, but as it stands right now he is most definitely not notable. Nomader ^(Talk) 01:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One does not judge an actor by the most lessor of their works, but by the entire body... even if the body includes some minor parts. ALL actors have had beginnings in minor roles. ALL. As for his plays, one does not judge a playwrite based solely upon one minor work that may have had minimal coverage. A playwrite is judged by their entire body of work... a cumilative body that neets GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And so once Bradley has been in major, notable works, he should have an article. For now, his most major part in a notable movie was as an uncredited lifeguard in Lindsay Lohan's direct-to-TV movie Labor Pains... I don't think that meets the notability threshold. Nomader ^(Talk) 01:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, we do not judge an actor only by his minor roles, as ALL actors have had minor roles in big-budget films, and ALL actors have had major roles in small-budget films. That is the nature of the industry and is reflected in any actor's career. So rather than picking only a one minor role as representative, we judge an actor by his entire body of work. And as he has had significant roles in notable works, he does qualify under WP:ENT. To repeatedly return to one uncredited role, acts to ignore those named roles he had in other productions that themselves meet the notability requirements of guideline and policy. No... he is not John Huston.... but then, he is also not Abner Gufflewitz. Wikipedia is not about the most famous... its about those who meet the threshold for inclusion... even if "just". And I am sure that it is a complete oversight on your part that his winning best actor at the easily notable Method Fest[67][68] in 2009 has not even been mentioned, even though that win validates his notability under WP:ANYBIO. From little acorns great oak trees grow... that is, not all actors begin with "top of the heap". Building a career takes a little time, and we are privilaged to be able to include him here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As always Schmidt makes sense. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JNW and per WP:ENT. Part of a group of self-promotional articles from the same person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The individual passes WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. The article now belongs to Wikipedia and is to be judged on its own provable notability, not dismissed because of its newbie author. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you cite specifically how he meets this criteria? Per WP:ENT, he must be a part of notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, have a large cult following, or have innovative contributions through his career as an entertainer– I don't see how he fits any of these points. He does quite a few acting gigs, but all of them were for minor, non-notable films and web series. And per WP:CREATIVE, I don't see how he's seen as an important figure by his peers. He definitely has not created "a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." He is not a "significant monument" or won significant critical attention... Schmidt, I completely disagree with you. I just don't feel this guy is notable per any of the sources– if you can show me specific sources and examples of his notability, I'll re-write the article myself and completely rescind my nomination, but so far you've just been throwing out random passages from Wikipedia's guidelines that on the surface, he doesn't seem to meet. Nomader ^(Talk) 23:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - One is not required to meet ALL the criteria of WP:ENT. He does not need a cult following. He does not need have made innovative contributions to his industry. It is enough that he meets ENT through having had significant roles in of notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. That articles might not yet exist for some of these does not make them non-notable... it simply means the articles do not yet exist. And one is not required to meet ALL the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. He does not have to be seen as an important figure by his peers. Articles showing notability for his works do not have to already exist... as their non-existence means only that they do not yet exist. And if his works have received enough critical commentary and reviews, then THAT is where they receive their own notability and significance... allowing him in per CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I completely agree– what I was saying is that I don't feel he meets any of the criteria, let alone one of them. I participated in two deletion discussions which featured his work (I participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RASH Theater Company and I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squatters (TV series)), and I nominated Bradley because based on my research for the other articles, I noted that none of the films or series he had been in were notable enough for him to meet WP:ENT. I found that one play he wrote had one review from a local paper, but that should not be enough by a long shot to meet WP:CREATIVE. Either way, I don't feel he meets any criteria for either guideline– I'm usually rather reserved about deleting articles, but in this case I feel that there's just not enough notability for this article to exist. Nomader ^(Talk) 01:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That some of his other films do not have articles does not make them non-notable. Their articles are being planned even now. And Squatters (TV series) will be returning as the show definitely has notability, even if poorly writen by its original author. I wonder why it was not listed on the film & TV related delsorts? Perhaps an oversight. But you may rest assured that I and others will not miss it the next time you nominate it, as it will then be properly delsorted, and will get more than two editors offering a comment in a discussion.....
      - Please assume good faith. I'm not some crazy deletionist or anything... the article was not a TV series, and as such was not listed on that delsort. It was mis-labeled in the title, it was fully a web series and had only ever been released on YouTube and other self-released internet video sites. But, if you'd like to create an article at Squatters (web series) that meets the notability criteria, I would be more than happy to read it and enjoy it. If it doesn't, then chances are I might nominate it for deletion. Either way, it's whatever... I'd rather spend my time creating articles and reviewing featured content then debating about an AfD. If you want to re-create it, feel free to let me know and I'll try to help gather up sources if I can find any, but my last search was pretty fruitless. Nomader ^(Talk) 07:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And that oversight aside, you missed lots of potential sources for this individual when deciding to nominate based upon other articles... most importantly, his winning best actor at the quite easily notable Method Fest[69][70] which assures his notability under WP:ANYBIO. Anything else devolves into an uneccessary battle to discredit his already guideline supported notability. Might I simply suppose that in your research into other things, you simply missed it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - And as promised, I'll re-write the article the next time I get the chance, didn't think to look into whether the Method Fest was a notable acting award or not– I only checked for the notable film criteria... pretty bad oversight on my part, apologies. Next time though, don't be a dick. You pretty much insinuated that I'm a deletionist hack that goes around deleting articles without checking them for sources, when in fact I asked you quite some time ago "Can you cite specifically how he meets this criteria?", and you just started debating the policy with me. And stating pretty much that I'd put any article you make up for deletion regardless of the criteria as you insuated with Squatters is rather demeaning as well. Just try to be more civil next time... AfD really isn't worth getting this angry over. That said, I'm withdrawing this nomination per Schmidt's evidence of notability, if an administrator wants to close this. Again, apologies for not checking out the award more thoroughly. Nomader ^(Talk) 07:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the wihdrawal, and apologies to you as well. As I never saw Squatters until it got usefied, I will not send it to WP:Incubation until it has a much stronger set of references. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's quite alright, no worries– if you find the sources for Squatters, let me know, I'd be interested in helping you write it. I'll tell an administrator that I'm withdrawing my nomination per your evidence of notability. Nomader ^(Talk) 23:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As there are still a couple deletion !votes who have not revisited the discssion since I brought up WP:ANYBIO, a closer will read through the discussion itself. However, the simplest way to "withdraw" is to <s>~~strike through~~</s> your nomination comment far above... and immediately below it you can either note "nomination withdrawn" or even vote a "keep"... with perhaps a comment that you have reconsidered based upon this later part of the discussion. As for Squatters, I now have it userfied, and will perform some major cleanup tommorrow. i'll invite you over to look in and assist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep, I left a note on Ron Ritzman's talk page but I figured I had to do something like that and he confirmed my suspicions. AfD isn't usually my cup of tea so I wasn't really familiar with the closing procedures. Sure, just drop me a note on my talk page if you want and I'll see what I can do to help. I'll try to get working on Bradley's article as well if I get the time, which still seems to be copied from other websites per the article's first edit summary ([71]) Nomader ^(Talk) 05:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Straighterline

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

Not notable, no assertion of notablity. No verifiable sources of notability. Appears to be a commercial plug from a single topic editor. Fails WP:SPIP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPIP. Subject fails notability verified through reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cindamuse (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a company that has just started and has really become popular within the news. I am not sure why this is up for deletion and should not be. Please do not delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle andrew (talk • contribs) 13:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and WP:SPIP. The article fails at WP:FAILN and should probably really have been up for CSD at A7, G11, or even both, and appears to have slipped through the net. ~~This is also very possibly a WP:SPA (single use account) for the purpose of advertising the subject's product or service.~~ Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOTDIR). The company on the author's own description, is a start-up and is therefore too new to have accumulated an notability per It's parent organisation will also shortly be up for deletion review. Referenced sources do not make notability, they confirm it , if it is already there. - being 'popular' dos not make the new kid on the block an encyclopedia candidate. Just having McGrawHIll as a customer does not make it notable. AFAIK, the subject does not have a direct government accreditation, even if it is 'partnered' with some universities. Also the article contravenes policy by listing the courses it provides. The world of distance and onine courses is a very vague area.--Kudpung (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is possibly not a SPA, editor has worked on a variety of other articles; although in similar subject matter.--Kudpung (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comments above before re-listing - no reason to change my views has emerged. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an business offering college courses online. No showing of technical, historical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Messenger (Heim & Jones)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Messenger (Heim & Jones)

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

Notability not asserted, does not meet WP:BAND; in particular, the discography apparently does not meet criterion #5. No sources, apart from a MySpace page. GregorB (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is about a small group made up of 2 living persons. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 00:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Saturdays concert tours

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

Delete as this information is already contained at The Saturdays and to be fair a page of this nature is not required as none of the concerts were released as live albums, EPs, video albums, concert tour DVDs etc. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes no point keeping. 96.45.189.199 (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listing these non-notable tours is best left to the band's webpage. The pages on the tours themselves should also go, they are adverts. Abductive (reasoning) 02:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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