Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 12

< 11 July	13 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Schueler chronology[edit]

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

Useless timeline article. Basically all information already included in Jon Schueler. bender235 (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - there is nothing here that justifies a separate page from Jon Schueler. Whiteguru (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete - aboslutely not needed and a redirect would be worse than useless. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to parent article. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every biography already incorporates the dimension of time. No need for a chronology article on a person. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless and unnecessary -- Whpq (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to a biography. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect -- Any useful material in this article should go in the main article on Joh Schueler. I checked the contribution history of these two articles. User:DigitalMind, started both articles in early 2007. Other contributors seem to have made editorial contributions to the Jon Schueler article, but DigitalMind was essentially the sole contributor to this article. DigitalMind hasn't been online for two years. I suggest redirection not because I think Jon Schueler chronology is a likely search term, but rather so the contribution history is not lost, and anyone interested in incorporating elements of this article into the main article can do so. Geo Swan (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heron Cross Pottery[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Only sources are a search page and the companies own website. Google searches don't find anything significant. noq (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No notability either asserted in article nor evident through other searches/means according to WP:COMPANY. Appears to be simply a business. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG - in particular independence of sources. As above, Google search turns up little of consequence. Whiteguru (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. A few mentions in Google Books, but not enough to justify notability. As a company that old, there may be some historical significance, but so far there's nothing to back this up. May change vote if off-Google coverage presented. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Important to keep because: a) continuous history since 1800s b) currently active commercial pottery with attractive products with a market (see their web site), c) I will research it more when I have time.Duncanogi (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find evidence of notability, that's good, but bear in mind that AfDs run for five days and they rarely choose to keep articles solely on the promise that more research will be done later. Arguing to keep an article because your products are good, however, carries no weight at all; anyone can claim on their own website that they stock "attractive products with a market". It's what other people write about the company that counts. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lengthy study yesterday at Bristol public library has unearthed information that I believe justifies keeping this article. No doubt more can be gleaned in Stafford library.Duncanogi (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well you now seem to have created three separate articles covering the same ground William Hines (Staffordshire potter) and Hines Brothers as well as this article. None of them show anything other than they existed - not the same as notability. The current version of this article makes contradictory claims about it continuing until 1937 and still existing today! noq (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Your major and reasonable concern was the duplication of material in the three articles William Hines (the main founder), Hines Brothers (the business name), and Heron Cross Pottery the physical pottery. I have today worked intensively to minimise duplication.

Thanks also for the comment about contradiction. My understanding of the confusion is that:

The physical pottery was called Heron Cross Pottery when opened and still has that name.
The pottery business was called Hines Brothers until taken over by Grimwades in 1907.
The current business was later started with the name Heron Cross Pottery (with the same nameas the physical pottery).
The small bits of history of England! I am sure wording can be improved.

The distinction between and notability of the three articles is the main founder William Hines, founding business name Hines Brothers, and the still existing physical Heron Cross pottery. I ask you to keep these articles on which I will work further when I have time. Duncanogi (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you read WP:notability? That is the main issue - your spreading the same meagre material over multiple smaller articles does nothing to address that. Note that notability is not existence - and length of existence does not give automatic notability. noq (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This editor seems to be on a personal crusade to document his family history and continues despite repeated intervention by numerous editors. This is Wikipedia not Wikia. Perhaps the latter would be a more suitable outlet for this content. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 01:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do appreciate your comments, but this is worthwhile history and I have put much energy into researching this. No blood relations of mine involved.Duncanogi (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Family" can include your wife, Duncan. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have still failed to show how it meets the notability guidelines. That is the basic requirement for an article here. What there is appears to be WP:original research which does not belong on Wikipedia. noq (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Stars are my Guide[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Prod removed. ninety:one 22:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Book apparently does not have an ISBN but an EAN - EAN: 9780620492119 which was found after some digging. Launched in May of 2011, there are no reviews online, but plenty of notices about the launch by BookLive SA and the publisher. Fails WP:NBOOK right now, I would recommend relist after three months to see if any reviews, references or citations are available. Whiteguru (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Whiteguru, there's really no evidence online that this meets NBOOK or the WP:GNG. If it gains non-trivial coverage we could always re-create later. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whiteguru's arguments quiet clearly indicate the article fails to meet our inclusion criteria. No sourcing that I can find. No prejudice to recreation if later gets the coverage needed for inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Pather[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Fails WP:CREATIVE. ninety:one 22:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient sources to meet notability for WP:CREATIVE. Article needs significant improvement and appears to be written by an acquaintance thus raising the spectre of WP:COI Whiteguru (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article bigs up the subject but it is not backed up by tangible achievements or substantial reliably sourced coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pillay[edit]

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

No reliable third-party sources or valid claim to notability. Book fails WP:NBOOK. Prod removed. ninety:one 22:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:BOOK does not apply; while there is reference to his book, the article is principally about matters pre-Internet with military service and not principally about a creative professional as in WP:AUTHOR. Whiteguru (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The rationale for deletion is "No reliable third-party sources or valid claim to notability". I said "Book fails WP:NBOOK", not that this article fails NBOOK - I only mentioned it to deal with any suggestions that his book may somehow give him notability, that was all! In terms of his notability, he only appears to have served as one of many in a particular unit of the ANC, and no valid claim to notability is made in respect of that service. Furthermore, no sources are provided for any of the claims to notability. ninety:one 23:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A single interview listed in the article represents the only bit of coverage in reliable sources. That falls well short of what is needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject appears to lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore likely not notable under the General Notability Guideline. Anotherclown (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem sufficiently notable. 213.246.85.235 (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shadi Aswad[edit]

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

Non-Notable singer, fails WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reliable sources. Whiteguru (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability (music). Safiel (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Payne & Redemption (2012 film)[edit]

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

Unreleased fanfilm of questionable notability. Only references are blogs or sites I'm not sure meet WP:RS. Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Payne: Payne & Redemption. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I represent HARRY PAYNE FILMS LTD, the co-producer of "Payne & Redemption", the feature film. While it is true P&R started as a tribute to the Max Payne character the rights to that character were bought by Fox for the Mark Wahlberg film. Consequently P&R was rewritten and re-envisaged. Payne & Redemption is now a very different film, professionally funded, sourced, directed, produced, acted and directed.

The film is NOT called "Max Payne: Payne & Redemption" it is called, simply, "Payne & Redemption".

As proof of this the INTERNET MOVIE DATABASE (IMDB) has accepted Payne & Redemption as a legitimate listing not least because of its association with us, having just completed another film called THE HAUNTING OF HARRY PAYNE which, again, has no connection with the Max Payne character.

Using Google to track down 5 year old references to the original short film does no-one any favours. This is a totally new FEATURE FILM. Spielberg made a student film called THX 1138 which is a very different entity to the feature film he later made as an established director, also called THX 1138. Same difference in the case of Payne & Redemption.

To call it "a fanfilm" is derogatory and libellous and we ask you to desist in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foreverknight474 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC) — Foreverknight474 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the topic does not appear to meet the general notability guideline, especially with the sources in the article not being reliable. A search for the director's name in Google News Search for the past five years shows nothing useful. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas R. Moore[edit]

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

Photographer of questionable notability. Only had one show with local coverage in the 80s. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Google searches on "Thomas R. Moore" "Lake Charles" and "Thomas R. Moore" "natural light" (to try and differentiate from from other Thomas R. Moores (like this one or this one) shows very few results. Only major reference is about someone else. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment , the 4 different(?) editors who created and worked on this article have only worked on this article. How nice to have such good friends. Self-promotion. MakeSense64 (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I counted six, if you include all the instant helpers who showed up to speak for the subject. I've started a sockpuppet investigation as well, as the duck test seems appropriate. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of the authorship, I am using an open computer and there are no sock puppets involved. The statements made are purely speculation and not based on facts. What the editor stated originally was inaccurate. The number of references does not necessarily validate a fact as long as there is ONE credible source of information, which in this case, is a newspaper. That, in of itself, is a suitable source for this article. I do not appreciate the personal attacks and false statements made about me as a writer. With that included, you make yourself liable. MKeimPhD (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MKeimPhD was found to be one of 12 sockpuppet accounts run by one user. Looks like I'm not "liable"... MikeWazowski (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, liable for what? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a thinly veiled legal threat, James... doesn't matter now, tho... MikeWazowski (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it was intended to be a thinly veiled legal threat, but unless it says what you are "liable" for it is meaningless. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No substantial coverage in reliable sources anywhere, as far as I can see. Of the two references in the article, the only one which is online does not even mention Moore. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Using sockpuppets to write good things about your own article doesn't work. Self promotion is not welcome. Astronaut (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nazarene. Consensus is that this is not a fit subject for an article and that any useable content should be merged to the appropriate articles. The target of the redirect is one of several that have been proposed, it can be changed as deemed appropriate by editorial consensus. Sandstein 06:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notzrim[edit]

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

The article is, basically, about a term used in different circumstances by different groups to, apparently, describe groups which are not apparently related. So far as I can see, there are no encyclopedic articles which clearly relate to the topic directly. In fact, two of the apparent sources used to establish notability seem to be dictionary definitions of the term, and such dictionary definitions are generally not counted as sufficient to establish notability. I do note that there are books listed on Google as well as at least one new religious movement which use the term prominently, but there does not seem to be any reason to believe either the books or NRMs are themselves notable. I have every reason to believe that the article, as it exists, will never reach encyclopedic quality, given the various ways in which the term has been used and the lack of immediately obvious and/or noted connections between them. I believe the best alternative might be to turn the page to a redirect or a dab page, and that, potentially, it might also be best locked to some degree to prevent recreation of similarly problematic articles in the future. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -John Carter (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -John Carter (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support/delete and REDIRECT either to existing dab Nazarene or to Nazarene (title), since all Notzri(m) is is the Hebrew translation of Nazarene (title), just as there is no separate article for nasraya (ܕܢܨܪܝܐ) in Aramaic, or Nasrani (نذاريون) in Arabic. Paste across any relevant/sourced non-duplicate content. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Remark: Delete and Redirect are mutually exclusive. --Lambiam 07:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor2020 spent a considerable amount of time on this. On that basis alone I think it should not be deleted. Just look at the references section. ---Canstusdis (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the time and effort of In ictu oculi and Firecircle among many others. (I didn't originally look at the entire revision history of Notzrim. I'm in awe.) Nevertheless, I'm in agreement with Ovadyah's comments below: "...deletion of all this sourced content is out of the question." I suppose that makes me in favor of Redirect. ---Canstusdis (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's purely Wikipedia terminology that AfD is often articles for delete and REDIRECT, there'd be no need to salt a redlink in this case, but there almost certainly will be a need to protect the REDIRECT to prevent another POVfork being spun out of it as happened to Jayjg 3 years ago. The academically credible refs are mainly duplicated on the relevant articles anyway. I undertake to do a thorough check and make sure no mainstream modern WP:sources are lost in the AfD/REDIRECT process. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you think best, my friend. If you need some help in any way feel free to ask me. I'm a pretty good proofreader. ---Canstusdis (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If Notzrim is simply the Hebrew word for early Jewish Christians, and if we already have an article about the early Jewish Christians under the title Nazarene, then it's a duplicate/fork. If the notzrim were not the same thing as the Nazarenes, then I haven't been able to see that from the article. PiCo (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I already pointed out on the Notzrim talk page, merging this content into other articles is not a simple copy/paste editing job. Part of the article is about the Hebrew name Notzrim as a synonym for Christians. That can be merged into the Nazarene (title) article. Part is about Nazarenes as a Christian sect. That can be merged into the Nazarene (sect) article. However, the article also covers a Samaritan/Jewish sect unrelated to Christianity - the Nasaraioi - that practiced daily immersions and are somehow culturally related to the Mandaeans. The article could be broken up and merged into these three articles. However, deletion of all this sourced content is out of the question. Ovadyah (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no article Nasaraioi - do you mean Nazarenes (sect)? PiCo (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This content implying that the Nazarenes and the Nasaraioi are the same sect is mistaken. Whoever wrote this should find something else to work on. Ovadyah (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yeshu#Yehoshua Ha-Notzri, merging any usable and appropriate material to articles such as Yeshu, Judaism's view of Jesus, Nazarene (title), and Nazarene (sect). The present article is an unsupportable mishmash of elements tenuously related by Hebrew terminology. --Lambiam 07:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (which includes merge). Nothing is gained by deletion, and much would be lost. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This article is a mish-mash of various topics/POVFORK. Whatever is in it of value should be merged to the relevant articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NB FYI page protection expired and the Knanaya (Indian Nasrani) IPs are back again, one of them just short-circuited this discussion by doing a page REDIRECT to Nazarenes which was a double redirect to Nazarene (sect) (which is about the 4th Century group), though the more sensible REDIRECT for what is just a Hebrew spelling of Nazarene (title) would be Nazarene (title) (per Hebrew wikipedia FWIW) given that no Hebrew text refers to the Nazarene (sect) of the 4th Century, but only to mainstream Christians as per Nazarene (title). I can't undo, so have fixed to neutral Nazarene disamb page while AfD/REDIRECT discussion is ongoing

NB Ovadyah and Michael Price, the comments above, with respect, appear to be related to fringe theories about pre-Christian Nazarenes (?) and aren't relevant here, and those theories are already overweight in the main articles. The issue here is simple; AfD this Dicdef/POVfork, and REDIRECT it where? Lambian, Notzrim is plural so cannot be redirected to Jesus, the Hebrew word means Christians, plural. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are alleging some kind of conflict of interest here, then spit it out. I might ask the same question, with respect, about editors that appear to be determined to delete reliably sourced content rather than merge parts of it into main articles. Ovadyah (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where, in the section Yeshu#Yehoshua Ha-Notzri, the term Notzri is discussed, it can simply be added that this is the standard term for "Christian" in both Rabbinic and modern Hebrew, and that the plural is Notzrim. --Lambiam 16:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lambian, thanks for having fixed the IP's preemptive edit, I didn't know the whole page could be restored like that. Yes I guess Notzri singular belongs in Yeshu, but actually Yeshu itself is overripe for an AfD as it is also a POVfork and Dicdef, duplicating material covered in Jesus in the Talmud and other articles. Ultimately articles should have English titles in English Wikipedia, unless they represent concepts which genuinely have no English. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect as per Jayjg. Imo, there should be a proposal to merge to get wider community involvement before the specifics are decided of what is to be merged and where the redirect is going. I don't care where it goes, but this should be an open process that allows time for alternative proposals and reasoned arguments on the talk page. Ovadyah (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Um, so far as I know, Ovadyah, this discussion is the proposal to get wider community involvement in the material. AfD is not only for discussing possible deletion, but also any and all other proposals, including merger. And I still do not see anyone directly addressing what seems to me to be the primary reason I initiated this discussion, which is that, so far as I can see, there is no clear evidence to date that this subject meets basic notability guidelines as per WP:N. And also, Ovadyah, if you are as per your earlier comments alleging that others are, to quote you directly, "determined to delete reliably sourced content rather than merge parts of it into main articles," please be so good as to indicate specifically who you are referring to. So far as I have seen, no one has actually made statements to that effect yet, and I don't see any particular value in making unsupported insinuations about the motivations of other editors. Personally, if either the apparently nonnotable books or NRMs were to ever be clearly notable enough for separate articles, I don't see that there would be any objections from anyone to their existence. So far as I know, they haven't been, however. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you speak for In ictu oculi now. That's good to know because I asked my question in response to her/him. Perhaps that is because you are both members of the same editing cabal known as the User_talk:In_ictu_oculi#Jewish_Christian_workgroup or User_talk:In_ictu_oculi#Jewish_Christianity_work_group. Ovadyah (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's something that John's proposed before and I am increasingly sympathetic. There is too much overweight/fringe/OR/POV material on a wide belt of Wikipedia articles relating to these subjects - a sort of John Allegro effect - and maybe a "cabal" trying to put mainstream modern SBL and academic secondary and teritary sources into articles would be a good thing. However for the here and now we're discussing a deletion for Notzrim as a POVfork and Dicdef. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming what I have suspected for some time now. Btw, you forgot to sign your post. Ovadyah (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ovadyah, there's nothing to suspect, removing overweight/fringe/OR/POV material is a Wikipedia norm. (anyway, subject for another time and place maybe). Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would like to point out that although I am grateful that Ovadyah did, apparently, eventually, acknowledge that he was intending to criticize In ictu oculi specifically in the comment of his I first referred to, at no point prior to my comment did he make that clear, and that I believe it was on that basis a reasonable question to ask of Ovadyah. The fact that he chose to react in such a way as to make assumptions about others based on at best insufficient evidence, effectively violating WP:AGF twice on the same page, regarding two different editors, is I believe a potentially serious cause for concern. Yes, I too believe it is possible that certain individuals who are perhaps overly reliant on Google and other search engines to source articles may come to false conclusions about what is and is not reliable and/or notable, and that is a rather serious concern. In fact, comments to that effect have been made before in wikipedia, and not just by editors involved here. I myself would have no objections to the page being userfied into In ictu oculi's userspace so that he would have a chance to ensure that the content be transposed to the relevant articles and existing dab page before that content is outright deleted. That, honestly, seems to me perhaps the best way to proceed here. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter, the only one showing bad faith here is you for accusing me of violating WP:AGF and explicitly questioning my motives. In ictu oculi and I have a demonstrated productive editing relationship, and assumptions of good faith on her/his part are not an issue for me. The real issue is a general pattern of "correcting" articles in this category by "removing overweight/fringe/OR/POV material". This is a laudable goal when speaking in generalities, but the devil is in the details and it depends on what one means by "mainstream" content. For example, names derived from Hebrew are apparently a problem for your editing group (also see the ongoing debate at Talk:Yeshu#AfD), while names derived from Greek and Latin are seen as "mainstream". Moving the article to In ictu oculi's user page does not make the editing process more transparent and encourage community involvement. Therefore, I am opposed to your suggestion for that reason only. Ovadyah (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ovadyah, I'm glad we have a productive editing relationship, let's try and keep it that way.

> names derived from Hebrew are apparently a problem for your editing group, while names derived from Greek and Latin are seen as "mainstream".< firstly "Editing group" is a bit premature, the Christianity work group is dormant,but secondly:

Notrzim is not a name derived from Hebrew it is a Hebrew plural noun.
Nazoraoi is not a name derived from Greek it is a Greek plural noun.
Nazareni is not a name derived from Latin it is a Latin plural noun (e.g. in omnibus synagogis sub nomine Nazarenorum anathematizent uocabulum Christianum (in Esaiam 5, 18-19).

These terms all have their place on Hebrew/Latin/Greek wikipedia, but this is English language Wikipedia and article headings should be in English.

When does AfD end? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point. Perhaps the title of the article is intrinsically unsuitable as a dictionary definition, while the content of the article is suitable but should be merged with a redirect for reasons Jayjg articulated earlier. Unfortunately, the discussion of whether Hebrew names are suitable for article titles is being held at Talk:Yeshu#AfD) rather than here. The AfD ends when an admin who did not participate in this process comes along and says it ends. Ovadyah (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If "Notzrim" is a plural Hebrew noun then it's not worth having an article about. Here's a page from the web that says it's something else - a Gnostic sect. It looks to me like a copy of an old Wikipedia article, and I have no idea how accurate it it, but at least it's clear about its subject - which is more than can be said of Notzrim at the moment. If that piece contains a germ of truth, and can be traced to verifiable sources, it would make a good basis for the reform of our article.PiCo (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pixilated Theory[edit]

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

Band does not meet any of the music group notability guidelines. Little significant coverage in reliable (i.e. non-blog) independent sources. Contested speedy and PROD. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~In my opinion the following have been met according to the wikipedia guidelines -

1. "Has won or placed in a major music competition." - Makeastar Competition that has been listed

2. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc." - Makeastar was shown on the FUSETV Network (A Major network).

3. "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." Sirius XMU on Sirius Satellite Radio and LIVE365 a major internet radio network.

4. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." - RadioIndy's Team has Reviewed the group.

5. "Has won or been nominated for a major music award" - GrIndie Award

- The Group's album sales are also the top on CDBaby (which is listed on wikipedia as notable). However, since CDBaby changes the top seller page rotation, I have yet to find a suitable citation for the page. Dan o d 1988 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)— Dan o d 1988 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - In response to your claims, re: #1) "Won or placed" means either they were a finalist, or they won. This is not the case - they were one of "over 200 bands and solo artists who uploaded their music videos to MakeAStar.com to compete for a $10,000 grand prize in the Original Music Contest." A clip was shown on TV - that's not winning or placing. Re: #2)they did not perform music *for* FuseTV, the MakeAStar program just included a 20 second clip of them as part of a bracket. That's almost the textbook definition of a trivial mention. Re: #3) You keep making this claim, but it's completely unreferenced (or poorly referenced) in the article. Re:#4) The RadioIndy blog is not a reliable source - which also means that #5 is shot, as the GrIndie Award is hardly a major music award. Your CDbaby claims are not corroborated by the CDbaby website, which makes the claims incredibly suspect. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to the response - #1 In order to be featured on the television showing on FUSETV, they had to be a finalist. Therefore, they had to have placed to appear on said show. #2 I'll give you that they did not perform for FUSETV itself. However, like I said in #1, they had to be a finalist to appear on the television show. #3 Still trying to locate the site I found for this reference. I thought I put it in the article, but due to MikeWazowski's continued deletion and editing of different references/information I put in the article, I am presently confounded by what/why things are missing in the article now. I am also still looking for legit references that the group has been played on KTBG (A notable station according to Wikipedia) in Warrensburg, Missouri as I have heard them played on this station before. Please be patient with me as I find new information on the subject since I am new to wikipedia and constant bartering over deletion of this article is reducing my efficiency to create a decent article. #4 I am still puzzled at the continued denial of RadioIndy, as RadioIndy itself is not a blog. I'm guessing that the blog-format in how they give awards is what might be the problem. If I give you an alternative link for the review "Pixilated Theory on RadioIndy" would this resolve the issue surrounding the review? #5 -see #4- -- As for the CDBaby Deal, I believe that the two songs I listed on the article were top sellers for the month of June 2011. Thus, since it is July 2011 they are no longer listed on the reference page I listed. It will continue to search for this information as I have mentioned ^ above. I would be extremely beneficial if I could get some assistance by others on the article to improve it. Dan o d 1988 (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources (none whatsoever) to meet general notability. With respect to meeting WP:BAND, I disagree that they meet any of them. Make A Star isn't a major music competition; it's just another music competition. They haven't composed a theme for a TV series. Satellite radio is a highly fractured channel, and the internet isn't a major broadcast medium for the purposes of notability. And GrIndie isn't a major music award. Good luck to them, but they don't meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of coverage, CDBaby sales are not a national chart and Whpq is right about the other above claims. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I applaud Dan o d 1988 for attempting to find sources to fulfill the notability criteria for bands, but the sources do fall short. I thought there might be some compounding quality across all the sources, but many of them are not appropriate. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 23:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D.A.V. public school,cci[edit]

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

Unreferenced and improper writing of article. —AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 18:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - have you made any attempt to find references for this subject before nominating it for deletion? LadyofShalott 23:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hint - try clicking here. LadyofShalott 23:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my link above. LadyofShalott 23:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have cleaned up what was a total cluster****. I have also moved to a better article name. Safiel (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the reasons why we keep high schools are given in the essay WP:NHS. Schools in India invariably have a very poor Internet presence so, to avoid systemic bias, time should be given for local sources to be found. TerriersFan (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 23:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Baliyan[edit]

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

Unreferenced autobiography article. —AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 18:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where to start? Is there any evidence that User:Ravisiwal is Pradeep Baliyan or sufficiently related to justify the claim that this is an "autobiography"? And neither "unreferenced" nor "autobiography" is sufficient ground for bringing an article to AfD. And further, once again this nominator has brought an article to AfD within hours of its creation. Once again, I commend WP:BEFORE to this nominator, as something to read, understand and act upon. AllyD (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article indicates that the subject is a former member of a legislative assembly; a reference has now been added to support this (from the first page on a Google search - WP:BEFORE again); thus the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN. AllyD (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article indicates the notability and (now) has a supporting reference. There is no evidence that it is an autobiography - I wonder if the nominator, whose first language is not English, understands the distinction between autobiography and biography in general. Even if it were an autobiography, for a one-sentence substub statement of fact, it really would not matter in the least. LadyofShalott 22:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article are there as per guidelines WP:POLITICIAN. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.Sehmeet singh (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Sources were found for the website, causing nominator to withdraw nomination. Please be aware that AfDs are Not for article clean-up. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bridge to Total Freedom[edit]

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

This page has one sole reference = xenu.net. This website should neither be considered reliable nor NPOV. Therefore, I recommend the removal of this source and propose a cleanup for the page. If a cleanup cannot be made, I propose removing this page. --Scifilover386 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at least one of those external links can be changed to a reference, and while xenu.net is critical of CoS, it is considered reliable. Other online references for CoS subjects are hard to find because CoS keeps suing them out of existence. --Versa geek 18:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We're not here to debate CoS legal actions, we're here to debate the merit of a source. Xenu.net is most certainly not a neutral source as a majority of the information listed on the site is negative against CoS. Additionally, at best, its credibility is similar to a blog. On the website, it even says, "I, [HIS NAME], am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions." Therefore, this is not a reliable source and violates WP:SPS. In adhering to WP:POLICY, I strongly recommend removing this source. If someone has other information or academic sources that they can cite, great. If not, this page does not have supporting information and should therefore be deleted. Scifilover386 (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCLEANUP AFD is not for cleanup. Tag that it needs references. Please withdraw your nomination, and in the future only make them for articles you believe should be deleted, not just those that just need some work. Dream Focus 19:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator must have missed the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reference at the bottom of the page. Simple mistake, could happen to anyone. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. I missed that source. I'll revoke this. Apologies all for wasting your time. I'll format the page to reflect that source. Scifilover386 (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can hit Google news archive search at the top of the AFD [1] and find that article there among other news coverage of this. Dream Focus 20:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. What had, at DRV, been deemed a problematic prior close by Aaron Brenneman functioned better as a deletion rationale. All AfDs need to be based more on strength of argument than numbers, but perhaps this one even more so. There is a rough split between keeps and deletes here, but some of the keep !votes are quite problematic ("Notability established," "agree with editor x," etc.). On the delete side, Aaron Brenneman and to a lesser extent SW provide detailed arguments for the view that there are real problems with the available sources, which are already pretty minimal. Several other editors found these arguments persuasive, while only a couple really responded to them negatively. Hobit, who discussed this with Aaron, continued to support keeping but conceded that we had just "one very solid source," meaning the question of "multiple" reliable sources was at least somewhat fuzzy even for that editor. DGG offers perhaps the best keep rationale, but what it boils down to is a particular, and not necessarily invalid, interpretation of what constitutes "significant coverage" when it comes to these kind of products. If more people were explicitly making a point like DGGs things might be different, but instead what I'm seeing is not a policy-based consensus for that view but rather one for the arguments laid out by several in the delete camp, namely that the sources we have are neither reliable enough nor numerous enough to rise to the level required by policy. Note that the only choice here in closing was between deletion or no consensus--there was clearly not a consensus to keep. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gargoyle Router Firmware[edit]

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

Seems to lack significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. The article was written by the software's author. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, I'm not finding anything to satisfy the GNG either. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job Widefox finding those sources, though I'm not 100% sure that they prove notability so I'm more neutral than keep now. In any case, if this is kept the article should be moved to Gargoyle (Firmware) or something like that. I only searched for the exact phrase "Gargoyle Router Firmware" so I guess that's why I missed those (or maybe I just suck at this). Qrsdogg (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with move suggestion. Widefox (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A quick search turned up multiple refs establishing notability. Article now has adequate references. WP:GNG satisfied. Notability established. Other problems (COI, slight advertisement style, and unsourced claims needing refs are all tagged.) Widefox (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be more specific as to which references you found? FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with Widefox Dcxf (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see article for references. I tagged rescue, although it is already rescued IMHO Widefox (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cybershack and Linux Magazine are reliable sources. Dream Focus 00:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of those articles are very short ~ 200 words each. (That's less than half of the length of this deletion discussion, if you're curious). They also have virtually no independent opinion on the product, basically just reproducing manufacturer's information. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of reliable third-party coverage beyond the computer-enthusiast community. And I wouldn't call a TV programme's associated blog a particularly reliable source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would there need to be reliable third-party coverage beyond the computer-enthusiast community? Most things don't get coverage beyond their target audience, since not everyone is going to care about everything else. And if the television show is a reliable source, then so is their website's review of things. Do you agree Linux Magazine is a reliable source? Dream Focus 11:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because an encyclopaedia is not meant to be a repository of information "that may only interest a specific audience" (to use {{over detailed}}'s wording). Hence WP:GEOSCOPE in WP:EVENT, the requirement for "at least some of these works serving a general audience" in WP:NBOOK, etc. Enthusiast communities are notorious for talking about the minutiae of their interest in excessive detail, hence such coverage is generally not considered evidence of notability. Television shows, like all other media, are of uneven reliability and "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Weekly "information-type show"s tend to be of lower reliability than a news programme or documentary. And the blog-associated-with-a-weekly-"information-type show" tends to be lower again. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every article only interest a specific audience. Do you think most people enjoy reading history, or articles about various species of plants? It gets coverage, and nothing gained by destroying it. Do you have any proof that a television show wouldn't bother checking facts? I find that unlikely if its tech related since their target audience would the ones smart enough to notice any mistakes and call them out on it. Dream Focus 01:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the nonsense in WP:BOOKS about a general audience has been removed by consensus on the talk page. So you can't cite it anymore. Dream Focus 01:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You cited WP:GEOSCOPE which is about local news coverage, and thus nothing to do with this. Its not a small town making a big deal about a potato festivals. "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable." Dream Focus 01:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I made it VERY CLEAR that I was citing WP:GEOSCOPE as an EXAMPLE OF A GENERAL PRINCIPLE! Such misrepresentation, as well as being an all-too-typical violation of WP:TALK, is the sort of thing that gives me a deep and abiding regard for yourself and your fellow ARS regulars. If I may be permitted to present a very-slightly-edited version of Pascal.Tesson's argument in Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)/Archive 2#Not a general interest encylopedia, it may elucidate my argument:

I think you are misunderstanding the intention here. The idea is to avoid claims that a ~~book~~ [piece of hardware] deserves an article when it has only been discussed in ridiculously small circles. Wikipedia, after all, is meant to be an encyclopedia not a database of ~~books~~ [computer hardware and software]. I have in my ~~bookcase~~ [computer room] right here tons of specialized ~~math books~~ [pieces of computer hardware and software]. All of them, at some point, have been reviewed and I do mean all. And all of them have been reviewed in perfectly reasonnable, credible publications but extremely specialized ones that target a very very restricted audience. I see absolutely no point in keeping articles on all of these ~~books~~ [pieces of computer hardware and software].

Given the existence of {{over detailed}}, it is reasonable to suppose that the focus of Wikipedia is not on information "that target[s] a very very restricted audience." Therefore it is reasonable to avoid whole articles that target such an audience. Therefore it is reasonable to seek evidence that a topic has a potential readership beyond such an audience. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your example of a general principle is ridiculous. Unrelated thing as I have said. And you insult the ARS regulars, and yet you are one yourself, showing up at most articles tagged for Rescue and finding a reason to say delete. Dream Focus 11:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again we have the logical contortionism. I gave two EXAMPLES that were EXPLICITLY from different areas of notability guidelines, I did not state nor did I imply that either was directly applicable here. As you are wll aware, I am not a member (nor would I want to be) of the ARS. I am merely an editor in good standing who attempts to correct the systemic imbalance that CAT:ARS creates in AfD debates. If you don't like your misconduct being tied to the ARS, then tough. Each time an ARS member comes on an ARS-flagged AfD and misrepresents other editors' comments, the article under discussion, or the extent, applicability or reliability of the the sources, they are bringing the ARS into further disrepute. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources quoted are not "extremely specialized ones that target a very very restricted audience" so I don't see how the books example is applicable, directly or otherwise. It's not a circle of a few dozen mathematicians, it's many thousands of open-source enthusiasts. The {{over detailed}} template seems to be speaking to trivia and lists within an article rather than the notability of an article's subject, and suggests moving or fixing said content rather than deleting it, so I don't see how that applies either. Such a minor template surely doesn't override the GNG. Dcxf (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[The following was posted [by Aaron Brenneman[2] and restored] by Hrafn 2011-07-12T18:25:31]. Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC) -- Misattribution corrected. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Delete

The nomination claims this does not meet the General notability guideline, itself a subsection of the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Both of these are guidelines that support and are subordinate to the verification policy.

Since this article does have sources, the debate here is "Do these sources rise to the level intended by the policy?"

The sources themselves:

"Gargoyles to keep a watch over your PC". Cybershack. 21 Jan 2011. [3] Retrieved June 16, 2011.
- 195 words, no attribution (that's very important) in the "news" section of an on-line outlet for the very minor television show Cybershack. Even brief perusal of the other "news" items shows them to be :press releases in all but name.
- The relevant place to look here, than, would be Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source
- I do not believe that this qualifies as a reliable source. There does not appear to be indepent editorial oversight. (That's another way of saying "it's just press release churn.)
Kristian Kissling (17 Jul 2009). "Gargoyle: Web Interface for Router Configuration". Linux Magazine. [4] Retrieved June 16, 2011.
- 210 words, mostly identical to above, also in the "news" section...
- All as per above.
Koen Vervloesem (22 Dec 2010). "Gargoyle: completely open source and easy to use". LWN.net. Retrieved June 16, 2011
- This is an actual article about the product, huzzah! But is this a reliable source? This is, is it "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?"
- From the home page "What is LWN.net? LWN.net is a reader-supported news site dedicated to producing the best coverage from within the Linux and free software development communities. See the LWN FAQ for more information, and please consider subscribing to gain full access and support our activities."
- I'll skip to the end, and spare you the other diggin' I've done: This does appear to be a reliable source with respect to reliability and third party, but it must be admitted that this is a niche publication and thus does not have a "reputation."
- That third one is most important if the facts are disputed, but here we're really just discussing scope, which is what the crux of this is about, so I'll defer that until we finish on...
Eric Bishop. "Gargoyle FAQ". gargoyle-router.com. Retrieved 21 June 2011
- Not a "reliable source" as we mean it on Wikipedia as opposed to what the words actually mean. "Why so?" you may ask.
- Per [5] the lead contributor is "Eric Bishop (gargoyle-router.com): Project founder, lead developer of Gargoyle." So not "third-party."

This now means that no matter if it is decided that LWN is reliable, it doesn't have multiple reliable sources.

With respect to the quality of the debate that has occurred here, I'd strongly suggest that people work much harder at understanding and applying policies.

There is no source that gets the blanket approval that was applied to Cybershack and Linux Magazine.
Even the most cursory glance at these references should have shown they were not appropriate.
The initial authoritative statements by Dream Focus and Widefox lack anything falsifiable. Please don't make bald claims like "Notability established," give reasons for these claims. This opens the floor to calm collegial debate.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Deletion discussion reopened and relisted after rough consensus to do so at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 1#Gargoyle Router Firmware; please do not close for another 7 days following this timestamp.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 17:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG due to lack of reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the topic, as analyzed by the editor above.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the LWN.net and Linux Magazine articles to be RSes. The second is not great, but it does seem to meet WP:N. I also don't buy the "specialized sources aren't acceptable" line. I see nothing in policy or guidelines to make me think such a view has consensus and I'm certainly very strongly opposed to such a thing. Hobit (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, [6] looks like a reliable source with short but non-trivial coverage). Hobit (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, Hobit, that almost nothing gets a blanket "it's a reliable source," editorial judgement is required on each piece. (Argh. At one stage we had an excellent guide on reliable sources that covered "churn" articles like this one, but I cannot find it now.) Anything that appears in the bite-sized sections on an on-line magazine (be that section called "tips" or "news" or the ilk) is a de-facto press release. TechSpot has nine staff. Nine. Anyone who has worked in publishing (and I realise I'm committing "argument by authority" here) knows that you're desperate for content. All the time, the voracious masses demand more content that they haven't seen before, and this is made even worse by twitter and rss feeds. To feed the beast you produce large volume/low demand articles like this one, which in addition to being easy to write are impossible to get wrong: You quote the specs, sprinkle some opinion, you're done. Here's the whole bit on Gargoyle

Gargoyle was originally available as a third web interface for OpenWRT but it's now being released as a full firmware image for routers such as the Linksys WRT54G series and the Fonera. Among its features are dynamic DNS, quality of service, access restrictions, bandwidth quota management, bandwidth monitoring tools, and an AJAX-based GUI. Gargoyle's developer says the firmware's primary focus is to provide a polished interface for advanced features that is at least as easy to configure as any existing firmware. A list of compatible devices is available here -- it supports a bunch of Broadcom and Atheros based routers -- and installation instructions can be found on this page.

It's not even unusual to send a quick one-line email "Hey, we're thinking of featuring you..." and get the person to write the text themselves. (Is that what happened here? Who knows.) The long and the short of it is that we simply cannot base an article on pieces like this. And there are tens on thousands of pieces like this. It's also part of why Wikipedia:Software notability ended up rejected and why Wikipedia:Notability (software) is only an essay. I'd suggest that all editors spend some time on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to gain a deeper understanding of the issues involved. I was unable to locate any discussion of techspot specifially there, but the discussion where it's mentioned is a good example of how hard we have to think about these sorts of things. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Here's the whole bit on Gargoyle", that's taken out of context. The whole article is not a de-facto press release, it's a survey of popular router firmware, and Gargoyle's inclusion in this survey speaks directly to its notability. Also the mention of Techspot in RSN that you linked to is referring to a download listing [7] where the text in question is clearly headed "Publisher's Description" and is not editorial content. Dcxf (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, "no". A "reliable source" can refer to the creator, the publisher, or the article itself. Do you seriously have qualms about the reliability of any of those three in this context? The only thing I'm seeing is that you have a theory that the article was effectively ghostwritten and someone else's byline put on it. That's a pretty serious charge and could even be viewed as a BLP violation. I'd suggest you consider striking it if you can't provide evidence other than your own theories. Now, assuming you have no real objection to the publisher or the author and can't identify anything about this article that makes it not a reliable source (and I've seen nothing sof far), we are left with the question of if this coverage is significant. I'm perfectly willing to accept that others might not see the coverage in two of those articles to be significant. One is quite short and one only provides material on this topic as part of a wider review. But I personally think both are significant (and I'd hope you'd grant it's not clear cut either way, so we are left with opinions). In summary, I think you need to drop the "not a RS" line and move on to if the coverage is significant. You have an arguable case there (though I disagree), but your RS case is not only weak, it's built solely on your own speculation of plagiarism, something I find unacceptable in this context. Hobit (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's, err, quite an impassioned response. First please for the love of toast don't throw out "BLP violation" when there is no relationship between what I said and the policy on living people. Biographies and the BLP policies are serious business. Anyway, below (in my response to Unscintillating) I've provided some links to show that the text is so short and the information so sparse that phrases picked from any regurgitated article looks very much alike. Also I'd suggest that you do some reading on this before you fire off accusation of accusation of plagiarism, which is a different kettle of fish altogether. Wire sources frequently don't require continuity of attribution, and press releases fall into the "sweat of the brow" area of copyright in that they are supposedly just information and thus again no attribution is required. (Or desired, usually.) While this is a slight diversion from this article,

[8] This is a discussion by a guy who used to write press releases that makes no bones about repackaging and reselling.
Anything that deals with "proliferation of errors" is usually deeply informative. It's a common term in information theory, and it only took me a few moments to find this article that deals with the problem.
[9] This is a how-to on writing "reporter friendly" press releases.
[10] This one is "funny at first" where they out-and-out offer money for running the press release. It becomes less funny when you see the comment by Guy Clapperton, an honest-to-goodness-if-small-time journalist says "the business model isn't unproven elsewhere."
[11] Here is one that not only talks about how inaccuracies get in, but almost mirrors my language above about filling the content hole, "tight budgets and ambitious amounts of air time to fill" indeed.

I'm not sure what else I can do for you on this matter, since all the world's information cannot be reduced to a sound bite and linked from a diff. But seriously, find someone you trust who knows about publishing and ask them. This high-volume churn is business model 101 for online magazines. Read around a little bit and it's trivially easy to verify that this is the case. It's also trivially easy to demonstrate, just pick a phrase from the article and google it to see how many times and in various forms it appears: "dynamic DNS, quality of service, access restrictions". Some of these are techspot itself being recycled, but if you're not getting the picture now I'm not doing a very good job of painting it. This is not to suggest that there is anything illegal or underhanded about any of this, it's just how things are done. These little bites of words are not "reliable" since they don't have normal vetting standards applied. If you really insist, I'll find more links to papers that discuss this, but even a cursory search on your own should satisfy you, really. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit too vehement, and for that I apologize. However you _do_ seem to be claiming that this author copied something without attribution. You have now (with the Google search) built a decent, though not great, case for the claim. Without that I do think you were making an unfounded claim of plagiarism, and yes even though this page isn't a BLP, it is still a BLP issue and I'd urge you to be careful with making such claims without evidence. If you insist, we can take it to BLP/N and see what others think. In any case, back to the topic at hand. I think we have one very solid source and a couple of acceptable, though weaker, sources. I still think this meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was overboiled in my response as well, and was going to tone it down a bit, but you responded first. (-_-) After all that, I think we agree that there is only one solid source. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The bold part of my summary at the recent DRV began revert closing. It appears that an editor described above as "showing up at most articles tagged for Rescue and finding a reason to say delete", has seen fit to superimpose a personal interpretation on the DRV discussion and turn what I opined be reverted into an unattributed delete !vote here at this AfD. I have restored attribution to the comment and marked it as a "textquote". I also note that I analyzed point 2 of the AfD closing comments on July 9, finding that it was not coherent analysis, and note that this analysis went unchallenged through the end of the DRV three days later. Unscintillating (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV contained multiple recommendations to "Demote closing statement to a delete recommendation" or similar, so I see no reason to censor Aaron Brenneman's comments. I would like to thank Unscintillating for their irrelevant ad hominem attack. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take silence as consent with respect to your comments at the deletion review: Your primary analysis was that item number two in a list has "no clear antecedent." There is also the oddity of your suggestion that the closing administrator should have emailed Linux Magazine? Regardless of these, if you had performed the search that you yourself suggested, you'd have found that were two thousand five hundred and ninety results for "at least as easy to configure as any existing firmware." and "Gargoyle." (Choose the "show omitted" option so that you can see the similarities.)
Aside from the fact that this fails the spirit of the General notability guide, it also makes it quite hard to write an article that is not in itself another press release. Take the lead sentence, google it and remove wikipedia: Gargoyle "interface for small, widely available routers" -wikipedia. Note that the first result is the Gargoyle FAQ, and then it's content farms as far as the eye can see. From this narrow and incestuous base it is simply not possible to build an article that complies with our core content policy of being unbiased.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly surprising that the article's author would use the description of the software from the FAQ. Also your description of the Linux Magazine article as "mostly identical" to the Cybershack article is incorrect, apart from the single-line summary they are quite different. [12]Dcxf (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no idea what that tinypic is showing since I can't see it, but just reading the text will show that they are almost identical:

Cybershack: Gargoyle is a firmware interface for most small and widely used routers such as the Linksys WRT54G series, the La Fonera and other Linux-based routers that is designed to provide functionality above and beyond what the default software provides. This includes such things as dynamic DNS, quality of service, and bandwidth monitoring tools.

LinuxWeb: Gargoyle is a router interface for devices of the Linksys WRT54G series and other small routers such as the La Fonera. [...] It provides functions not usually found in router firmware, such as smart DynDNS support, QoS and used bandwidth monitoring.

There is a tiny infobite here ("be sure ahead of time that your device supports OpenWrt") or a bit of purple prose there ("miles of Ethernet cables"), but these pieces are effectively identical. Pay particular attention to that list item at the end. Ask yourself what are the chances that two truly independently written articles would have the words "provide function[s]/[ality] such [things] as dyn[amic] DNS, q[uality] o[f] s[ervice], and [used] bandwidth monitoring" in the exact same order? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I didn't see this before, the Gargolye FAQ:

So, what is this "Gargoyle" Project all about? Gargoyle is an interface for small, widely available routers such as the Linksys WRT54G series. It provides functionality and customizability above and beyond what the default software provides including sophisticated quality of service and bandwidth monitoring tools.

So can we please now stop with the pretense that these are actual articles, written by actual journalists? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So they are "mostly identical", apart from all the differences? For example the Linux Magazine piece reports on the improved features in the version 1.0 release, and gives some guidance on downloading and installation, all of which is absent from the Cybershack piece. As I said it's unremarkable that such a short piece about the software would draw from the description of the software from the FAQ, and probably from the software release announcement as well. It's clearly more than just a reprinted press release, it's non-trivial coverage from a publication that meets the reliable sources guidelines, written by an author who found the software notable enough to report on. Dcxf (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my reply somewhere above that got lost in the miles of odd debates, there's next to nothing can be construed as independent opinion/coverage in those two pieces. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Exactly the type of articles that make an encyclopedia. DeVerm (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Uhhhhh...--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yep :-) Look, I'm completely uninvolved with this article and a retired network engineer so knowledgeable with the subject. I don't say it's ready for GAN, there's many things wrong with this article... but deleting it is not what is needed. The article in it's current form is better than no article and I'm sure many who are looking for info on the subject will appreciate finding it even in it's current form. It is notable and I find dismissing Linux Journal as source and counting words of references really not helpful. DeVerm (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'm already ridiculously over-involved in this discussion, so why stop now... I hope that "dismissing Linux Journal [magazine?] as a source" was just unfortunate paraphrasing, rather than me failing to communicate clearly. "Reliable source" is a term of art, and things that are obviously "reliable" in the normal sense may not be in the Wikipedia sense. It's painfully clear to me that all bar one of the sources provided are churn, that they are not "significant" coverage. (I'd have hoped that pointing out in exacting detail the near-identical wording in the other sources would have made that an inescapable conclusion.) If you'd like to engage in the substantive debate or provide better sources, that would be great. But barring that you've given a "vote" of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions variety, both "I like it" and "it's useful," as well as an statement that "it's notable" unsupported except by appeal to authority. (I'm aware that I sound like a pompous arse when I type, and I struggle against it. In person I'm animated and my eyes crinkle when I talk, so the same words come out quite different. Have mercy on my limitations, please.) Software guidelines have tried to be written that expanded upon the underlying general notability guideline but they have failed to gain consensus, Wikipedia:Software notability is "failed" and Wikipedia:Notability (software) is just an essay. In order to avoid each and every AfD from turning into a free-for-all, we create over-arching rules for what gets in and what doesn't... and despite all the noise and haste, multiple reliable sources for this article have not been found. *shrug* I really should go find something else to do...
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, with TechSpot added, there are now 4 references. Take a breath, move on. This articles passes WP:GNG regardless of how many people are employed by the publishers of those sources. The references are there, the valid Keep votes are there, I'm not even gonna add that Russian source from GNews, life goes on. DeVerm (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete for not meeting GNG (per Hrafn's and Aaron Brenneman's arguements above). Look, it's obvious that the product's creator (User:Ericpaulbishop, product's creator is Eric Bishop) copied and pasted portions of his website into a Wikipedia article on his product. This is clearly an attempt at promotion. Gargoyle's website says this:

"Gargoyle is an interface for small, widely available routers such as the Linksys WRT54G series. It provides functionality and customizability above and beyond what the default software provides including sophisticated quality of service and bandwidth monitoring tools. The primary goal of Gargoyle is to provide a polished interface for these advanced tools that is at least as easy to configure as any existing firmware... Gargoyle is based on the most recent Kamikaze release of the OpenWrt firmware."

and our article says this:

"Gargoyle is an interface for small, widely available routers such as the Linksys WRT54G series and the Fonera. It provides extra functionality compared with the default software including dynamic DNS, quality of service, access restrictions, bandwidth quota management and bandwidth monitoring tools. The software's developer, Eric Bishop, says its primary goal is to 'provide a polished user interface for these advanced tools that is at least as easy to configure as any existing firmware'. Gargoyle is based on top of the most recent Kamikaze release of the OpenWrt firmware."

The product's creator has smartly licensed his website under CC3.0 so we can't call it a copyvio, but it's still obvious promotion of a non-notable product. The sources provided are largely not reliable and do not pass the GNG bar. —SW— ^confess 21:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the excellent analysis provided by Aaron Brenneman and SW. causa sui (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing a great deal in the way of independent analytical comment in the sources. Much of the content has been inspired by, if not actually taken from, the creator's website and releases. This firmware has the potential for notability but has yet to make its mark. Does not, at present, meet WP:GNG. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is only a requirement that the coverage be as extensive as customary for notable products of this sort, and I think it's been met. Nobody expects a special purpose software to have extensive article written about it, ; the requirement is just significant coverage. There is no requirement for the coverage to be "analytical"' -- 90% of the sources for Wikipedia articles are merely descriptive, which is sufficient for our purposes. Indeed, extensive analysis of the value of the sources in cases like this defeats the purpose of GNG--which is to include things the relevant portion of the world thinks important. Important of its kind. This is not extreme niche software that will sell only a few dozen copies--and even those can be notable if they're the leading products. The deletion arguments amount to IVENEVERHEARDOFIT. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SurePayroll[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:CORP. The only independent coverage consists of brief quotations from company officials, which are excluded by that guideline as indicators of WP notability. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article relies way too heavily on press releases, but there appears to be a handful of examples of significant coverage in third party sources ranging from Mobile Commerce Daily to Crain's. I am, however, unable to determine with total certainty whether or not the Crain's piece is a press release. If it is, then my vote might swiftly move in the opposite direction. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —I Jethrobot (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another online payroll provider advertising on Wikipedia. No showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance. An unremarkable business that may well do its unremarkable tasks well, but not one for the history books. Press releases and routine announcements in trade periodicals do not make a case for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 17:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although, I'm voting keep it's solely because I believe the article can be rewritten to a more Wikipedia-suitable tone. If the article doesn't improve though, I'll change my vote. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Navy–Vieques protesters and supporters[edit]

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

This article is a list of people -- most of them alive -- purportedly involved in civil disobedience whose only reference (now removed) was a now-of-line website. If someone fixes it, great. I would haply withdraw this. But we simply cannot keep such an article "for a while", per BLP. damiens.rf 16:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not sourced within the timespan of this AfD, per BLP. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probable Delete: If the article cannot be very carefully sourced, it definitely should be deleted. If only a small number of the names can be sourced, then it should likely be deleted and the information can just go on each person's bio (and an appropriate mention can be made on United States Navy in Vieques, Puerto Rico). If most of it can be sourced, I'm on the fence, because my feeling is that it's not appropriate to create lists of people, the only intersection for which is support or opposition of a certain political position. The closest I can find is List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States, which only covers politicians (and political parties) that have taken an explicit stance as part of their work as office holders/campaigners; and List of people who made multiple religious conversions, which is more about the actions people took than their beliefs. I'm concerned about the idea that we could start to create articles like List of supporters of raising the debt limit in July 2011 or List of people support abortion only in cases of rape or incest or even List of people who have said their favorite color is red. Yes, I'm being facetious, but it's because I think that there is potential harm in us, as an encyclopedia, creating (what will always be) incomplete lists on people of a certain opinion. I'm not totally certain, but the concept behind this is worrisome to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced WP:BLP violation, and no indication why this topic requires a stand-alone list, rather than simply discussion at United States Navy in Vieques, Puerto Rico#Protests against U.S. Navy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some references easily enough. You just search for the name of the base, and the name of the person they saw protested it. [13] Dream Focus 00:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Why should Wikipedia create incomplete lists on people of a certain opinion? The concept behind this list is worries me, too. I am agreeing with Qwyrxian, but taking it further and saying that the whole concept should be discussed elsewhere. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per HrafnV7-sport (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Qwyrxian's block o' text. Even with the sourcing, the issue here is with the entire concept. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Qwyrxian. Beyond that I find the title quite confusing - I expected to find people on both sides of the issue based on it. Having only one side reported makes the list POV or literally one-sided. Finally these types of lists could be endless - think of Lists of people who protested the Vietnam War. The solution is quite simple - just put the really notable people in the Navy–Vieques article. Smallbones (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not Lists of people who supported the Vietnam War? The concept is bad, the lists tend to be biased, and this example should be deleted. Beyond that, as an Article Rescue Squadron member, I rarely submit an AfD, but now this kind of thing is leading me to consider it. I also think about creating a few lists on silly issues, just to show how bad the whole idea is. For example, what about the people who protest animal nudity? --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. No delete arguments besides nom's, who actually doesn't support deletion. Merge discussion in article is recommended. Dream Focus is correct, this was a bad nomination as merger discussions don't belong in AfD, they belong in article talk. Cerejota (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low poly[edit]

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

A Prod with a concern of neologism and subjective analysis. A search did show that the term is used, though it is likely that it is either a dictionary definition, or it could be merged into a relevant article and appropriately sourced. Perhaps merge to Polygonal modeling. This is a procedural listing for purposes of getting wider consensus - I am neither supporting nor opposing deletion. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No reason to delete is provided. The title is an abbreviation not a neologism. The topic is obviously notable being discussed in detail in sources such as Game modeling using low polygon techniques. AFD is not cleanup - please see WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Smerge to polygonal mesh. Beyond the trivial definition, the article is almost entirely original research and full of unencyclopedic trvialites. The sole source cited also defines high poly. Want an article on that? "High poly is awesome, almost like the real thing, blah, blah. But it's computationally expensive. Wow! Pixar does it using micropolygons. This justifies an article for the term high poly all by itself." There's no in-depth coverage of either of these topics, because they aren't really topics. There are perhaps two paragraphs that are worth keeping from this article, the vague definitions, and the one on normal and bump mapping. Everything else in this article is chaff. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Care to define what do you consider UNENCYCLOPEDIC, other that wp:IDONTLIKEIT? Could the bits that you define as chaff be valid if sources were provided? Diego (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the most likely explanation for non-encyclopedic is simply that it has a better home at polygonal mesh. Low and/or High are merely abstract degrees. What was once high might be considered low now. Rather than continually adjusting these arbitrary boundaries, just have 1 article, and describe the concept of low or high there. -- Avanu (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was it is not a unified topic addressed at length in academic sources. You won't find bump mapping as a section in the "low poly" chapter of some book. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your argument. Diego (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article was proposed for deletion with the following rationale: "neologism; subjective analysis of relative polygon counts, not a subject in itself to be supported by reliable sources".
The neologism problem exists only when one takes a literal approach to reviewing the article; "low poly" is an adjective and therefore cannot be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. But is this the intent of the article, and is this what the article is? I don't think so. I don't think it is inappropriate to say that what the article is really trying to cover is low-polygon count modeling. The rationale given for why low-polygon count models are used, where they are used, and similar contextual content is clear evidence that the article does not intend to be or is about a neologism. A simple rename of the article to a title such as "Low-polygon count modeling" is all that is needed.
The issue of subjective analysis, which I assume is referring to content like the Super Mario example, is a problem which also does not require deletion. The problematic content can simply be tagged to give editors an opportunity to cite or re-factor it, or it can just be deleted.
The final issue stated in the PROD is that no acceptable article can be written about this topic. I find this point unclear and of little weight. It appears to be predicated on the claim that the topic is a neologism, which is unsupported by evidence. Additionally, because the topic (but not necessarily the article's content) is covered at depth by multiple reliable sources, the last claim of the PROD rationale is unsupported by evidence: Looking at the first ten results of a Google Books search for low-polygon count modeling (such as a 353-page book by Chad Gregory Walker and Eric Walker published by Cengage Learning titled Game Modeling Using Low Polygon Techniques), it is clear that encyclopedic coverage can exist, describing what it is, where it is used, why it is used, how it differs from the techniques used in cases where a low polygon count is not required, etc. Rilak (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept is distinct from (though related to) Polygonal modeling and Polygonal_mesh - the article covers the specific needs that force the modeler to keep the polygon count low and which are not covered in the other articles. Diego (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good reponse, I'm actually somewhat swayed by your rationale. Do you think this would preclude it from being merged? Also, considering the nature of this, would a rename solve the issue for everyone? Like instead of Low Poly (and High Poly), maybe just Polygon Modeling Count or something? -- Avanu (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the amount of content that will survive verifiability. Polygonal mesh is already quite long, so adding anything more than two or three paragraphs would be too much. I think there's potential to have much more content for the reasons above; framerates in video-games, tools to convert between high and low meshes, movie rendering, far-away objects... all could be discussed within this subject. I agree that something including polygon count will be a better title; that term is also widely used and doesn't have the relativity to hardware nor the low-poly/high-poly problems. Diego (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess (and this is without having fully read the article) is that almost all of the content is verifiable. I think you're right about it being applicable in lots of areas, so really this article could have a pretty bright future if given the right treatment. -- Avanu (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons given by Diego (talk) above. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Diego --DeVerm (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and stop wasting our time. Don't say "I am neither supporting nor opposing deletion". If you don't support deletion, then don't send something to an AFD. I've discussed the problems of this nomination on the editor's talk page. [14] Dream Focus 02:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dream, you have actually made no argument for why it should be kept, and simply attacked the nominator. -- Avanu (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should've said "Close bad nomination". Anyway, others have already explained it isn't "neologism", and the need for an article separate than the rest, it clearly different material. And this is such a basic concept for computer artwork and game design, its covered in just about every book or article ever written about either subject. Dream Focus 14:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, Dream. -- Avanu (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to polygonal mesh per FuFoFuEd. —Ruud 09:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per FuFoFuEd, how do you define WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC? Diego (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectively, I don't like the writing style. Encyclopedic articles should be written in a concise fashion without much unnecessary "fluff". If one would polish this article I suspect it would be better fit as a section in a larger, comprehensive, article than on its own. —Ruud 19:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your argument. Maybe is time to remember that AfDs should be mainly centered on the merits of the topic itself, not the current article state, which can be fixed if the topic has merit (see WP:UGLY (Being poorly written is not grounds for deletion), WP:CHANCE (Don't propose an article for deletion if it hasn't had a chance), WP:DEADLINE (There is no deadline to finish any project), WP:INSPECTOR (An article with few information should be market as stub)). The relevant question as I see it: is the polygon count a relevant topic by itself? Diego (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I didn't vote delete, did I? I just don't see enough potential for a separate article. —Ruud 14:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Stoica[edit]

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

No evidence of notability in any reliable secondary source. Only cites are to promotional/sports websites. Speedily deleted on February 21, 2011 (see here) - then recreated in March. Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is the WAKO-Pro Intercontinental champion; there are kickboxers way less important than him on wikipedia; please check the World Association of KickBoxing Organisations, it is a confirmation: http://www.wakopro.org/en/NewsDetail.aspx?Ctn=84526 in boxing, all the world champions or the boxers who fought for the title have profiles on wikipedia. i do not see why to be different in kickboxing Defineterminology (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2011 (CET)

Note. Defineterminology has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Cyperuspapyrus, who was under a one-week block at the time Defineterminology added his Keep, and is now indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A highly notable kickboxer, having held significant titles. Also, a decent article. I will improve it if it is kept. -- WölffReik (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2011 (CET)
Keep WAKO Intercontinental champion is just a step below world champion, and makes him among the top kickboxers in his weight class. Papaursa (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The WAKO champion assertion was added after my nomination (by the sock puppet). At this point, I'd very much like to hear from non-kick boxing fans about (1) whether they think the title makes him sufficiently notable and (2) the quality of the cite in support of the assertion. If both of those elements are satisfied, I would withdraw my nomination.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact may have been added by a sockpuppet, but it's still correct. His high world ranking is in line with the boxing criteria for notability and the source is the WAKO web site and I'd say that's the most authoritative source for WAKO. Astudent0 (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Religious Discourses[edit]

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

Topis is an unnecessary fork of Hindusim and its related articles; contains no distinct information. Uncited over two years with almost no participation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No defined scope. Essay-like. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shoya Nakajima[edit]

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

This was an endorsed Prod. A search in Google news gave 39 results - not much, but enough to make a wider discussion appropriate. This is a procedural listing, I am neither supporting nor opposing the deletion SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing in the World Cup definintely meets the notability guidelines for athletes. Edward321 (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which guidelines for athletes? I believe WP:NSPORT is the current relevant guideline and it specifically excludes youth representation.--ClubOranje^T 11:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as original PROD'er. He has not played in a fully pro league, and there is no significant coverage. He therefore fails WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT.As for his youth international appearances, they are explicitly excluded under WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG amd WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he definitely hasn't played in the World Cup - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm curious as to why people are saying this article fails WP:GNG. There are reliable sources which mention this person scoring a goal in the quarter finals of the 2011 FIFA U-17 World Cup. Are people saying that this is not "more than a trivial mention"? The sources do not give much information, but the information they give might be argued is quite vital. Can events such as scoring a goal in a reasonably important match make someone notable? I'm quite ambivalent about this article, but curious as how people are interpreting WP:GNG and how it applies to this case. If a person does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL are they automatically not notable? The guideline says that "failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". It may be that WP:ONEVENT applies here, and that the person should be mentioned in 2011 FIFA U-17 World Cup but not in a standalone article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources do mention he scored a gaol at this youth tournament. However, coverage of the individual fall under sports journalism of a general nature which do not cover the subject in depth. He is mentioned in the 2011 FIFA U-17 World Cup or related articles as a goal scorer. Consensus at WP:FOOTY and WP:NSPORTS is that youth tournaments do not confer notability. Sports coverage is so prolific these days you can dig up a tabloid article or three on any 12 year old kid that "may make it one day" and I appreciate where you are coming from with the "Can events such as scoring a goal in a reasonably important match make someone notable", but reality is that U-17 is at least 4th level international (behind senior, U-23/olympic, U-21/U-20), argualble behing several levels of professional league football and therefore too far down the tree unless an individual has done something else significant in the scheme of things. --ClubOranje^T 11:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NSPORTS per above, only general sports journalism coverage. recreate if and when --ClubOranje^T 11:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage in reliable sources is not significant enough to establish notability given the low level importance of the event covered. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gives opportunities to new users to expand articles. A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 23:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep nomination withdrawn. --Jayron32 12:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stars in astrology[edit]

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

Page has been tagged for multiple issues; is devoid of meaningful conent and editorial attention, and generates unnecessary confusion and controversy over where to place discussion of cultural star meanings. See the discussion on the NPOV noticeboard and the discussion on Algol which has been made problematic by the existence of this page. Zac Δ talk 14:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.

Keep. The subject of fixed stars in astrology has easily been the subject of entire books studied by astrologers. The fact that the article is currently in a poor state is not in itself grounds for deletion. Astrological beliefs about stars are a matter of historical record. The belief that information about astrological beliefs about stars is "pseudoscience" is itself evidence of positivist bias. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it corresponds to other articles about astrology. Merge Behenian fixed star in here. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Smerdis of Tlön I completely agree. I am not trying to remove astrological reference to the stars - please read the discussions that have been linked to understand how this page is preventing the development of that sort of information. As another editor has already observed, recommending a move of all the stuff on cultural significance to one article like Stars in astrology is as senseless as having all the stuff for different stars under Star. Thanks for giving the opportunity to clarify that point.

@Its me Judith - it doesn't correspond to other articles about astrology. It prevents those articles existing by suggesting that everything has to be dumped into a page that no one wants to develop. Hence it fragments information and since no one is attending to the issues on the page, it's existence is only causeing problems Zac Δ talk 15:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Δ talk  15:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing prevents articles existing except whether there is enough reliably sourced material to justify an article. You could start Algol in astrology any time, if you have good sources for it. Some WikiProjects have a monthly Article Improvement Drive; you could go to WikiProject Astrology to get more help with this one. This article corresponds to Planets in astrology. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have both articles on the planets in astrology, and also articles such as Moon (astrology), and the article on Moon refers to it in the appropriate section. There is enough astrological material on Algol to easily support an article on it. On the other hand, there's plenty of material that could support an article on the fixed stars in astrology generally, including their prominence in older astrology and their relative neglect in current Western astrology (which I believe comes from Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos and its influence, which was weak on the subject.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a scrappy article at the moment but I can't see any real problems with developing it and it looks like a notable topic. I think the idea of flagging it for development in the astrology project sounds fine. Just because there is stuff there doesn't mean that everything about astrology in articles about the individual stars should be removed. This is getting silly, you have one person trying to delete everything about astrology instead of developing the encyclopaedia and another unwilling to develop this article because they feel the first would be justified in their campaign. It would mean a bit less about astrology in some articles but where that happened they should have a see also or main pointing to this article and should still give the major points even if they don't go into the subject in detail. Dmcq (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prefer not to vote on this because I have been in ongoing discussions with editor Zachariel. Deleting Stars in astrology is without merit because there is also Planets in astrology, Asteroids in astrology and Centaurs in astrology, long standing articles with a similar name and purpose. There is enough historical evidence and quality sources about the use of stars for astrology to have a WP article about it. One editor brought Zachariel's own material about the astrology of Algol here, only to see it promptly reverted by him before he put this article up for deletion. Why would that be? See the history. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a vote anyway, it depends on looking at the arguments made in detail if the overall opinion isn't straightforward. You have argued against the deletion. Dmcq (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is the problem with the page (apart from its numerous issues which exist because no one wants to develop this page due to this problem): - the discussion page begins with the comment

"I suggest you move astrological meanings of stars from respective star articles here. If the star has a substantial historical section, something could be mentioned there briefly (in one sentence, for example). More detailed descriptions should be added only into this article.--JyriL talk 23:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)"

- this is what is causing confusion: the idea that anything other than a one sentence reference cannot be made elsewhere and so all cultural and astrological star reference must all be lumped together on this one page instead. That's entirely impractical, borders on censorship and has been used as a justification to delete content from elsewhere. This page isn't doing anything valuable at present; it is just creating unnecesary confusion and controversy. If the policy could be clarified, and the page used as an introduction to the subject and a reference list to material covered eslewhere then it would be worth keeping and could serve a good purpose; but it would need a clarification of its purpose to serve as a central resource for other information rather than the only place on Wikipedia where this sort of star information could be given Zac Δ talk 16:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is on the Talk page can never be a reason to delete an article.

An article being poorly developped is in itself never a reason not to develop it.

How this article is developped is entirely in the hands of the editors. If some day it becomes too long, editors will split it up when the need arises. So what is the problem? MakeSense64 (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is notable. The info in the article seems good, although no sources are now given. No reason to delete. Astrological info on each star should also be allowed in its own article. Until we start visiting them individual stars will have very little practical importance to us here on Earth, so mythological or imaginative material should not be excluded. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is only "bad" insofar as it is really nothing more than a stub. Nom describes issues that can be addressed as the content matures; they're not fatal flaws. I can see this article having a different sort of discussion than an article about a cultural viewpoint, although they would be related. This is not to day in the future, that maybe the article should be renamed or merged... or even deleted. But, IMHO, the noms argument does not hold water. Roodog2k (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone can be bold and change the article's name and content to something like "List of Stars with Cultural Significance"... just saying... Roodog2k (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've acted on Roodog2k's suggestion. If this is seen as a resolution to the problem then I am happy to personally withdraw the deletion request. However, I have concerns about my expectation: despite the general consensus that the page deserves development, the likely reality is that no one will commit to the task. This page was created by an astronomer and someone then tagged it as falling within the scope of both the Wiki astronomy project and the Wiki astrology project - then the astronomy project (not surprisingly) pulled their 'scope' tag within a matter of days. Currently the astrology project is suffering from a lack of contributing editors who already have their hands full, so who is going to do this? Anyone here, who believes in the merits of the page? I certainly cannot because I have already accepted a too long list of obligations to improve the content of other astrology-related pages, to preserve them from the prospect of speedy deletion or the prospect of later deletion.

So keep in mind that we have a situation here where a page that doesn't have a single link from other WP pages, where there is almost as much content in the many page tags as the article, is going to require an investment of time and ongoing maintenance to make it capable of collating information rather than fragmenting it. The main content of this page was added when, in 1996, a single editor decided to remove the astrological reference from the page on Alderbaran (see diff) despite the fact that, previously, the astrological information had always been a major component of that page (see for example). I will do what I can, within reason, to help on this project, providing the existence of this page does not constitute a policy that moderate and pertinent references to the cultural and astrological meanings of stars must then be excluded from other pages, or that lengthier coverage cannot be given in dedicated pages which are prominently linked to from the main star feature. That seems to be my understanding of the general consensus here. Zac Δ talk 12:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment, You are very quick to act on one editor's suggestion.

Since you are changing the name of the article, does that mean you are withdrawing your deletion request?

I am asking to revert the change of the page and the title of that page. One editor suggesting something doesn't mean there is a concensus to do it.

Given the ongoing discussion on Talk:Algol it is clear that you want to delete (or change) this page, because you want to insert an astrology section on Algol. So your wanting to delete (or change) this page is not coming from a NPOV about this page. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have a dog in this fight, but assuming good faith on everybody's part, I just want to clarify my position. Nom basically wants/wanted to delete the page b/c is sucks and no one is working on it. That's not a valid reason to delete a page. My suggestion was to be bold and make it better. It seems to me that the page is actually better now, but that's my opinion, you may disagree. But, I think a list of stars with cultural significance is a useful thing, whether it's related to astrology or not. Regarding not having a NPOV view about this page... I don't see it. Astrology exists; people practice it. It seems more to me that not wanting astrological content constitutes a POV issue. I do not practice astrology, but it doesn't mean I don't have an academic interest in it. Roodog2k (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody was working on this page, but nom reverted the change before putting the page up for deletion. Not only that, the material that was being added here was nom's own material about the astrology of Algol. Check the page history if you want.

So it is not that I and a few others don't want astrological content here, just the opposite: we want the astrology of Algol and other stars to be here. But that's what nom doesn't want because he wants to insert larger sections of astrology into Algol the astronomy page. This page here is unconvenient for his plans. So now he changed it into a list article, because he sees most votes are 'keep'. But the content of the article has hardly changed. Now an article with a practical and short name 'Stars in astrology' has changed title to 'List of stars with noted cultural and astrological significance'. Where is the improvement? We could have made the name even longer so that absolutely nobody ever finds that page. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't like the name. I understand what I everyone is saying, and recognize that there is a disconnect here. I voted to keep the page, and left my comments to encourage everyone to work together to make it better. If a concensus cannot be reached, AfD is not the way to go. There are other avenues to explore that would involve the larger community, maybe if the scope of the discussion is expanded, new ideas would emerge to tackle these issues? I apologize to all of you if I made a bad situation worse, it wasn't my intent. Roodog2k (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have expanded the Stars in astrology page with a very brief and sketchy set of introductory paragraphs that surely can be expanded at some length. While I was in the process of expanding it, the page was moved from under me to List of stars in astrology. I was trying to add text to make the article more than just a list of stars. Now we have two separate articles. My inclination would be to delete List of stars in astrology as a less developed content fork of the page now at Stars in astrology. But now the history may be muddled. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had to move List of stars in astrology back here to keep all the history as well as the expanded material, so that has been done. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a technical glitch on WP this afternoon, which meant that I lost the comments I was posting on this, and that's probably why the move got effected. Nothing seems to have been lost though. Re withdrawing the AfD, obviously I would not want to proceed with the request for deletion if someone has a desire to contribute and develop the page and is starting to attend to it. I'm not sure of the proceedure to withdraw the request - but is that necessary anyway since there's obviously a consensus to keep; I (as the nominator) have no intention to argue otherwise anymore, and I've just read that even if the consensus was split "Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep"." Since the discussion is bringing positive attention to the page, I'd rather let it roll until it elapses. But will happy withdraw the request if that is the thing to do. Zac Δ talk 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks. You can either let the AfD run or ask on WP:AN for an admin to close it. as keep Itsmejudith (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's now a fringe topic, but up through Isaac Newton's day it was quite the notable topic. This is a well-cited article. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (to formalise). I have done what Itsmejudith suggested and asked for an admin to close this thread. Regards, Zac Δ talk 12:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Term Effects of Video Games on Children[edit]

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

This is pure original research. Could possibly be merged somewhere but I'm not sure where that would be. Nik thestoned 14:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this article is a recreation of Effects of video games on children (original diff), which is now a redirect to Video game controversy. KarikaSlayer (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if anything were salvageable and not already in Video game controversy, nothing has an in-text citation. Right now this is not notable enough, methinks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Topic is notable, but already well-covered in Video game controversy.Steve Dufour (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article title itself is sufficiently well-formed English that I could see it being useful in search results as a Redirect to Video game controversy. -- stillnotelf is invisible 20:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Covered elsewhere and OR, and i feel the exact text would be an unlikely search as a re-direct. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Controversial WP:OR, possibly biased; WP:CFORK from video game controversy. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More like...Long-Term Effects of Original Research on Wikipedia (oh snap!). Yeah, that stuff is bad for Wikipedia long-term (and short). A merger here doesn't seem appropriate given the nature of the current content. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing in this article that is useful.Curb Chain (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seaboard World Airlines landing at Marble Mountain[edit]

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

The subject is not notable enough for a stand-alone article per WP:EVENT and also does not meet inclusion criteria at WP:AIRCRASH - strictly speaking it isn't even a crash. A merger has been suggested, but as the article appears to consist mainly of OR with info from a web page that will not even open on my computer and a youtube video, I would knock that idea on the head as well YSSYguy (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It really seems to be a personal reminiscence about a not-notable incident, fails to meet any Wikipedia inclusion criteria that I can think of, including WP:N and WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reads like somebody telling a personal story. Quoting: "We had a few beers, watched the confusion, and then went back to bed". Sounds like a minor incident. Has 120000 views on youtube. Other link doesn't work. MakeSense64 (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No deaths, injuries or even damage. At best, it's worth a sentence in Marble Mountain Air Facility. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So a plane landed at the wrong airfield in the dark, some editor says, searching his memory. Nobody killed, nobody hurt, no damage done, and the plane took off again the next morning, end of story. So? Not notable, and no reliable third-party sources. Textorus (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:V and WP:N. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting story and Youtube video but, yeah, it's not notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense & unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian humour[edit]

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

Unsalvageable content - even embarrassing, one could say. Also, unsourced since the article was created, which was more than five and a half years ago. GregorB (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced. The joke about the stork isn't even particular to this area of the world. Non-notable too. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Made me cry. Can be moved to WikiJokes. MakeSense64 (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well...: Mujo, Haso, and Fata all walk into a bar, and the bartender says "you all get the fuck out of here." Delete. But I do love this article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this a bit more, I wonder if there couldn't be an article created about "Mujo and Haso jokes" like we do for Polish joke.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct - while there is a bit about Mujo and Haso in Comedy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, this line of jokes was (and is) popular throughout former Yugoslavia, and standalone article is warranted. GregorB (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll put on my to-create list then. There is a German wikipedia one already, de:Mujo_und_Haso --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well, with today's standards, you could just speedy it for failure to assert notability, it's a joke (pun intended :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lacey[edit]

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

Contested PROD; non-notable youth player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep He is not a youth player, he is in senior team therefore is a professional.Seasider91 (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of first team appearances [15], no significant coverage, does not yet meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG criteria. Deserter1 12:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Without significant coverage, he is not notable unless he makes a first team appearance. See WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoscience[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and a bit of OR as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although current article is poor there are sources out there for this topic that satisfy WP:NOTE. Whilst it's true that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article has the potential to be expanded into something worthwhile. Yunshui (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Most words are in a dictionary. But I think a good article should be possible on this topic. Needs development. MakeSense64 (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment the wiktionary content is different from the dictionary definition provided in the article. wikt:palaeoscience 65.93.15.213 (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Unlike Yunshui, I cannot forsee this article becoming anything more than a dictionary entry. The material would be best added to the Wiktionary entry, and the current article deleted or redirected to Wiktionary. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Mention in wiktionary is more than enough. --Rádiológ (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - while there are some scholarly articles, I could find no news articles on point (one was a 404 error), and few textbook references. I'm not saying the can't be re-created, but right now it's a neologism. See also WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite expandable. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Do not understand the argument that it is a neologism; it may not have a lot of relevant Google Scholar hits, but that's because it is a catch-all term, and most papers would state their specific area such as paleoclimatology, paleozoology, etc. It is recognized as an area of study by the American Geophysical Union, (source), which is essentially the authority for geosciences. There is nothing here that says it can't be expanded. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 03:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The current article is dreadful, and reads exactly like a dictionary definition. The topic certainly is notable, and an article on paleoscience which acts as an overview of the area with a synopsis of the various disciplines would be a good addition to Wikipedia. However, this article isn't it and would need a complete ground-up rewrite. -- Whpq (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or alternatively turn into a disambiguation page). No indication that 'paleoscience' is "address[ed] directly in detail" by any reliable source, as opposed to simply mentioned in passing as a useful (if neologistic) collective term for various scientific fields. It therefore seems unlikely that this article will grow beyond a WP:DICTDEF without extensive WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNot a commonly enough used concept and would likely need WP:OR to make it article worthy. Maybe if the phrasing becomes more used over time. N^oformation ^Talk 09:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Neuttro[edit]

The result was Speedily deleted per G4 by Ponyo. ArcAngel (talk) ) 16:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable band. Searching Google for their second album yielded less than 100 results. Nik thestoned 12:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note - I've deleted the article under WP:CSD G4, the reposted article was substantially the same as the deleted version and did not address the original AfD concerns. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If the article presented views that were not supported in the references (e.g. that Ophiuchus is the 13th sign of the zodiac) then we'd have an issue. The article as I see it does not present these views, and details that this was a proposed sign of the zodiac, but it is not. If there are ways to make this clearer then that can be done through normal editing. Wikipedia contains many articles about minority opinions, though not in the majority, are still valid and recognised opinions covered in reliable sources. There's sufficient coverage in reliable sources in this article to meet the general notability guidelines. I think what's needed here is some solid cleanup and editing, but not deletion. There's no consensus here that deletion is required, or appropriate, hence my closure. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ophiuchus (astrology)[edit]

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

The reason I am proposing this article for deletion is that it is based on misinformation and builds upon the confused (but incorrect) assumption that Ophiuchus, as a constellation which crosses the zodiac, constitutes a zodiac sign. It is easily established as a fact that this is not so, and it is a point made only by those who lack clear understanding of what the zodiac - whether tropical or sidereal - is. This causes no end of further confusion and ill-founded criticism of astrological technique. The article's header "Ophiuchus (astrology)" leads the reader to believe that this is the standard astrological view, but it most definitely is not. The page popularisies the dubious views of a living astrologer, and even having the main Ophiuchus page disambiguate to this, with the comment: "This article is about the constellation. For the astrological sign, see Ophiuchus (astrology)" adds to the confusion and misinformation. I have placed a small but clear and reliable comment on the main Ophiuchus page to clarify the point and can't see that anything else is ncessary. This page takes more away from established knowledge than it contributes, therefore I believe it should be deleted on the grounds that it is not suitable material for an encyclopedic reference.

Further, the discussion page of the entry demonstrates how most editors have abandoned the page as not worthy of attempts of improvement. I had considered helping to clarifying the issues on the page myself, but after reading it, I consider it a no starter for improvement - it needs to clearly express the point that Ophiuchus is a constellation and not recognised astronomically or astrologically as a zodiac sign; and this applies to both the tropical and sidereal approaches. However, all that would do is justify the reason why there shouldn't even be a page to begin with. The page appears to exist as a way to remove unacceptable content from the main Ophiuchus entry. But if it is based on junk, then surely better to simply delete it. The sooner the better in my opinion 11:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment I fixed this AfD nom (created by User:Zachariel (talk · contribs)). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems to have legs and the worst case is that we'd merge into a section like Ophiuchus#Confused association with zodiac signs rather than deleting. Warden (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sob! Can't we astronomers ever get rid of this pseudoscientific stuff. Nay, I say: keep it on arms length away from serious topics! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prefer not to vote on this because I have been in ongoing discussions with editor Zachariel about his adding astrology in astronomy articles, which he has been discussing with other editors on the WikiProject Astrology, for example here: [16] and here: [17]. I just want to point out that while Zachariel is putting this article up for deletion, he is at the same time adding astrological material to Ophiuchus. See this diff: [18]. That's all I want to say. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not pointing anything out Makesense64 - I mentioned this above. The comment reads in full:

Confused association with zodiac signsBecause of the partial overlap of the constellation Ophiuchus and the Sun's path upon which zodiacal longitude is based, Ophiuchus is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the '13th sign of the zodiac'. This is an innapropriate reference since the zodiac is a division of the ecliptic into twelve equal parts, initially originated for calendrical purposes. This makes the notion of a '13th sign' a mathematical impossibility. It is only correct to refer to Ophiuchus as one of the constellations which cross the zodiac; which does not constitute a zodiacal sign, of which all historical records acknowledge only twelve.[ref]

Warden - the above comment is to ensure that the argument - which has no legs - is not indulged on the Ophiuchus page. Your feeling that you don't want it on that page is not a reason to suggest keeping it on this page. I understand that you don't want it littering up the Ophiuchus main page. But if it is litter that astronomers don't want; and astrologers don't want it either, then let's delete it. It is simply factually wrong to leave the impression that Ophiuchus is an astrological sign. Zac Δ talk 14:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think the Ophiuchus page should stay as it was part of a widespread controversy (arguably a hoax) that got traction in the Press. (Here, I am assuming that it is not addressed elsewhere on WP). However, I believe that if it is to stay it should be re-edited so that the emphasis is on the controversy and the arguments are addressed and clarified. The simple fact (as stated by Zac) that signs ≠ constellations (and technically this includes Sidereal Signs to a lesser extent than Tropical Signs) needs to made very clear as this is a common misconception even among astronomers. The introductory text should clarify that Ophiuchus is not an astrological sign. Robert Currey talk 16:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it got signifcant coverage in the press then there can be an article about it. It seems to have some good independant sources. Even if only a minority of astrologers uses this sign, it remains Ophiuchus (astrology). WP does not care whether something is true or not, we report on what we find in proper sources. If reliable sources mention astrologers criticising or rejecting this sign, then that goes in a 'Criticism' section in this article. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would give the public more credit for recognizing this as a hoax and the article should reflect that. I recall that Bruce Schofield PhD explained the astronomy quite well in simple terms in a recent video interview. Someone can contact him for the link. The article badly needs an update because taking this issue seriously is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance. Ken McRitchie (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. The article makes it clear that astrology-wise Ophiuchus was only a suggestion (a proposal). It appears to be fairly well referenced for WP:GNG. It could also be merged in to an article about the man who initially proposed it and if there are good arguments for doing that I'll gladly amend my recommendation to just "merge". Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sign seems to have an Unicode symbol. How about bringing the section '13th sign astrology' in Walter_Berg here? It would improve this article, and it states that it is used by "a small minority of Western astrologers", removing any possible confusion on that point. That confusion was the main argument brought by AfD nom. MakeSense64 (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Walter Berg article is currently not well referenced and is a likely candidate for AfD. Integrating the Ophiuchus (astrology) article with the Walter Berg article would probably save the Walter Berg article from AfD. But I always feel that it is in someway cheating when the main subject of an article is not well referenced. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 11:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tagged Walter Berg for possible original research a couple of days ago. Although he may be more notable in Japan if the article is true. But I think the few sources there refer more to his 13 sign astrology, rather than to Berg himself. A merge seems like a good idea. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since a separate discussion has evolved on the discussion page of the Zodiac entry (not instigated by me) concerning innapropriate references to Berg's book (which merely capitalised on the mid-1990s publicity and was not responsible for creating it) I have attempted to clarify the situation on the Zodiac entry so that the coverage is verifiable and reliably sourced, and reads:

Due to the constellation boundaries being redefined in 1930 by the International Astronomical Union, the path of the ecliptic now officially passes through thirteen constellations: the twelve traditional 'zodiac constellations' plus Ophiuchus, the bottom part of which interjects between Scorpio and Sagittarius. Ophiuchus is an anciently recognised constellation, catalogued along with many others in Ptolemy's Almagest, but not historically referred to as a zodiac constellation.^[1]

The technically inaccurate description of Ophiuchus as a sign of the zodiac dates to the 1970s.^{[citation needed]} This drew prominent media attention on 20th January 1985, following the BBC's opening 'Nine o'clock News' announcement that "an extra sign of the zodiac has been announced by the Royal Astronomical Society".^[2] Investigation into the source of the story revealed there had been no such announcement, and that the report had merely sensationalised the 67-year-old 'news' of the IAU's decision to alter the number of designated ecliptic constellations. This was done for the purposes of promoting a forthcoming BBC astronomy programme, presented by the RAS's Public Relation Officer, which touched upon the topic of precession.^[3] The false assumption that Ophiuchus constitutes an astrological sign periodically resurfaces in the media, due to public misconception and failure to appreciate that the irregular astronomical demarcation of visible constellations does not relate to the seperate frame of reference provided by the equally spaced twelve-fold longitude division of the ecliptic into zodiacal signs.^[4]

^ Ptolemy (2nd cent.). "VII.5". In R. Catesby Taliaferro (ed.). Almagest (1982 ed.). p. 239. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help) Ptolemy refers to the constellation as Septentarius 'the serpent holder'.

^ Kollerstrom, N. (October 1995). "Ophiuchus and the media". The Observatory. 115. KNUDSEN; OBS: 261–262. Bibcode:1995Obs...115..261K. Reproduced online at SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS), retrieved 13 July 2011.

^ Kollerstrom, N. (October 1995). "Ophiuchus and the media". The Observatory. 115. KNUDSEN; OBS: 261–262. Bibcode:1995Obs...115..261K.

^ The notion received further international media attention in January 2011, when it was reported that astronomer Parke Kunkle, a board-member of the Minnesota Planetarium Society, had suggested that Ophiuchus was the zodiac's '13th sign'. He later issued a statement to say he had not reported that the zodiac ought to include 13 signs instead of 12, but was only mentioning that there were 13 constellations; reported in Mad Astronomy: Why did your zodiac sign change? 13 January 2011.

My feeling is that some clear explanation of fact must remain on the zodiac page, since it will undoubtedly attract readers seeking clarification on that point, so it needs to give it some coverage. In the light of feedback I now consider the only sensible thing to do is to merge the content of this disputed page into the biography of Berg, who is the only person who benefits from the coverage of the information, or else just delete it altogether as an unnecessary and confusing addition to what is already explained clearly in the places where the topic is relevant (those who consider it relevant to Berg can do what they want with it on his biography page). Let's be clear - we are not proposing a merge into the content of the main Ophiuchus page, and if the page is not to be merged or deleted, but retained to elaborate on the issue, then it needs to change directly substantially, and clearly distinguish between astronomical fact and misrepresentative supposition Zac Δ talk 12:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I made the article, but I d*rn don't believe in astrology! That I say to stress that Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability, Wikipedia is about what people believe in, 'people' referring to scientists and pseudo-scientists like the astrologers, among others. Therefore the article cannot be deleted with the motivation that it is factually wrong. Personally I think it is rather more like factual nonsense, since it builds on false premisses, but it doesn't matter anyways, since the article reflects a minority opinion among a certain brand of pseudo-sciencers...

I created the article in order to move away the Template:zodiac astrological template () from the astronomical zodiacal constellations – astronomers (amateurs and professionals) in almost unity reject astrology and don't want to associate with it. I created the article to reflect on the fact that a very few astrologers count on 13 zodiacal signs.

The nomination doesn't refer to any specific deletion policies. If the article is going to be deleted, then I estimate Wikipedia:Notability is the most effective one regarding this pseudoscientific article. I won't cry if someone succeeds to remove it, I would rather giggle wickedly. But unless there's a good policy motivation for deleting it, it should stay. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The good policy motivation is that - as you say - it is factual nonsense built on false premises. By not demonstrating that effectively it is unsuitable material for an encyclopedic reference (WP policy on valid reasons for deletion). Above you say: "Can't we astronomers ever get rid of this pseudoscientific stuff. Nay, I say: keep it on arms length away from serious topics!"

Well WP aims aims for credibility too, so the only way to keep the content away from "serious topics" is delete it from WP. It is not necessary to offload the Ophiuchus 'rubbish' to a page dedicated to "factual nonsense" because the pages where it is relevent now include concise and reliable explanations that offer more verifiable and well sourced information than is found on the whole of this page Zac Δ talk 12:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yabause[edit]

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

I could not locate any significant coverage to establish notability (WP:N). I was initially going to redirect, as I had found a mention in Kohler's "Retro Gaming Hacks" [19] but I'm not sure if such a trivial mention is enough to even include it in our "List of" article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. I was unable to find other coverage myself. There are a bunch of hits in Google News, but they don't seem to be in-depth or from anything that would be a WP:RS. Most of the hits are from the forums of elotrolado.net. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fung Shoe[edit]

The result was DELETE as hoax / made up / OR. Alexf^(talk) 17:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Topic is non-notable, cannot find a single reliable third party source. Nik thestoned 10:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have found the source !!!!! this would be me,,,, I am the Author of this article,, and the creator of Fung Shoe... Am I NOT a reliable source ? How could I find a reliable third Party Source if I created this term ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fung Shoe (talk • contribs) 10:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per ~~Neologisms~~. --Fæ (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was assuming some common sense interpretation, obviously not clear enough. Though the article appears to be a neologism, the relevant guideline for deletion is Do not create hoaxes. Fæ (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My compliments to the author. This has inspired me to invent 'Flung Shoe', where the arrangement of one's environment and life is determined by the path and resting place (and collateral damage) of a randomly hurled trainer. Neither are encyclopaedic, however, being Original Research WP:OR. Peridon (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Established and reputable dictionaries do not list every word that somebody invents, they look for evidence that other people use it and continue to do so at least for a time. In the same way, Wikipedia does not include every new word, and every new idea, even if the inventor knows he or she has come up with something brilliant. Wikipedia looks for evidence that others share at least some of the enthusiasm, which is essentially what notability is about in this instance. The problem is summed up by these words in the article [t]he term is also used ... - there is no verification that it is, except by the author and perhaps some friends. --AJHingston (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while this is an amusing concept, and I have no doubt that the article creator came up with it, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. There have to be secondary, reliable sources to establish notability. LadyofShalott 12:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LadyofShalott and AJHingston say it well. I declined the CSD nomination (Fæ: nowhere in the CSD does it say that neologisms can be speedily deleted), but don't see any evidence for notability. Ucucha 12:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, it could be speedied under G1 or G3 and we can skip 7 days by taking the SNOW option at this point. I am familiar with the issues around deleting neologisms. Fæ (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is neither patent nonsense, pure vandalism, nor a blatant hoax, so neither G1 nor G3 applies. Ucucha 12:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete as invented; there is no speedy for neologisms. Hairhorn (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable nonsense made up in one day.--EdwardZhao (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow... Carrite (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G12 copyvio http://asianeconomicandsocialreview.yolasite.com/about-us.php Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Economic and Social Review[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Google search does not even find a homepage, although an apparently newly-created page was just added to the article (seems like this page was created in response to the PRODding of the article). Hence, the journal does exist and even has an ISSN. However, there are no independent secondary sources and the journal does not appear to be included in any databases (let alone major selective ones). The link in the article to the homepage goes to a completely different journal (also non-notable, without a single article published yet). The journal has not published a single article yet: creation of a WP article is premature. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.No independent sources that I can find.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The text of the article is copied verbatim from their site's 'About Us' page. Likely to be self-promotion. We can credit them for finding a good sounding name, but alas for WP that's not enough... MakeSense64 (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London Preppy[edit]

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

A blogger discussing gay issues. Unable to find references except on other blogs. References in article that were not to his blogsite are now dead as the companies are no more. Says he is on the cover of some magazines, but nothing in the references say it is him. He is is still blogging after four years, but not as much. From his blog, "The blog is a bit of a (very) side project at the moment, whilst I'm working on my book". Bgwhite (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete massive piece of PUFF created by SPA, utterly fails WP:NWEB. Yunshui (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments for renaming seem to be arguments for the creation of an article on a separate topic, which would not be based on this one. Still, I will honor reasonable requests to view the deleted content if necessary to form an article more suitable for inclusion (per the objections raised in this discussion). causa sui (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black atheists[edit]

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

The title is vague and misleading, the list inclusion criteria are poorly defined and the list would be impossible to complete. This appears to be intended to be a list of American people who might identify themselves as black and are thought to be Atheists. It is not clear if they are all of African descent (this is not everyone on the planet with black skin) and there is no definition of how to interpret the meaning of this for people who were not born in Africa or their parents might not both have been born in Africa. The names on this list are not footnoted as being self identified as black or atheist, and names such as Yosef Ben-Jochannan are dubious as the article contains no clear statement or reference to validate a claim of being an atheist. A specific list of, say, notable members of the Black Atheists of America would be possible but this is not a simple case of list renaming. In its current form the list will continue to fail WP:BLP and WP:NLIST. Fæ (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The article has significant issues such as OR.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Atheism in the African-American community". The issue isn't the existence of black atheists but there does seem to be notable organisations of black atheists and some notable individual authors and activists whose primary focus is on the atheist African-American experience. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Renaming as per Steve Dufour's suggestion is also a sensible solution to this AfD. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Atheism in the African-American community. That seems like it would fly as a notable topic. The mere intersection of being "black" and atheist, probably not. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would that be another list of people? For the suggested title I am unclear how the criteria would specify how someone is or is not verifiably African-American (as opposed to black or having a grandparent who was born in Africa and might not be on record as self-identifying as African-American) or how "community" applies and again how we test whether someone is or is not part of that community (presumably forming a distinction in comparison to "race" or "black"). Fæ (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this context the word "community" is commonally used since there doesn't seem to be something better. The article should focus on what reliable sources have said about the role of atheism in African American history. Any source should say both that the person mentioned is notable both as an African American and as an atheist. The mere fact of being both should not be enough, especially in recent years when many more people are declairing their atheism and perhaps the African American community seems to be more diverse. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In which case African-American Atheism would avoid the Community word, you would just have to define African-American in a way that is not identical to Black American. Fæ (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It seems to me that that title also presents a problem since there is not a distinct brand of atheism called "African American atheism." I picture the article starting something like this: "Atheism has not played a very large part in African American history or culture, however there have been some notable African Americans who have advocated it..." Richard Wright comes to mind as perhaps the most important. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I think I'd be proposing a merge to Demographics of atheism which could do with a bit of expansion anyway. Fæ (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't thinm merging is a good idea. It seems to be an article about blacks who have the slightest connection with atheism and with very little proof that the article is accurate and non-biased. I don't think we should consider it to be part of the African-American section either as that's very offensive towards blacks that not from America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorlack36 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Good point. An article on the world-wide intersection of people who are "black" in some sense or other and are also atheists would not really be what WP is supposed to have. I'd think that an article on the influence of atheism within one culture could be worthwhile. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable; inappropriate use of articlespace, because this should be categories' function, and even then, such an intersection is not notableCurb Chain (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, there should be some mention of cultural differences compared with other demographics "race"-wise. I see none of this which lends me to believe this demographic is no different from Oceanic atheists.Curb Chain (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per User:Curb Chain -- Alexf^(talk) 17:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Abelard School[edit]

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

'High street' cram school. Tagged for notability and advertising since August 2008. Only one source in a local newspaper. Is not a mainstream high school. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a secondary school, which merits an article. The article has major issues and needs reworking for sure.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a verifiable secondary school, per standard practice. Carrite (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a small (approx 50 students) private school, not a secondary-level school that would generally be kept. Nothing else about it appears to be notable, and it doesn't have much of a history to support keeping an article. PK T(alk) 12:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - educates in Grades 9-12 and prepares pupils for the Ontario Secondary School Diploma so qualifies as a high school. The problems in the article can be dealt with by normal editing. The way forward is to improve not delete. TerriersFan (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Almani[edit]

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

Not entirely sure what this even is, but it's rich with OR, and is unreadable. Might be A7 territory, might not be. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have an article on Almani, although that should really be merged into the more substantial and better written Baloch Yunshui (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--completely un-sourced, OR, vague topic.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having looked over the article and done a bit of searching, I have now also listed Almani for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almani Yunshui (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inspire Records[edit]

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

PROD for notability issues was contested, but the article still cites only one primary source; a search for reliable third-party sources found none. In addition, the article appears to have been edited by a person with conflict of interest in the subject matter. Cnilep (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP without coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication of notability for this label. There is also a lack of sourcing, which is adverse to this article. Do any of the artists even have Wikipedia articles? Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Programming Language[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced outside of primary site. Google search on "Sloan Crandell" diamond shows no results. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFT —Ruud 10:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: blatant advertising by a single-purpose account.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Central[edit]

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

Nominated by IP. Nomination rationale appears to be "This article does not meet the general notability guideline and reads as advertising." (AfD page created by User:richhallstoke, not nominator) Trying to rectify the situation. I am neutral at this time, but may !vote later. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously edited the Internet Central page with the intention of improving the encyclopaedic nature of the article, trying to remove marketing language and draw attention to points of notability, and since it was marked it for deletion I've edited it once more to the same end. Perhaps rather than deleting it we could rescue it by further improvement in the areas of verification and notability? So many pages seem to get deleted before people have chance to address issues. --richhallstoke (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2011 (GMT+1)

~~Speedy keep without prejudice as a malformed nomination lacking a nomination rationale. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)~~ Striking, as I was able to find what appears to be the nomination rationale. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: little in the way of "significant coverage", though this may be due to the generic nature of the title masking relevant coverage. Certainly the sources cited do little to demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about a local ISP. No showing of significant effects on technology, culture, or history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cover (album)[edit]

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

The notability of this album is still in question. This album is obviously written by a notable artist, but it hasn't hit any charts at all. Minima © (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This album has been recognized as being one of Tom Verlaine's albums. Though the article needs citations, this is a valid article. --Nmiddlebrooks (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-reviewed album by notable artist; passes WP:NALBUMS. Tassedethe (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Album by very notable artist that has been the subject of significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meets WP:MUSIC and artist article exists. Nik thestoned 16:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have now added a further couple of refs. Nik thestoned 16:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it did chart! (Albeit in Sweden) Nik thestoned 16:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Slate[edit]

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

This has no sources, citations or third party coverage to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to|The Flintstones

This article is better suited as a subtopic to the bigger article of the show from which this character originated. --Nmiddlebrooks (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The_Flintstones#Characters per WP:BEFORE. The article's title would make a valid redirect. --Malkinann (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to the list of characters. The info in the character list is thin and some small selected material from this article can be merged to the character list to improve it. -- Whpq (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline as a subject and the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work. As the content of the article is completely unreferenced, I do not believe that a merge is an acceptable alternative to deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with everything Jfgslo says. The article also seems to be full of OR, and none of it is salvageable. Reyk _YO! 20:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly a plot summary which is WP:NOT what Wikipedia articles are. No reliable sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sources were not forthcoming, but as always in the event that they later appear a new, sourced article (in userspace!) is usually well received at deletion review. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Innobuzz[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources. Just reads like a bad company webpage. noq (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of third party sources. I didn't get any third party mentions on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. There seems to be enough coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline, You may want to check Archives of Google News for Press Coverage, FB Page of the company. Mainly, I am from the Information Security Industry and understand the notability of the brand. Sonakshi87 (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another Multi-national information security training company advertising on Wikipedia. I find nothing that looks like substantial independent coverage in the five Google News hits. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Below mentioned are some other Information Security companies/programs listed on Wikipedia and their Alexa Ranks:

Innobuzz is 52,060 ie Right about CompTIA and not something which just came up. Refer History Graph. - 122.173.230.114 (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Alexa rankings are not a WP:notability criteria so are not relevant. noq (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. Innobuzz is the parent company of Secfence Technologies which uncovered privacy flaws in Facebook and other popular websites. Source of Third Party References: http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&biw=1600&bih=769&tbs=ar%3A1&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=secfence+technologies&btnG=Search- 42.108.99.125 (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Innobuzz does not seem to be mentioned in that search - do you have a specific link for that? It would not necessarily make innobuzz notable though. noq (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found this on the website of Secfence - http://www.secfence.com/services Please check the Footer. - Sonakshi87 (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A recent award given by NBC (Newsmaker Publication, owner of Afternoon Voice) to Innobuzz. Reference: http://www.prlog.org/11472067-innobuzz-wins-best-ethical-hacking-training-award.html & https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=172042576183394&set=a.134433773277608.36816.115207178533601&type=1 Please check, Not sure if this meets the Notability Criteria. Also got to know that they feature a Information Security section on a TV Channel NDTV_24x7 during a Technology show, will try to get a reference video shortly. - Sonakshi87 (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources I could find meet the reliability or independence criteria (the parent company's website is not independent, facebook is not reliable, etc). I see nothing to indicate that notability is met PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Jelly[edit]

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

His main claim to notability appears to be as a political candidate. However, the limited success and limited coverage (some brief mentions in the Hamilton Spectator) makes this fail WP:POLITICIAN. Likewise, his work in art and music do not establish notability per WP:ARTIST or WP:MUSIC. He's off to a good start and in the future perhaps he will be notable, but not at this time freshacconci talktalk 19:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 19:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 19:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 19:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN, local notoriety only. Without prejudice to re-creating article if he subsequently meets notability per WP standards. PK T(alk) 12:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 23:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--fails WP:POLITICIAN; doesn't appear to be the subject of any third party sources.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Too soon for an entry, maybe later. Soupy sautoy (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I generally favor a low barrier for inclusion of political biographies, but the extremely localized nature of this subject combined with the general sense that it is a puff piece leads me to encourage deletion here. Carrite (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (CSD G5: the carticle was created by a blocked user using a sockpuppet account.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding the Message of the Cross of Jesus Christ[edit]

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

After pruning, it became clear that this book is not notable. The sources (including the ones I removed) are fluffy, unreliable, or primary, and I don't see anything that can be called a decent, independent review. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Not a single reliable third party source, as far as I can make out. The article was written as blatant promotion by a single purpose editor who does nothing but promote one person, the church that person has founded, his writing, etc. The promotional character of the article has been considerably toned down, but there is still no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - promotional article by s.p.a. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Divine Word College of Calapan. Although there is no consensus to delete, there is a consensus not to keep. Merging would appear to be the best outcome here. Once the content is merged, the article should be deleted PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DWCC Gazette[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No significant coverage in independent third-party sources that may establish notability. Moray An Par (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Moray An Par (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highly selective merge and redirect to Divine Word College of Calapan. Fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo optical disc[edit]

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

Fails general notability criteria: no reliable third-party sources with in-depth coverage on the subject. Almost all of the statements in the article are unsourced, and I could not find any reliable sources to confirm the more technical details, such as the burst-cutting area section. I think the few sourceable details on the discs (manufacturers, disc size/capacity, backwards compatibility) would be better merged into the console articles, that is if the information is not included there yet. Prime Blue (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the Nintendo optical disc article was created as a merger of the content of the Nintendo GameCube Game Disc and Wii Optical Disc articles, as they were not considered notable enough as separate entities (they are both the same format, just different diameters). jhsounds (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't this be in the GameCube and Wii articles? 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move content to the Gamecube, Wii, and Wii U articles. Content added would not be a detriment to the respective pages, consolidating insights to the consoles in one area. Kiranerys 05:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To an appropriate section in Gamecube and Wii articles, not inherently notable but can serve a mention in the article. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double-checked, and after a minor edit, all sourcable information is now included in the three console articles. Couldn't find a reliable source for the Wii disc capacities (4.7 / 8.54 GB), though. Prime Blue (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no good reason to delete this page - it is sourced and informative. Taking the sources together, WP:GNG is met. If it is thought that the content could be organised better, that is more suited to a separate discussion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the 12 references added by Ost316, only a single reference has significant coverage on the topic, and is considered reliable by the project. All others are either unreliable, fleeting mentions, or are duplicate reports on the same things. Prime Blue (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that my edits weren't necessarily to prove notability, but to verify coverage even if the information is merged; I'm indifferent toward the topic and don't feel that I searched extensively enough to determine if their is a blanket umbrella term that encompassed all the media formats. It's not a good argument, but the articles in {{Optical disc authoring}} show precedent for articles on marginally notable formats. While merging to the specific consoles may be valid, there may be opportunity to merge more formats into a list of optical formats. I'm a little surprised that even optical disc in not tagged under the scope of WP:WikiProject Media as is Compact Cassette, and that project may have additional feelings on how media formats should be handled in general. —Ost (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, the references just seemed pretty offhand to me. Save for the Nintendo World Report one, of course. That one's a good find, and I would endorse a keep if more sources of that nature and scope were found to properly expand the article. Prime Blue (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good quality references, more than enough substantial content to make up a small article, and having an article for a proprietary video-game disc format is not without precedent, see Universal Media Disc, the format for the PSP. It's Malpass⁹₃! (_drop me a ^___) 12:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems well referenced enough, and I think it is better to have the history of Nintendo's optical disc format in a single article rather than spread out across the GameCube, Wii and Wii U articles. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and unsourced. It's just a variation on CD/DVD, and serves only as a carrier for games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.95 (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No objection to creation if someone really thinks a redirect is useful, but I do not see the utility. Courcelles 04:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Stomach[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. could not find evidence of reliable sources covering this venue. [20]. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Not notable. Created by single purpose user, seems like COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow redirect to stomach, surely.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to stomach. Not a notable organization, but a viable redirect. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think "The Stomach" is a useful redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone unfamiliar with our naming conventions may expect "the" to precede stomach. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete. Almost all of the 'keeps' are from IPs with no edits other than to this page or the article page. I see nothing in their arguments that has appeared to convince the 'delete' comments PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Myko San – Health from Mushrooms[edit]

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

Appears to be nonnotable Croatian company, article likely promotional in intent. There are many references, nearly all offline (or dead links or behind paywalls) and nearly all in Croatian, so hard to verify, but a Croatian speaker has found them suspect (see article talk page). Happy to withdraw this if there are indeed independent verifiable secondary sources that treat this company in detail, and therefore establish notability. However, discussion on the talk page makes it much more likely what we have are passing mentions, primary sources, and placed nonindependent content instead. Martinp (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Timbouctou (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have had an eye on this article for awhile, since it seemed clearly promotional, but the sourcing is in Croatian and I was unable to make head or tail of it. If there's even a suggestion that the sourcing is iffy, then I think this should clearly be deleted since it's setting off pretty much every other alarm bell I can think of. MastCell ^Talk 03:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotional, evidently not verifiable, at best alt-med stub anyhowLeadSongDog come howl! 05:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was fishy to me from the first day I saw it, but I couldn't put my finger on it because it's so niche. In the meantime I saw them mentioned one single time on a Croatian TV programme (can't remember which exact station), but I'm not sure if it was just a commercial or actual independent coverage. Either way, they're something of an oddity, so their mainstream media coverage might just relate to people being curious. IMO notability needs to be demonstrated within their field - for example this "International Medicinal Mushroom Conference" they mention probably gathers people related to the field who could attest to Myko San's relevance, but why don't we have an article about that? I'm perplexed. It could all be fringe spam, then again it could be like Zdenko Domančić (who is also niche medicine, and has achieved some notability in .hr, yet doesn't have an en: article). Perhaps it's best to insist on more quality sources in this case. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. Article creator has posted an extensive response on article talk page, advocating article be kept, and promising to make changes by end of this week. Martinp (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a native speaker of Croatian language and the initial creator of this article (if this disqualifies me, please just check out Subtitled YouTube Video). I also wish to emphasize that I am not affiliated with the company.

I cannot agree at all with the promotional qualification. I've tried to provide all the information on the company I could find that was verifiable and edit it as needed to avoid promotional content that was present in a minority of sources. In one instance I've made sure that non-verified claims by the company itself is read as such. The majority of the sources used are magazines. Although some cannot be considered trustworthy (24 sata and Arena are tabloids and celebrity/lifestyle magazines) those are only used to support other, more notable magazines and never on their own. For other magazines, there are no reasonable doubts, as per WP:VERIFY#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source - these include Vjesnik, Vecernji list and, especially, in health magazines like 'Doktor u kuci' and 'Svijet zdravlja'. These are expert-reviewed articles and verifiably not promotional in intent or form. Tagging such sources as unreliable is inaccurate and against the guidelines given in WP:Verifiability#Sources. These take precedence over those guidelines given in WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) as found in the short introduction of the latter. It should also be noted that, while available, the WP policy WP: No original research excludes such sources which may be regarded as more reliable (as per WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)).

Regarding the problems with foreign language sources, one editor has warned against possible discrimination of such sources - they may be verifiable, even if they cannot be verified by you. I suggest using machine-translation with back-translation (better services have it built-in), so you can double check the accuracy of the translation. Additional ideas for improving the verifiability of foreign sources have also recently been suggested (see Talk page).

I don't want to offend anyone, but I see a lot of activity on the Talk pages of this article and very little, if any constructive work on the article itself - clearly we need more researchers to find relevant information and editors to include them on this page. The article is indeed dated (especially considering that lots more new information is available online) and the dead links MUST be changed ASAP (which as you know is a constant problem with many articles on WP); however, instead of judging the present content and continually tagging it, it would be more productive to actually work to make this article better.

After just one quick search on the company I found some very interesting news, such as that the company has completed the registration of 2 preparations by the Ministry of Health - the first registration of medicinals from medicinal mushrooms in Europe - this has been published in local media and in International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms (New Dietary Supplements from Medicinal Mushrooms: Dr Myko San—A Registration Report (Free Abstract)). They have completed the research mentioned in the article and published some interesting results. They are the organizers of the 6th International Medicinal Mushroom Conference 2011 (IMMC6), which will be held in Zagreb, Croatia and gather 400-500 scientists in the biggest and most important conference in the medicinal mushrooms field (see IMMC6 Official Website and Subtitled YouTube Video). This should be edited in. In my humble opinion, any notability concerns have just been busted beyond salvation.

This article should not be deleted - but it must be improved. New information demonstrating notability (see above for the results of a 1 minute search effort), updated links and, maybe, different wording in few places can make all the difference needed. If this is/can be done, I cannot see any reasons to remove it.

I can and plan to help with research and editing - I can make some edits by the end of the week. Please feel free to contact me for any clarification and I invite you to try and make the article better with me.

I want to close by stating that choosing to remove or keep this article should be a logical and not an emotional decision. I don't need to like or agree with it. If this article really cannot be improved, then let's remove it, but first we need to ensure we are not making a blunder. A simple Google/YouTube search returned some results we cannot just ignore and which, for me, suggest that we should update it and keep it. Yamabushi1981 (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yamabushi, thanks for your reply, and thanks for working on an article you feel will improve the encyclopedia. On the one hand, it is tricky in specialized fields for most people to contribute meaningfully to specific articles, and on the other hand, there is a frequent pattern of articles on wikipedia that are promotional copy on nonnotable companies about which there are insufficient verifiable reliable sources to write independent articles. The combination of the 2 is what drives the frustration you are facing.

Regarding the sources you mention above, IMMC6 has Dr Myko San as its principal organizer and sponsor. While this is not in itself bad in any way, it does mean that IMMC6 coverage of Dr Myko San is not an independent source. The journal article is on the compounds, not the company, and is in fact authored by an employee of Dr Myko San. So again does not establish notability - though if the article is kept, should be mentioned in it, of course. I don't know what to say about the Google video - can't watch it here. I may be wrong, but the whole thing sounds to me like a young company that is doing all sorts of Great Things, but about which there is not yet the level of independent coverage - of the company - to write a wikipedia article about the company. Thanks for your collaborative attitude on all of this - having work you have slaved over put up for deletion is, we all realize, not pleasant. Martinp (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMMC6 cannot and does not cover Dr Myko San. IMMC6 stands for 6th International Medicinal Mushroom Conference. International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms is a peer-reviewed scientific journal and its neutrality, independence and reliability cannot be reasonably contested.

(Taken from Talk Page) To attempt to satisfy notability concerns, we must first define them. WP:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Companies states "Companies reported as significant subjects of news coverage are usually sufficiently notable." Same source states: "Local retailers and service merchants... are generally deleted, with exceptions, including first-of-a-kind businesses..."

More importantly, WP:Company states "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." "Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are "important" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products."

I will attempt to show that the company has received substantial news coverage - where it is often recognized as a first-of-a-kind in Europe. In short, I need to show reliable, independent, secondary, created by a third-party, sources to prove this. It must also be verifiable.

I would like to start by showing the programmes made by various national and independent Croatian and Slovenian televisions (one video is Myko San's TV advertisement, so that's out). Some of these have already been translated (I can see the translations are correct, but I haven't checked all of them, 9 videos in all; another native Croatian speaker can double-check it). The videos can be found at Myko San on YouTube, I hope you can watch them ([User:Martinp] was unable to access them; however, the "Show video statistics" shows most of them have been successfully accessed from around the world). All of these are in the form of an interview with Dr. Jakopovic, some of them feature others, like doctors and a scientist from a leading Croatian Rudjer Boskovic Institute. Dr. Jakopovic appears to be considered an expert in these videos. A link Ivan Jakopovic Articles on International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms reveals that he is on the editorial board of this scientific journal and a writer of peer-reviewed scientific works, so he can reasonably be expected to be an expert in this field. The peer-reviewed nature of the works suppress possible promotional activity. The videos given above are a reliable, created by independent third parties source, and the content can easily be verified. In my view, these demonstrate notability ie. "being noticed" beyond a shadow of doubt.

I know of no secondary TV sources. It is easier and makes for a better programme to bring the guest in and do the interview. It is also harder to find any such videos because the company has not collected them (as the above YT obviously have been). I will check the written media, and am sure to find something soon - the IMMC6 conference that the company organizes ('safest source': Call to IMMC6) will take place in September. (Actually, in the past few days I've stumbled on some material, I will check it and if it is any good will use in the update.)

In my personal opinion, this article can be shown to be notable quite easily... the problem starts when we attempt to update it with the newest information. It can be difficult to find worthwhile information in a myriad of subpar sources surrounding companies in general - mostly thousands of sites rehashing the same content until it becomes unclear what is verifiable, what is important and whether it is new or outdated.

Let's keep it simple. All that as it may be, we first need one reliable source to establish notability. While having Jakopovich listed on the IJMM's editorial board is superficially encouraging, his lack of publications in other journals is not, and his apparent position with the company would preclude his publications from being reliable sources about the company. The videos are just one step more inconvenient, but open sites such as youtube are rarely helpful: see wp:Youtube. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have shown proof of 9 videos of TV programmes made by 5 different networks from 2 countries. Are you really disputing notability? Most indisputably notable articles on Wikipedia have a lot less proof of notability than that. These programmes are used here to establish notability, not factual accuracy of any detail, so it really is not covered under Wp:Youtube possible objections. Also, it doesn't need to be linked in the article and may reside on the talk page. If you can doubt that numerous newscasts from independent networks focused on the company itself are able to prove notability, what could possibly satisfy?

Regarding the lack of publications in other journals... did you thoroughly check that? And even if that is true, does it somehow reduce the value of the sources we have already found?

"Superficially encouraging, inconvenient videos"... please beware of weasel words.

Notability concern tags must be removed immediately, as it just doesn't make any sense in view of the general form of Wikipedia articles and the method of judging notability on WP as a whole. If that are the grounds for proposed deletion of article, the proposition must be revoked immediately. Yamabushi1981 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While wp:Weasel pertains to articlespace, we try to be diplomatic in talkspaces. AFD processes are seldom enjoyable. Some of us do not have bandwidth to burn on youtube videos. Can you simply state what is in one of these that would establish it as a reliable source? Who provides independent information apart from the company's representatives? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. As a previous reviewer has noted, there is nothing to dispute notability here. There are feature articles on the company in leading Croatian broadsheets, including a non-commercial, government-owned daily newspaper Vjesnik (and Internet searches show coverage in magazines and newspapers in several other countries as well) as well as in health magazines. The company website links to a number of TV appearances of its managing director, including on the main national television programmes in Croatia and Slovenia.
Most importantly, the company is hosting the 6th international medicinal mushroom conference which gathers hundreds of scientists (this website, indpendendent in relation to this company, shows this is clearly a significant scientific event - http://www.alphay.com/IMMC5en/index.html). Moreover, there have been at least two peer-reviewed articles on the company in the scientific journal which deals with this topic, the company has cooperated with the main Croatian research centre Rudjer Boskovic Institute, etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.129.69 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 14 July 2011
Delete. The sources don't come across as independent for the purpose of this article. See analysis by LeadSongDog above. International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms and the International Medicinal Mushroom Conference a both closely affiliated with this company. And paid news/ad TV packages are nothing new, especially in Central & Eastern Europe. Google for paid news, because Wikipedia doesn't cover this topic very well. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: User FuFoFuEd, I expect you can prove that International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms, started by a Ukrainian academician and published in the USA and a scientific magazine reviewed by dozens of expert editors (some of them managers of competing companies), is closely affiliated with the company. Also, please explain how can an International Scientific Conference, 6th so far, which has been previously organized in Ukraine (with the help of government), Thailand (under the direct patronage of the king), USA (by another private company), Slovenia, and China (yet another private company) which gathers and subsequently publishes works of hundreds of scientists across the globe be affiliated with a small Croatian company. The comment is obviously totally made up and as such, inconsequential.

I call for established notability, now lets concentrate on finding appropriate sources. Is anyone even searching for sources or is this a philosophical debate? 93.136.73.0 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — 93.136.73.0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: Good points by the last person. As regards Croatian and Slovenian media, i.e. Croatian and Slovenian state television, it's quite wrong to talk of them simply as advert sellers. They are publicly owned and specific laws preclude such practice. One of the videos on the Croatian national TV is actually a "cancer month" documentary special. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.0.131 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — 92.27.0.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oh, and I noticed two independent sources state that the company has conducted research in cooperation with the Croatian Ministry of Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.0.131 (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — 92.27.0.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I do not think that this company passes our notability threshold. OK, so they sell products made from mushrooms which they claim can cure cancer. Even if we disregard the fact that what they claim their products can do is dubious, the issue of how notable the company is remains. And their visibility in local business publications such as Poslovni dnevnik or Business.hr is practically non-existent. In fact they are only visible in popular health magazines (which are, coincidentally, their main advertising target). Yeah, they may have cooperated in some research sponsored by the ministry of science which aims to prove the medicinal properties of shrooms. So? Is any company which participates in government-sponsored reasearch inherently notable? I think not. Also, I'd like to ask the closing admin to ignore the obvious sock-puppeting/meat-puppeting going on here. Timbouctou (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hope that anyone who has read the entire discussion here and on the talk pages can clearly see that the article is notable enough, as per WP:Notability and WP:COMPANY guidelines. They are the first producers in Europe, first to register their preparations as supplements, they've started med. mush. research in Croatia (first on their own funds, and after publishing the first Croatian work in that field have got the governmental backing). And the media have found them notable enough to call them many times for talk shows (at least 5 TV networks from at least 2 countries) and there are many independent newspaper and even scientific community accounts. And as you can see (see DMS References) they have been covered by Business.hr (which is actually a mediocre paper, IMHO), if that is of any special significance.

The article is written using all the proper procedure, and the wording of primary sources results, of those who did the research, was unchanged as instructed by WP:MEDRS.

It never categorically states anything about curing cancers. Curing cancer is basically a misnomer in today's oncology, and the clinicians can at best give a disease-free status. The cancer cannot, as yet, ever be said to have been cured. And the company makes it very clear about that (see Principles of use (pt4)). Most importantly, there is no such claim in any of the sources and consequently anywhere in the article. And, very importantly Wikipedia is not a doctor.

Regarding the alleged "obvious" sock/meat-puppeting: to kill this allegation right away, let me tell you that user FuFoFuEd has put my profile up for Sockpuppet investigation but the investigation cleared me.

(it is actually quite obvious, since my IP is in Croatia, and 2 other editors that were suspected were from different parts of United Kingdom. (check ip) ) Neither of these users, FuFoFuEd nor Timbouctou have contacted me or tried anything to check, and they definitely did not follow such basic principles as WP:Assuming good faith or Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. This is very unprofessional behavior for a WP editor - having the power to change or influence the outcome of WP articles must come with a strong sense of responsibility and a good knowledge of guidelines and fundamental principles. Personal bias and unsubstantiated claims must be always kept in check as this project is bigger than individuals - the consensus that will improve the article most wins. Yamabushi1981 (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep

There is great stuff in this article. The person who said it should be deleted last didn't read or chose to ignore many of the previous points and evidence. Actually it was reported on in some business newspapers it seems according to sources in the article, but what does that matter even if they hadn't? Since when are business publications more important in terms of notability than national television stations and scientific journals and scientific associations like this conference thing? Why are we wasting our time with such fruitless discussions considering the sea of rubish on wikipedia we really should be sorting out, not attacking scientific pioneers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.88.210.86 (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troop 41[edit]

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

Non-notable group. Assertion of notability is made, but a search at Billboard for this group finds a page where they are claimed never to have charted at all. Frank | talk 02:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it is the song claimed to have charted but no references can be found to support; indeed, even if it had reached #76, it's doubtful the song would be notable enough for an entry anyway:

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

Keep but merge song to band article. The Billboard wesbite is missing a lot of chart info since it was redesigned. The Allmusic entry for the band, with chart info supplied by Billboard, confirms the hit single - [21]. Further info: SPIN, News & Observer, Billboard.--Michig (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Author Keep Even if the Billboard link were dead, the paper magazine would still confirm the chart position. I don't make these things up. Chubbles (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't think I was suggesting anything was made up. I had a reference (linked above) that explicitly claimed the artist hasn't charted yet. That's quite a bit more convincing than "I can't find anything". And still, the song itself doesn't appear notable, even if it charted at #76. Frank | talk 00:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with merging the song into the parent article. It's an unfortunate side-effect of Billboard's site design that it defaults to a message that says "this artist hasn't charted yet" if the query returns no results. But their public database is not complete. Chubbles (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a billboard link showing Troop 41's song charted. For reference, editors should consider using billboard.biz when searching for artists and whether or not their singles charted. It is the paid version of billboard.com and contains a far better archive of a song's chart history. Here is the link: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/charts/chart-search-results/singles/11938478 . It shows the song at 98 on the billboard hot 100. AnnRicks (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Lilly or Lily for Lillian[edit]

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

This page is completely original research. I don't believe there is a speedy deletion criteria that fits it. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete and I think that No assertion of importance CSD would apply here. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of that, but no assertion of importance of what? There isn't a category for no assertion of importance for an idea. I think there should be a specific category for pages like this. Ryan Vesey (talk) 08:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people feel "absolute nonsense" should be a CSD criterion. Only trouble is the fact that they prefer CSD criteria to be objective and not take judgement (IE "no assertion" is objective, if it has the words "is important because" or "is notable for" then it doesn't apply). In this case they do not assert a coherent subject for the article, which is a fortiori proof that there is no importance asserted. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant content with Lily (name), then delete this article. It's Malpass⁹₃! (_drop me a ^___) 11:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
definate delete The title looks like the name of an essay and the article reads like one, wikipedia isn't an essay sharing site, therefore thisarticle fails the fact that it isn't encyclopedic content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasider91 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's WP:OR and it also appears to have been copied-n-pasted from various other pages like this and this. Nik thestoned 13:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original essay — and, as pointed out above, maybe not that original. Carrite (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article after doing a google search for "is it lilly or lily for lillian". This presented me a long list of results of which none could give me exactly what I wanted. There were several that provided good information, but none seamed inclusive. (Is that the right word?)

I put together information I found on several sites and tried to present as much information on the subject as I could.

In the case of originality, I'm not sure anyone could come up with a truly original article on this subject. The information on this subject has been fully researched over the years and passed around almost verbatim online and in print.

As for the formatting of the article, if you don't like it, fix (edit) it.

This being the fact, deleting the article maybe be justified. But, what I would like to see, is someone with more experience at this then I am, edit the damn thing and make it more relevant.

Maybe there should be a place just for this type of answer to this type of question — "Is it this or that for this name".

My first name is Gilbert and I just hate it when some people abbreviate my name with Gill instead of Gil. I find no answer to the question, "Is it Gil or Gill for Gilbert?" on the internet.

I suspect there are a lot of short names that people would have a question about.

The creative one (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding comment copied from the talk page - frankie (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the relevant article on this subject is "Hypocorism". Wikipedia has an article on everything. If you're wondering about something you should always ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. There are many smart people there that can provide you with answers to your exact questions. -- œ ^™ 17:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic essay. And no sense in editing it as Lily (name) already exists. -- œ ^™ 17:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is the speedy that I missed. A10, an article that duplicates an existing article. Can we close this as a speedy delete now? Ryan Vesey contribs 22:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced; can you speedy it because notability is not established?Curb Chain (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chain Reaction (band)[edit]

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

Not a significant band. Article does not indicate any album releases, and isn't even the prequel to the Red Hot Chili Peppes. This band became another band which became another band which became the Chili Peppers. If anything at all, this article should be merged into the Chili Peppers article if it isn't included sufficiently already. MobileSnail 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I suppose one could point out the subject technically meets criterion 6 of WP:BAND, but my !vote is to delete based on the following four steps. (1) This group is essentially the junior high school version of the band who changed its name in high school and then again to What Is This? (2) Coverage for the band's Chain Reaction era appears to be fairly limited - [22][23] these were the best I came across. (3) Chain Reaction is already named in the articles for Hillel Slovak, Jack Irons, Alain Johannes and What Is This? (I added mentions to the latter two), and there's not really any additional information to merge from this article as it's currently written. (4) There are multiple bands named Chain Reaction, so a redirect is not my favorite solution here, either. I would move Chain Reaction (band 1960s) to Chain Reaction (band) with a hatnote directing readers interested in this band to the What Is This? article. Gongshow ^Talk 06:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masashi Tsuboyama[edit]

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

Not notable

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Golden Sugarplum (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added Japanese name above; searching for that doesn't seem to reveal any non-trivial WP:RS coverage. There seems to have been an interview with him in Dengeki Playstation magazine, unfortunately it's not available online. cab (call) 06:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails general notability criteria: no independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Article is a verbose version of the MobyGames credits, and impossible to expand without biographical information. There was an interview in Dengeki, but it was centered on the cancelled Silent Hill 5 rather than on Tsuboyama himself. Prime Blue (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shopper's City[edit]

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

Non-notable shopping center. I'm unable to find references that suggest that this is worthy of an encyclopedia article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe this is being described as a chain of stores, not a shopping center. But I haven't found any sources, either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.- lacks sources; lacks notability Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a chain of stores (seven) and is notable as being one of the forerunners of Big Box stores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimGrinningGuest (talk • contribs) 12:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two references added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimGrinningGuest (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A news search[24] suggests that this chain had some notability as a significant "big box" predecessor in Minnesota, and in connection with challenges to the Sunday-closing law there[25]. The subject matter seems to be a valuable addition to the encyclopedia's coverage of retailing. However, we could consider if the small amount of content would be better merged (with a redirect) into the article about Zayre, the notable larger chain which purchased this one in 1966-67.[26][27] --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroyuki Owaku[edit]

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

Not notable. Similar to Masashi Tsuboyama & Suguru Murakoshi. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Golden Sugarplum (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy keep – Notable enough in the field of video games. Simple google search shows his name on many sites in different languages, "What links here" also shows his name in the different pages of Wikipedia, he also has an article on Portuguese Wikipedia, what else do you need here. — Bill william compton^Talk 17:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy deletion - Google search indeed shows his name on many sites in different languages, but few of them seem to be considered reliable sources (ImdB & fansites are unreliable sources). The fact that he has an article on another Wikipedia does not make him notable & the said Wikipedia has a single source which is unreliable (ImdB). Golden Sugarplum (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even need to make a vote! here, as you're the original nominator. Why didn't you use this rationale in your nomination, to make things more clearer, you're just doing cherry picking here to make your opinion stronger. It doesn't matter if article has a single source, because there are sources, like Cotidianul, search news section, and we've a better way to do this by "Google news". — Bill william compton^Talk 05:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Has a source to verify its existence. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 02:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is not enough to keep an article. The notability guidelines call for multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage regarding the subject and not proof that the subject exists.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There are two third party references which indicate why this person is recognized meaning its a reputable (albeit slowly) article. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 16:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links to said sources so that we can examine if they are reliable and their content. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails general notability criteria: no independent reliable sources with significant coverage, interviews with Owaku all centered on the game series rather than on the person. Article is a verbose version of the MobyGames credits, and impossible to expand without biographical information. Prime Blue (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V4 Studios[edit]

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

Tagged for multiple issues since June 2010. Apart from many Ghits due to its extensive SEO, there are no further online sources. This organisation is possibly notable for having won one possibly notable award, but otherwise fails at WP:ORG. The community should decide. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per lack of notable media coverage. I didn't see any third-party news coverage results on Google and Yahoo except for V4 studios pages or simply other websites mentioning them. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Necronomicon. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Necronomicon Ex-Mortis[edit]

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

Makes no assertion of its notability, offers no real-world perspective and is comprised of original research and plot descriptions that can already be found within the Evil Dead film articles. GroovySandwich 09:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a quick look on google books found numerout third party sources to cite, from books, film and magazines. I added one for good measure, people should feel free to add more. They are there. Mathewignash (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Necronomicon: The fictional grimoire, a variant of Lovecraft's Necronomicon, does not meet the general notability guideline by itself and the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Most sources found with a search engine test associate it with the notable Necronomicon but do not give detailed coverage to Necronomicon Ex-Mortis. Most reliable sources which mention it are either tertiary sources or trivial mentions, but no secondary sources give analytic or evaluative claims to Necronomicon Ex-Mortis. In fact, the cited source in the article actually refers to the Lovercraft's Necronomicon, as can be seen by checking the cited page. As Necronomicon Ex-Mortis is easily confused with Necronomicon, I believe that a merge would work better than deletion, but, since the content is not referenced and it is full of original research by synthesis, a redirect is the best alternative. Jfgslo (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect this is one use of Lovecraft's concept, but not enough can be said about it alone that cannot be said of all necronomicons (necronomica?) HominidMachinae (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect not enough coverage in reliable sources to WP:verify notability but willing to support redirect if it will result in a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Witness to the Regicide[edit]

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

no independent notability shown for this ep. no charting or awards. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NALBUMS to a T. Hasteur (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tricifixion of Swine[edit]

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

no independent notability shown for this limited edition ep. no charting or awards. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable labels and reviews as well. You just have to dig a bit to get them. The Undead Never Die (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being on a notable label is not part of WP:NALBUMS, Spikekult Records is not notable, not a reliable source, what reviews? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, per WP:NALBUMS and duffbeerforme remarks. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is for a band, but not for an album. See WP:BAND #5. Dream Focus 14:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says it released only 300 copies. Is this correct? I find it highly unlikely an album would be notable if it sold so poorly as to only be released on 300 albums. Do you mean 300 vinyl perhaps, and then also a CD that sold more copies than that? Dream Focus 14:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not demonstrably charted or had significant independent coverage in reliable sources, so subject fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Hekerui (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Castrate the Redeemer[edit]

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

no independent notability shown for this album. no charting or awards. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources found on Archaic-Magazine and heavy metal mania. The last one you will have to translate. The sources are tougher to find, but they do exist. The Undead Never Die (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Agree with duffbeerforme about the reliabilty of the reviews presented, perhaps a separate page 'Grand Belial's Key discography' would be a better option than individual pages?
Comment Yes, a single page of discography would be sufficient. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability doubtful, extensive coverage not justified. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a Mule Rides the Swindler[edit]

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

no independent notability shown for this limited edition single. no charting or awards. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On a notable label. Also, there are multiple reviews of this album out. see for yourself. I don't have much time to go find anything. Going out to sea soon. The Undead Never Die (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these Google hits do you think are good? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment: not seeing coverage in reliable sources, perhaps a separate page 'Grand Belial's Key discography' would be a better option than individual pages?

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only 500 copies released, so no charting, and no significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Release fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Hekerui (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sole 'keep's argument that other articles would need to be deleted is not strictly relevant to this discussion. The consensus is clearly that the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means that this article should be deleted PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JPCSP[edit]

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

Over a year, and still no secondary sources, still no assertion of notability. I could not locate any significant coverage of this emulator in books or magazines. There are a number of web hits, but no secondary reporting from reliable publications. WP:V, WP:N Marasmusine (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A brief search yields no non-primary, significant coverage sources, beyond directory entries and download pages. Does not pass WP:GNG as far as I can tell. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we delete this, we might as well delete all the other emulator pages out there, along with a lot of indie softwares. 64.42.217.69 (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unfortunately, you are right, and the majority of indie software/emulators would not pass Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Regardless, we evaluate each article by its own merits. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment we had a discussion a while back about another emulator, and the point raised there was that though few sources talk about this sort of thing due to their grey-market legality, the requirement for multiple, independent, reliable, sources is absolute. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But, also, there are lots of good, solid sources that cover console emulators. For example, books I've been using for verification in the "List of" article include [28][29] and [30]. It makes me sigh whenever I hear the "indy software gets no coverage!" canard. Marasmusine (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you entirely. I guess I should clarify that what I meant is that the requirement for multiple reliable sources is not mitigated by something being indy or being grey-market. Some things are so notable that they get ample coverage despite being underground. HominidMachinae (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Sorry, I wasn't directing that at you. Marasmusine (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with the lack of reliable sources being a crucial factor to meet the Wikipedia's standards when it comes to keep this article or not, but when I wrote this project's page no one could have predicted the current situation we're facing. Not only we need better resources to promote and document our project, but also most sources have little to no interest in it due to the current legal actions that are taking place concerning the console system in cause. Therefore, this project has been only subsisting with help from regular users and contributors, which is exactly the same scenario that's taking place in the domains of the regular homebrew scene (which has also very limited recognition, concerning the console system in cause). Hykem (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topple the Tyrants[edit]

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

Article outdated and this was a very minor news event. It's not important enough to have its own article. Oh man, I wanted to swipe that article! (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed properly. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: received significant media coverage (disregarding repeats) over a period of a month. Does need updating, but RSs have been unclear as to whether situations is still ongoing (as part of the larger Libya impasse) or whether is was resolved. This should definitely be updated once the final resolution comes to pass, but seems to be a significant example of politically-motivated occupyings of buildings, and well-covered by a variety of media. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. WP:ONEEVENT and coverage of an insignificant group. Could merge in to Seif al-Islam article. They occupied one home of the son of Libya's Gaddafi. Nobody heard of them before they moved in. ~~I doubt that anybody will remember them after they've been evicted. They are a bunch of blackmailers (and property kidnappers) who want money to move out.~~ Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: suggest the above post be stricken from the discussion due to blatant POV in just a few short sentences. It's one thing to raise legit objections, another to say "we shouldn't write about X group because they're terrible people." Further, it's a spurious argument to say that their importance before/after the event is a deciding factor; the only thing that matters is whether their involvement in the cited event is notable, as the article basically covers a one-shot group formed for a specific notable event. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok I've striked last two sentences myself because they are my POV but they are indeed negotiating for money to move out. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is an event important. It should be kept so later generations will know it. BenjaminMarine9037 (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent and the group's significance in the news. Wandering Courier (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Ivanko[edit]

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

Non-notable author; awards cited are an Energy Star [31] and an Axiom Business Book award [32]; neither of these awards appears to be particularly notable. Article creator is editing in an SPA fashion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't comment on the awards, but the inn has received significant coverage [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. Even though the main focus of the articles is the inn itself, the coverage received by Ivanko is not just passing, and it meets WP:GNG. Also he is a published author of several books, some of which are referenced by other authors [40] [41] [42] [43], more at [44] - frankie (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Smacks of promotional puffery. What's the name of that Bed and Breakfast again? Carrite (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mann (entertainer)[edit]

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

Singer. Released a self-titled album in 2001 and was re-released in 2009. Album is from Uppercut records which appears to be a independent label. Hard to find info on Uppercut, but their webpage was last updated in 2005. Has released a couple more singles. Has been "additional vocals" for some TV and films. Bgwhite (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, and the fact that the article is mostly the same since this version of August 3, 2010, which was written by two SPA's (user:Monkeyamigo and user:Chrismannmusic) who may be either the subject himself or closely associated with him. However whatever (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Fusion[edit]

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

Subject fails Notability Guidelines Canyouhearmenow 19:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on the page and the wiki format. Viking Fusion won an Emmy a few weeks ago, the reference has been fixed. We have various other cross-linked articles on Wikipedia that I am currently updating. We are the student-run multimedia website for Berry College. Wikipedia is an obvious medium for information on our site/organization to exist, and is also an excellent learning tool to integrate into our curriculum. I would greatly appreciate it if you do not delete this page or at least let me know how I can solve this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfett69 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest maybe a merge into an article about the college itself if there is one written on the college. The article for this subject does not have enough notability to maintain an article on its own per WP:Notability guidelines. I am open to hearing what other editors have to say. I am not opposed to a merge. --Canyouhearmenow 19:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick replies. Because our student site a separate entity from our college, a merger would not be possible I'm afraid. I am the site's online editor and only just began setting up this article and plan on expanding and adding many more references. We are very prominent in our area but I am still learning what all functions Wikipedia has open for us to utilize. How much time can an article spend marked for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfett69 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article has already been nominated so it will go through the review as all other articles do. The problem that I see here is that the Viking Fusion does not have enough notability to maintain the article on its own validations. This is why I suggested that maybe we merge the article into the Berry College article since it is a part of that learning institution. I will wait to hear from other editors on their opinions. I would also tell you that you need to sign your replies with four tildes so that it will put your name on your responses. Let me know if I can be of any help to you. --Canyouhearmenow 19:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to work then, though it seems a lot of my progress a moment ago was deleted instead of allowing me the chance to modify it. Jfett69 (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can an article like the Rome News Tribune meet the notoriety standards and our organization not? We are both news organizations in the same town in Georgia. Jfett69 (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for another article, I can only respond to the one I am dealing with. If the other article does not meet WP:Notability guidelines, I am sure at some point it will be dealt with. But lets just try to see where this one will go first. Thank you. --Canyouhearmenow 20:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any more suggestions please let me know. I will continue to work and take care of any issues brought to my attention. Jfett69 (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all of the sources that you have added to the subject's article they all point back to the college itself and Viking Fusion as a program within its curriculum. This is why I suggested the article may want to be merged. I am just not sure the program meets the notability guidelines on its own merits. --Canyouhearmenow 20:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The college is only referenced in this sources as a way of identifying where the organization comes from. The Red and Black is separate from UGA, but is still its student newspaper, meanwhile publications like The Sentinel (KSU) are part of the academic curriculum but are also allowed a separate Wikipedia article. Another entry, Radio K, is a student radio station that was also a finalist in an award we won. They too have their own Wiki article.Jfett69 (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would converting the article into a stub be more suitable by chance? Jfett69 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the word? I have supplied several professional and notable references, I have stated that merging our group's article would not be accepted by the College administration, and I have also brought attention to other, less-qualified articles that already exist on Wikiepedia. I hope to hear good news soon! Thank you very much for the help in improving the article. Jfett69 (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have to wait for other editors to chime in to give an opinion on the fate of the article. Or we have to wait for a review administrator to close the deletion debate with a no consensus decision. So, it really is a waiting match. Keep up the great work. --Canyouhearmenow 22:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ron for helping to get more discussion over the page. Hope to hear good news soon! Jfett69 (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With new sources, the club appears to be notable. The policy appropriate for this page is at WP:CLUB. It reads:

Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead.

The current sources supporting notability appear to be the following:

this article by a Metro Atlanta newspaper also mentioning an award (given by College Broadcasting Inc.) won by a comedy show within the club.
this finalist nomination of the club's staff by College Broadcasters Inc. in a national competition,
this nomination for Outstanding Achievement: Student Production Excellence, (Non-‐News) by the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Southeast.
Article from RomaNews about participation by some club members in Obama teleconference.

Berry University is located in the northern part of Georgia. I would argue that the Metro Atlanta piece represents non-local coverage, and that the two articles by RomaNews and the awards help supplement notability of this organization that goes beyond local coverage. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Decision to Keep. With all of the new work that has been done to the article, it now in my opinion meets the notability guidelines for wikipedia. I would however argue that the article be listed as a WP:stub. Thanks for all of the work to bring this article out of the flames! --Canyouhearmenow 11:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is great news indeed. I think the club classification would fit nicely, but I have heard of these stub articles. What should I do next to change in order to comply with the final decisions here? Thanks again! Jfett69 (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the final decision. This is the community consensus and a administrator will make the final call on the article. The more you can expand the article, the better it is going to look to pull it out of a stub category. I want to thank you for helping to pull this article out of a deletion state because I can assure you that had you not done it, it would have been deleted. Thanks again! --Canyouhearmenow 14:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin expanding as much as I can, thank you very much for the continued assistance. Jfett69 (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrit Müller (cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRIN. The WP:CRIN notability guidelines state: "...has appeared in at least one ICC World Cup Qualifier match since 2005, or in an ICC Trophy final prior to 2005, as a player or umpire" Muller does not meet these criteria. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep' WP:CRIN also says "has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire" That would include other international matches like the European Cricket Championship where in addition to what is mentioned in the article he was at least named in 2004[45] Agathoclea (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ICC Trophy matches prior to 2005 (the 2005 ICC Trophy had List A status) are deemed to be non-major cricket matches. Major cricket encompasses first-class, List A and Twenty20 cricket. It would be List A status which would apply, which the tournaments Muller featured in did not have. He could only therefore be deemed notable if Germany or Denmark had appeared in an ICC Trophy final when he was playing, which neither did. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nominator states, fails WP:CRIN. Sports figures have a very low bar on WP and we shouldn't allow articles for players with very weak credentials. --Johnsemlak (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and note the particular meaning of "major" in cricket - we have an article Major cricket. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nev1 (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I created this, along with others of the same nationality, before I knew of entirely hard-and-fast rules about nationalities. How many other Danish cricketers will also need deleting on the same principle? Bobo . 13:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just Muller Bobo. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Cheers. Just checking to see whether I had added any more non-notable names which required deletion. I meant German cricketers, I guess... Bobo . 00:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Same with the German ones as well, just Muller. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Doesn't meet criteria of notability as per WP:CRIN. 05:38, 16 July 2011 (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 G12. MrKIA11 (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omar benguit[edit]

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

Cut and copy violation with living peoples address and other similar issues - not notable under this name or any other for that matter - one event BLP - not notable murder. If is is by any slim chace notable I have given the user links to article creation (not in article space in incubation or userspace) - this version and its history needs deletion first. Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This comment from the creator of the BLP article User:Londonlinks - which is part of this diff is one one the major problems - "Wikipedia editors are not barred from making contributions to articles which they have already published elsewhere - please read up on the policies and rules." - User:Londonlinks is/has some kind of COI connection with the not wikipedia reliable website they are cut and copying from and attempting to add as a citation/external link - http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/index.htm - Here is the diff of my attempting to help the user but my offer was rejected and the account asserted my blanking of the article was vandalism. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY There is too much blanking of articles occurring under the guise of "editing". It is not editing to simply delete a whole article and then to canvass opinion on this forum after the act has been committed. In order to edit and improve articles, the article has to be visible and present on the index for other editors to make improvements and amendments. This is commonsense. The act of deleting whole articles is an abuse which is no different from other acts of vandalism. Londonlinks (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now marked the article for speedy deletion - there will not be opportunity to edit the article or improve it, but deleting or blanking articles now seems to be the new and fashionable way to edit. It's not for me however, so I will move on and leave the "editing" to the new breed of editors currently populating Wikipedia. Londonlinks (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deletion nomination mentioned here is on the article's talk page, not the article itself, and its explanation is "Another editor wants to delete this page so I have done so." That template was inserted on the article and promptly removed, and the only reason I didn't remove the one on the talk page is so people know what this person is talking about. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Živa Vadnov[edit]

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

Person is not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject was Miss Slovenia, article is sourced J04n(talk page) 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although the article is in horrible shape, it meets minimal requirements. --Tone 08:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Winner of a national beauty pageant meets minimal requirements although to be honest I'm not that interested in beauty queens Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is enough sourced --Amintib (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We Are the Radio[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable band. EP has some significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is it not notable? On what basis does it fail notability? I have to say keep until I can know how the nom thinks it fails any notability guidelines.Roodog2k (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 17:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A4289 road[edit]

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

This is a minor road in Swindon of no special significance. The page contains no reliable sources, other than a link to Google Maps in the "bibliography" section. I would be persuaded not to delete this if Swindon UA had a page dedicated to this explaining why it is notable due to some road feature or congestion, but the only thing I can find is a generic holding page on the Traffic Update website. Also the page's creator and most significant contributor, Spanner0jjm is banned. Ritchie333 (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've viewed it in Streetview. I've tried to make all allowance I can for the fact that not everyone can live in a World Heritage site, and that there will be people who have lived there all their lives and for whom it may hold some affection. Nevertheless, there is nothing that indicates notability. It's an unassuming street typical of many towns in Britain that saw industrial growth and prosperity in the latter part of the 19th and early 20th century. Similar examples can be found in many parts of Europe. --AJHingston (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking Acid[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--- I would argue that the artist is well known, and particularly notable within their musical scene, and as such official releases are noteworthy7PusaAJ (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC) User:7PusaAJ[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums.2C singles and songs. Cannot find a single review for this EP. The best I can find is the AllMusic mention, but that doesn't satisfy the very first sentence in the aforementioned guideline. Nik thestoned 13:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 17:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cannock Hockey Club[edit]

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

There isn't sufficient coverage of the club by independent sources failing WP:CLUB. While there is a claim of importance it is unsupported by evidence and is not possible to verify. --Mrmatiko (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a couple of refs to back up the club's notability, and I'll try and find some more. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that the sources in the article are enough to establish the notabiltiy of the club, along with the fact that they play in one of the top field hockey leagues in England. Also having won several championships over the past decade is nothing to sneeze at. However, I have placed an additional tag on the article because there is close paraphrasing going on from one of the sources I looked at, so the article would need a slight re-write to take care of that issue. ArcAngel (talk) ) 16:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect as Cats[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: just added a few sources to show this tribute album has notability. I know many dont, but this one got pretty mainstream coverage for a tribute album, including in non-English newspapers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--nice save. Listed references show notability (I'm basing this on NME and the Pitchfork review alone, since I don't read French or Russian). Meelar (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent's improvements. Nice work. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 EHF Women's Champions League qualifying phase[edit]

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

The article is nothing more just a copy/paste of a section of the 2011–12 EHF Women's Champions League article. (See history, as it has been cut off.) Actually, the article have been torn apart with high hand, making it quite hard to follow, especially for a layman. There are expressions that appear main article, but there is not a single hint where that comes (as you have to read the qualifying section first to understand). I don't see a single reason to divide the article (it is not too long or effusive), like never was in the past seasons. It's okay to create a sub-article, if it is some expansion of the shortly written info in the main article, but in this case I think it's completely unneccessary and just destroys the consistency of the article, that should be solved if the quali phase would be put back to the original article. Thehoboclown (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not needed and does not use much space. Kante4 (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 EHF Champions League qualifying phase[edit]

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

The article is nothing more but the cut-off of qualifying section from the main article. (See the history there.) However, in my point of view there is no reason to create separate article since it would be not only incosistent but would also make the original article very difficult to understand. There are things which are results of the happenings of the qualifying phase, and without mentioning them the article can become incomprehensible and would turn into total a hotchpotch. Moreover, the article is not unneccessary long or complicated, therefore I can't see any reason why to create a sub-article. Thehoboclown (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The qualification stages are not that long and don´t uses a lot of space, so they are unnesessary and should be deleted. Kante4 (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peel Sessions (The Smashing Pumpkins EP)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In what way does it appear not to be notable? Why make a gap in a major band's discography? Please give your rationale. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Smashing Pumpkins. I can't find any reference to the record in any publication of note, but it should be listed in their discography. It just doesn't need its own entry. There is a weird trash book filled with Wikipedia entries named after it, but that hardly counts as a reliable source. Soupy sautoy (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, it should be merged into a general "Peel Sessions" article, but there is no such thing. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Looking at the The_Smashing_Pumpkins#Discography it appears every one of their 6 EP albums has its own article. Seems to be a keep to me.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't that suggest more that some Smashing Pumpkins fans are active Wikipedians, rather than that all of their EPs are notable? Not arguing, genuine question. Soupy sautoy (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 04:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Konopasek[edit]

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

Notability; Created by self in violation of WP policy.

Self Promotional. Deletion history show original author is Michael Konopasek.
Not Notable.

Either reason alone is criteria for deletion. - Davodd (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was nominated for an Emmy, which is a decent start, but without third-party coverage, Konopasek doesn't meet the notability criteria. --I Jethrobot (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article under a different username, but I could not remember the login, so I'm using a new username. I can say with certainty, because I added the article, it is not self promotional. I am not Konopasek.

Also, I just added two citations for the Emmy nominations from the NATAS website (Emmy organization). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freenation45962 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--he was nominated for a Great Lakes Emmy, not an Emmy. Meelar (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Troy Knedel[edit]

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

promotional in nature, non-notable individual, primary editors appear to have a confict of interest and appear to be meatpuppeting to support the article Shearonink (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: I've blocked all the main contributors to the article, as when Shearonink asked me for advice on how to handle this article, it seemed apparent that there was some sort of socking going on. On further investigation, User:Capadonna33 is a confirmed second account of User:Pompeico and has been blocked indefinitely; Pompeico and the two other accounts are possibly related to each other (more likely to be separate people, that is, meatpuppets) and have been blocked 1 week each. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single news source.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published, and not yet released (the book). The two non-wiki references don't seem to have the name 'Knedel' in them. The 'Authonomy' link is to a site where new books can be 'discovered'. Self-submitted. All in all, looks promotional. Peridon (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Highly promotional, WP:SELFPUB, and truly non-notable by Wikipedia standards. Someday this may change, but until then, delete and WP:SALT. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete. there is no way this spam is going to be kept. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Ptolemy (2nd cent.). "VII.5". In R. Catesby Taliaferro (ed.). Almagest (1982 ed.). p. 239. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help) Ptolemy refers to the constellation as Septentarius 'the serpent holder'.

[2] Kollerstrom, N. (October 1995). "Ophiuchus and the media". The Observatory. 115. KNUDSEN; OBS: 261–262. Bibcode:1995Obs...115..261K. Reproduced online at SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS), retrieved 13 July 2011.

[3] Kollerstrom, N. (October 1995). "Ophiuchus and the media". The Observatory. 115. KNUDSEN; OBS: 261–262. Bibcode:1995Obs...115..261K.

[4] The notion received further international media attention in January 2011, when it was reported that astronomer Parke Kunkle, a board-member of the Minnesota Planetarium Society, had suggested that Ophiuchus was the zodiac's '13th sign'. He later issued a statement to say he had not reported that the zodiac ought to include 13 signs instead of 12, but was only mentioning that there were 13 constellations; reported in Mad Astronomy: Why did your zodiac sign change? 13 January 2011.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

SANS Institute	www.sans.org - 34,652
CompTIA	www.comptia.org - 67,591
Information Systems Audit and Control Association	www.isaca.org - 69,149
OSCP	offensive-security.com - 75,370
EC-Council	www.eccouncil.org - 124,970
(ISC)²	www.isc2.org - 162,739
ISECOM	www.isecom.org - 909,674
Council of Registered Ethical Security Testers Certified Consultant	crest-approved.org - 4,705,99