Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 12

< 11 August	13 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. We have a consensus that the article should be either merged or deleted, but don't agree which is more appropriate. So while there's no consensus for deletion, this discussion is a sufficient basis for an editor to merge whatever content is considered useful to another appropriate article. Sandstein 07:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hate crimes against white people

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

Non-encyclopedic essay filled with statements by obscure people nobody even bothers to create redlinks to; just an excuse for poorly-sourced whining by editors, many (not all) of whom have suspect histories in racial areas. Orange Mike | Talk 23:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hate crime; this is a POVFORK. Equally, delete would be a reasonable outcome for the same reason. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's a starter article that has plenty more available in sources for expansion upon the exact sbuject, would that editors stopped filling it with laundry lists and started consulting properly analytical sources. See the previous discussion. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I hadn't seen that earlier AfD under the different name. I will look at this again; the article does need fixing badly though, as the previous AfD pointed out. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm still going with Merge to Hate crime; there may well be an article to be written here, but it would best be done by starting again from scratch; this article is 90% soapboxing, original research, WP:UNDUE and POV-pushing. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hate crime unless something distinctive about this kind of hate crime that does not hold true for other types of racial hate crime can be sourced; if so, change the name. We do have such articles as Antisemitism and Anti-Japanese sentiment, and an article discussing anti-white sentiment would not necessarily be out of place. The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Merge into larger article on anti-white racism or Keep The Rhymesmith (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was foolish name choices like that that got us the first AFD discussion. It would be foolishness to go back. And yes, there's plenty distinctive about this. Read the first AFD discussion, and of course the talk page, for things about this specific subject that this article doesn't even discuss, yet. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Anti-white" is an absurd name choice (as "Anti-black", or "Anti-Jew" would also be). I have read the talk page and the first AfD debate, and see nothing that changes my sentiment that an article discussing racism against whites is not in principle something we should not have. Looking at the present article, I find a list of incidents of hate crimes against whites (which is not necessary; there are innumerable hate crimes of every kind of description), and academic commentary that hate crimes against whites are akin to any other kind of hate crime. I do not see the need for an article about hate crimes against whites, insofar as I cannot see how this kind of hate crime is differentiated from any other kind of hate crime to the extent that a new article is necessary. The academic sources on the talk page illustrate demographic patters of violence that would enrich the general article on hate crimes; I have yet to see why specific hate crimes against white people deserve their own article. We do not have explicit articles about hate crimes against any other racial group (or any group, at all, that I can see). I support an article on racism in general against whites (Stereotypes of white people being a start), if sourcing can be found (which it can). The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then you've overlooked an important point that I made in the last AFD discussion. I make it again. This specific class of hate crime (which isn't an invention of Wikipedia, notice. It's how the FBI breaks things down.) is specifically called out in academic commentary because it is the one subcategory that is highly controversial. There are several points of view that are about this, specific, subcategory of hate crimes as a whole:
      - The mainstream viewpoint describes hate crime legislation as it is, noting that it is colour-blind.
      - A significant, scholarly, minority viewpoint is that hate crime legislation should be something other; in particular that it should exclude this specific subcategory of hate crimes, on the grounds that to be defined as a hate crime there should be a minority-to-majority power relationship. There's a halfway point on the path to this, exemplified by Barbara Perry, of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, who defines hate crimes primarily in terms of power relationships, although I've not come across her espousing the notion that minority-on-majority hate crimes are actually invalid, albeit that she cites some others who do. This is a viewpoint that seems to be more of a U.K. one. Paul Gordon, of the Runnymede Trust, espoused it in the 1980s, after a 1981 Home Office report, for example. ("… it is only by recognizing the nature of racially-motivated attacks on black people that one can even begin to tackle the problem. To confuse such attacks with ordinary criminal attacks, or to claim, in the absence of any such evidence, that attacks by Black people on White people are 'racial' is to render the concept of racism quite meaningless.")
      - A significant, scholarly (to varying degree), minority viewpoint is that hate crime statistics should be something other; in particular that they are falsely reporting this specific subcategory of hate crimes, either because they are including crimes that really stem from other motivations (such as economics) or because they do/don't include crimes against racial categories that are arguably "not white". Glayde Whitney has espoused the viewpoint that hate crimes against whites are effectively underreported because Hispanics are not treated as "white" victims but are treated as "white" perpetrators, for example. Jacobs and Potter report, and are cited by others (such as K. W. Köll) as one source for, the fact that people question whether economically-motivated crimes against white people are being miscategorised as hate crimes against white people.
      - Other non-scholarly minority viewpoints are the ones professed by racialist extremists of various stripes (including POV-pushers at Wikipedia, alas) on the World Wide Web.
    - The last is not a particularly good choice as a way to start an article, but you really don't have a leg to stand on with complaints that a start-class article should not exist because it contains the first, mainstream, viewpoint. That's a fairly absurd approach to this subject. And I reiterate for emphasis, that you'll find that it is this specific subcategory that is addressed in particular in scholarship. (The reason for this is the obvious one. The second to fourth viewpoints above cause people to expound the first viewpoint in order to counter them. Jacobs and Potter expound the mainstream viewpoint in opposition to the minority viewpoints. So do Altschiller and several others.) It's not addressed as stereotyping. It's not addressed as racism. It's addressed directly as the category of hate crimes against white people. Uncle G (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I should probably clarify what I mean (particularly in my comment below, to your "terrible nomination, there" comment); either you're misreading me, or (more likely), I failed to express myself clearly. Given that we, at present, do not seem to have articles covering hate crimes against specific groups, and that we do have articles about racism in general against specific groups, and that we have a rather facile article about anti-white racism in general, it strikes me that this article should probably be merged either into the original hate crimes article, or (I would prefer this), into a general article about anti-white racism (which would seem to be antecendent to more specific articles about various aspects of anti-white racism). That being said, without a merger, I don't support deleting the page. If the article remains, however, I don't think it should consist of a list of hate crimes, but rather, an exposition of the academic analysis. The Rhymesmith (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A terrible nomination, there, Orangemike. Next time, please put in the effort to find out what the sources cited actually are. The fact that prose doesn't wikilink author's names is (a) a good thing that removes the temptation to write biographies just to fill them in and (b) not an indicator in the slightest of the reliability of the sources or the properness of the analyses and viewpoints held. If you'd actually put in the effort to consult the sources cited — which are, after all, cited in order for you the reader to do that very thing — you'd have found things like an Oxford University Press book written by the Warren E. Burger Professor of Constitutional Law and the Courts at New York University School of Law, and an NYU Press book written by an associate professor in the Criminology and Criminal Justice Department at the University of Maryland. This superficial and cursory approach to checking out sources, which seems to consist only of looking for a link in the prose and not even looking at the book jackets, is not a good one. Sources are cited to be read. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Reply - What is so terrible about it? It's been created and used as a WP:COATRACK for racebaiting and fearmongering. The text misrepresents the alleged sources, and it's generally a WP:SOAPBOX for folks like User:Wittsun to push their POV.
- That hate crimes against whites exist and have been analyzed in academia is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not such hate crimes are worthy of coverage in Wikipedia (I believe they are), and, if so, whether they are deserving of their own article independent of either the main article on hate crimes or the article that is presently 'covering' anti-white racism (I am not convinced). The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not see anything wrong with creating such article, just as with Violence against LGBT people or Hate crimes against black people. It might be OK to merge with something, but other articles (like Hate crime) are already too big, and the AfD nomination is not a proper place to discuss merging. Keep and then discuss merging.Biophys (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have an article on Hate crimes against black people, and if one was created, it would probably be deleted or merged promptly (as I pointed out below). As far as anti-LGBT violence goes, the reason we have a separate article for that is because anti-LGBT violence is different enough from other hate crimes in order to deserve its own article. The reason anti-LGBT violence is considered distinct enough to be treated separately is because 1. it's motivated by sexual orientation, while other hate crimes are usually motivated by race, ethnicity, or religion, and 2. because not all jurisdictions consider anti-LGBT violence to be a hate crime (the USA didn't consider it to be a hate crime on a federal level until very recently, for example). As far as anti-white (or anti-black, or anti-Hispanic) violence goes, it's not distinct enough from other types of hate crimes to warrant separate treatment. That's why I'm standing by my earlier suggestion to merge. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trojan horse POV push. Carrite (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What POV do you mean? The existence of racism is a matter of fact. Biophys (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of racism is a matter of fact, yes. However, that's not the POV Carrite was referring to. Many of the contributors to this article (including the original creator, Wittsun, as well as at least one of the IP editors) have been using this article as a soapbox to advance a fearmongering "watch out white people, you're under attack, the minorities hate you" POV. Wittsun, in fact, has been banned from editing on race/ethnicity/religion-related topics for precisely this sort of POV pushing. Personally, I think having a separate article on hate crimes against white people has little purpose other than to scare white people into believing they are being persecuted by nonwhites. Again, we do not have, nor do we need to have, separate articles on hate crimes against black people, hate crimes against Hispanics, or hate crimes against Asian-Americans. Any such articles would be promptly merged or deleted as POV forks, and I think this one should, too. There's really no major difference between anti-white hate crimes and other types of hate crimes. If hate crimes against white people were much more common than other types of hate crimes (which they are not), then I could see why we might have a separate article about them. As it stands, there's no reason to have a separate article on this topic, and I stand by my earlier suggestion to merge. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hate Crime. We don't have a separate article on Hate crimes against black people or Hate crimes against Hispanics, so why on Earth do we need a separate article about hate crimes against white people? Stonemason89 (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Orange Mike, may I ask why you placed an AFD warning tag on Wittsun's talk page? He is currently topic-banned from making race, ethnicity, or religion-related edits. As a result, his topic ban prevents him from contributing to this AFD discussion. Perhaps you should remove the AFDwarning tag from Wittsun's talk page; otherwise, you may end up being accused of trying to "bait" Wittsun into violating his topic ban. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - it was an automated notification. Notification ≠ permission to violate the topic ban. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider merge into Hate crime. The article itself is fine - it covers a legitimate topic, and is fairly neutrally written and well referenced. But I'm concerned about the appearance of bias; given that this article itself notes that in the United States, only 20% of hate crimes are directed at white people, shouldn't we have articles on hate crimes against black people, hate crimes against Asians, and other groups? Perhaps that's an example of WP:Systemic bias, given that I'm guessing our authors are predominantly white, but it still doesn't look good. I'd like to see this article merged into a more general one about hate crimes. Robofish (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought (and given FormerIP's comment below), I don't think we can keep this article. The 'controversy' section is acceptable and worth keeping, but the 'incidents' section has too many issues with POV and synthesis. I still think a merge is the best solution, but failing that, delete. Robofish (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite. The page is clearly contentious and was created and largely edited by a user who is now topic-banned in this area. Consider merging any material that might be worthwhile into Hate crime, but with caution. Some of the material seems to represent a far-right POV (for example, citing the case of Walter Chamberlain, which is part of the background to the 2001 Oldham race riots and is considered by many to have been hyped-up by far-right activists; suggesting that the murder of Eugene Terre'Blanche brought some long-ignored "issue" to international attention; characterising the Beltway sniper killings as racially motivated, which the article covering them does not). Taking out this material, the article would be more-or-less reduced to a "controversy" section, which would not add up to a worthwhile article, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soapbox POV platform. The incidents section is a hot mess, with not all of the incidents actually being described as hate crimes. I'm not sure that there's anything to merge here. AniMate 05:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Carrite. MtD (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This certainly presents more of a copyright and verifiability concern than the average for our chart articles, but there are definitely valid arguments made on both sides here with no apparent agreement. Further discussion of these articles in general may be warranted. ~ mazca ^talk 12:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one dance airplay hits of 2010 (U.S.)

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

The is article does not meet notability guidelines. It is a copyright violation as it recreates information periodically available at billboarf.biz. crucially this kind of information is only occasionally released by Billboard during its chart updates but it is only regularly released through the subscription service. The article serves very little purpose if the information within cannot be verified. Are lists of charts really encyclopedic information? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 23:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think Lil-unique1 made his copyright case clearly, but I think there is one. This article (and myriads like it) serve only to echo the copyrighted contents of a proprietary list. Refreshing people on the contents of US law (which governs Wikipedia's server and Billboard), there are 4 things to examine:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Reusers of Wikipedia content may easily be commercial so criteria 1 doesn't look favorably on this use. I think a strong argument can be made that the number one position is the most important part of the chart: there's a reason our articles tend to favor it, and why you don't see List of number-thirty dance airplay hits of 2010 (U.S.). That means that criteria 3 doesn't look favorably upon our use. By making this information freely available, we are competing with Billboard.biz, a for-profit site owned by the copyright holder, so we don't do well under criteria 4. All told, we don't even cross the line into fair-use, so we don't have to make arguments under WP:NFCC.—Kww(talk) 23:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of point 1:

There is another consideration in terms of the nature of our use: per fair use, "the first factor is regarding whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, ... a key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, as opposed to merely derivative." In this case, we have effected no transformation at all: an item from the copyrighted list is copied to this list, without commentary or criticism.—Kww(talk) 14:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not an entire weeks worth of a chart and information, it is just the number one song from each week/issue; a page type that we have plenty of. The information may be available online through a subscription, but it is also available in the print version of Billboard as well. I view this as similar to someone sourcing a book that is not available online. In theory, a reference should be given to show the issue number and page that the information can be found on if someone to locate a copy at their public library, etc. This is just one small part of the information released on the chart each week and unless someone buys a subscription just to see the number one song each week, then we are doing nothing to take away from Billboard's customer base. I think the thought that we would be competing with Billboard is overall flawed. We pay for the newspaper and we pay for books. Articles can still be sourced from a newspaper that you have to pay an archive fee for and this is the same situation Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, however no one is providing a journal or book reference for this information. Its simply been listed out of the blue. ---- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 00:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are they providing any commentary, or doing anything to add value beyond the listing of the entry itself.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my expansion of my argument above addressing the transformation issue.—Kww(talk) 14:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think there is any copyright violation here. As I understand it, copyright law protects the author's method of expressing information, not the information itself. Others are free to report the information, so long as they don't replicate the copyright holder's means of expression. Taking one piece of information each from a series of copyrighted lists (even the most important piece of information) and creating a new list from that information is not replicating the method of expression of the copyrighted lists. If it were, most of Wikipedia's featured lists would be copyright violations. Nor do I understand the comment in the nomination that "The article serves very little purpose if the information within cannot be verified." The nomination itself states the sources with which the information can be verified. Nor do I understand the unsupported statement in the nomination that "The article does not meet notability guidelines". It is not clear to me why such chart information would not meet notability guidelines. The article obviously needs to be referenced better, but at this point, since the article does not seem to be a copyright violation, sources with which to cite the article apparently exist (according to the nom), and since it seems to meet notability guidelines, my inclination is to keep. Rlendog (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment the information cannot be verified by every individual because you must have a subscription to Billboard magazine and/or billboard.biz. Since no one is providing a source to either I believe it a target for abuse and any person can claim any such thing. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 00:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Anyone can locate a copy of Billboard at most local libraries. It's the same process for when using sources that are not available online. We list the publications information just as we would here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's true, but it's still completely in accordance with WP:V, more specifically WP:PAYWALL. The copyright argument may be a valid deletion argument, but "inconvenient to verify" isn't.—Kww(talk) 03:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment ok i accept that perhaps verifiability is not the strongest argument for deletion but recreating information which could only be obtained via subscription does in my opinion conflict with wikipedia's stance against copyrights. Such information is already used in article Navigation Templates and billboard.biz / billboard publishes a number-ones hits list of each chart annually. (or so they used to) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 03:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So we should delete the article because Billboard may or may not publish a compiled list similar to a list we compile here months in advance? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. There has been previous discussion regarding possible copyright violations and Billboard charts at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 13#Billboard charts. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion resolved itself on the assertion that no human judgement was involved in compiling the list in question. That clearly isn't true with this chart. Some human selected a group of stations to monitor (this isn't an "all airplay" chart, it's an "airplay on stations deemed by Billboard to constitute "dance music" stations") and a set of qualifications for what makes a song a "dance song" in the first place. It may be mechanical once those decisions have been made, but those are clearly human decisions.—Kww(talk) 02:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well stations are contracted to play certain formats so I would assume that whatever this "human" picked were actually dance assigned stations. As with any chart though there are people making their own decisions; DJs pick the songs and control how often songs play. On a side note unrelated to this deletion debate, as a dance music fan, I personally prefer the Hot Dance Airplay chart because it usually involves actual dance songs, not just any random song getting lots of airplay at clubs like the Dance Club Play Chart. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The statement above regarding "human judgment" is incorrect. This is in fact an "all airplay" chart, and there is no more human judgment involved in compiling this chart than there is in compiling any other airplay chart, several of which also feature archived number-one song lists here. Just as Billboard's Mainstream Top 40 chart and Mediabase's Top 40 chart are rankings based entirely on total airplay on all monitored CHR/Top 40 stations, Billboard's Hot Dance Airplay chart is a ranking based entirely on total airplay on all monitored Dance stations. The only distinction is that while there are over 100 monitored Mainstream Top 40 stations, there are only five monitored Dance stations. This difference is purely due to a gap in popularity between the two formats. DanG82 (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see a copyright violation in just listing the number-one Dance Airplay single.Robert Moore (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Because this chart is purely based on all airplay within a specific format on U.S. radio, human judgment is not directly involved in its compilation. Thus, there is no greater argument for deleting this page than there is for deleting any list of number-one hits on any other airplay chart, several of which also preside on Wikipedia. That the Dance station panel is much smaller than other airplay chart station panels is irrelevant to the deletion discussion. While this particular chart does now require a subscription to view online, the number-one song in any given week can easily be identified online via any of numerous free articles from reputable news/entertainment sources and can easily be verified via printed Billboard archives available at a wide range of public libraries. DanG82 (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surfism

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

I see no evidence that the philosophy of "Surfism" actually exists as such. I do not believe that the topic is sufficiently important for a page, inasmuch as it's received no attention whatsoever in the academic world. The Rhymesmith (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. Can't find anything not self-created about the philosophy. Some legitimate references are misspellings of sufism --Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism. Dan Weber is the only person in the universe to use the term. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suppose "put down the pipe, brah" isn't a legit reason in these debates, so let's just call it a blatant non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research: The surfing metaphor represents the structural coherence of perception derived from the triadic relations inherent in spatial perception. The interplay between temporal relations, which are monadic, and spatial relations, which are dyadic, determines the individual's ability to engage spatio-temporal relations, which are triadic. Yeah, don't bogart that.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not actually sure whether or not it's technically OR, given the "sources". Not that that matters, as far as I'm concerned. The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator's primary concern has been addressed. The article is no longer empty. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 in Pakistan

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

Completely empty (please note it was completely empty when this nom started). Redundant article to Category:2010 in Pakistan. Dr. Blofeld 21:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the existence of the category mentioned above. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am of the belief that this article was prematurely created, as it has been empty for an elongated period of time. I believe it should be deleted and restored at a later date. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add content. (I started doing so--it should have been done earlier) This will be appropriate regardless of the existence of the category. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. The argument used here would be reason to delete every Events in ... list in Wikipedia, and they are a well-established type of articles. Dr. B, if this is your intent, it might be better to start a general discussion elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its been empty for three months....!! Dr. Blofeld 11:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of a series (2006 in Pakistan, 2007 in Pakistan and so on). I've added a few things myself and it is easily expandable. It will also need to be referenced but I'm not doing that yet in case the vote goes against it. Keresaspa (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we can now move on from the arguments about the article being empty as there is now plenty of content as added by DGG and myself. I also agree with DGG that the other issue of the category vs. article debate is a bigger one than this individual AFD nomination and that this is something that would need to be discussed somewhere else. Deletion was worth considering for the empty version that was initially nominated but that can no oonger apply although for me the nomination was still probably right as it provided the impetus to fix the problem. Keresaspa (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article/list was not empty when it was created, it contained a template which made it clear that it was part of a series and a quick check of one of the others would highlight examples of what could be added. The presence of categories does not prevent the existence of lists or similar, per WP:CLN. Someone another 19:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Deleted per G7. —fetch ·comms 22:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Did You Think Was Going to Happen

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

Unsourced, WP:CRYSTAL. —fetch ·comms 21:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I agree that it should be deleted and someone of more reliable resources should remake the article. you may delete it at once.--Darknewmoon (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once the album is released, you should be able to find more solid sources (without speculation) and recreate it. —fetch ·comms 22:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close. This is not an AfD issue but a naming issue (and so should be discussed as a WP:RM - discussion started here). Copyvio can be dealt with by speedy (clear copyvios are one of the few times re-adding a speedy is generally considered OK). NAC. Dpmuk (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Genocide

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

This is a copy of the article Assyrian Genocide, so it violates our license. Creator should follow the Requested Move process instead. Pjacobi (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author Dollareuro (talk · contribs) already mentioned the reason for redirection :" in order to inlude all Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" btw these three groups consider themselves to be one ethnic group, therefore it will be a good thing to be under the one common name Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac.

Yadamavu (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, that the article must be renamed, not copied. And before renaming, it must be checked whether the proposed new lemma really is the consensus. --Pjacobi (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What he says. Read my message at the creator's userpage or the ANI thread. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a Syriac or Assyrian/Aramean/Chaldean, please for the unity of our nation, put the entire name of our people, I am not the author of this act, in fact, i am the author of the french version, i complete the french version thanks to the English version. In french, i tried to put the differents names of our people like Assyrian or Aramean and I think is very important to put all the names. Now we need unity, we are one people, one nation and we have one language, one culture and one religion so please accept all the names for the future of our nation. Thanks AlexSuryoyo (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article is a one-line unsourced stub. Sandstein 07:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MHonArc

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

Unimportant program, fails WP:N DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The closest this comes to notability is the word "free". Doc Tropics 21:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I could not find more than source offering significant coverage of the subject. The one I did find was pretty good though: [1]. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source found by Odie5533 is:

Garcia, Roberto João Lopes (2002). "Networking: posting email to the web with MHonArc". Sys Admin. 11 (1): 49–55.

and there are others that are listed in google books (82 results) and google scholar (238 results). --Karnesky (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the article in Sys Admin is a very good indication of notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One eight-year-old article in a now defunct magazine which doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. My opinion is that software needs a bit more than that to claim notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Software is not my area, so I will take your word for that. The multiple mentions (as Karnesky noted) in books such as this also don't help...? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It helps to paint a picture. The SysAdmin article is really complete, which is good, but it's generally nice to have more than one article on the subject which offers significant coverage. I don't think the ref you just mentioned is significant coverage per WP:GNG. I looked through a bunch of the gBook and gScholar hits, nothing really stuck out to me as significant coverage except the SysAdmin article. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD A7) by Jimfbleak. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 16:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrosynth

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

As per WP:NOTHOWTO E Wing (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also probable spam/promotion since article name is the same with the article creator's. E Wing (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, and add not notable to the list. Alas, we have no criteria for "being an assault upon the English language", but if we did....Doc Tropics 21:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above as a non-notable topic as well as a not-a-how-to rule. --~~Bigtop~~ みんな空の下 (トーク) 23:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also fails as an (incompetently-written) WP:DICDEF. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—appears to be a non-notable neologism. –Grondemar 14:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually, we do have a criterion for being an assault on the English language, and I don't think that a reader can reasonably be expected to make head nor tail of this: Hydro Synth music is Hip-Hop using computers & VST/Synthesizer/Instrument no need for electric acoustic instrument also you must use southern crunk drums technique which is slower than old school this aid in allowing both singer and raper to vocalize on the same song than transfer your original music composition to a turntable guitar than find friends that are both musician & DJs to jam with. and there you have a Hydro Synth DJ band your music should sounds shiny sparkly like a diamond BLIG BLIN lucky charm champagne. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreconstructed Marxism

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

Appears to be hoax Marcus Qwertyus 20:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Rhymesmith (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a hoax (not a traditional hoax, though). But it's also not notable. It's a phrase, not really a subject of an article. Also, I believe the only fact the article asserts is an incorrect definition of the subject, so in that sense it is a hoax. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. "Unreconstructed Marxism" is a hoax? Really? It is a phrase in common usage (as a de rigueur Google Search reveals). It is used in scholarly discourse (see Google Scholar). The definition offered is of unreconstructed Marxism is of course incorrect. The phrase is used pejoratively for classical Marxism, and this common phrase should redirect there. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 04:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually, the phrase is "Unreconstructed Communists" ... This is a dictionary definition and it is a bad one about a combination of words that I have not heard together. Let's just make it go bye-bye and then if somebody wants to do unreconstructed communist in the future, more power to them. Carrite (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the phrase is actually "unreconstructed communist," why does the phrase "unreconstructed Marxist/m" appear so often in both the academic and popular presses? If you would like for them both to redirect to classical Marxism that is one thing, but "alternative names" is the first reason given on Wikipedia:Redirect for having a redirect. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 13:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple Google scholar hits which somehow seem so impressive to some people refer to "an unreconstructed Marxism" — with "Marxism" the noun and "unreconstructed" an adjective describing it. There is no reference — because it is not used — to a THING called "Unreconstructed Marxism," which would be the subject of a dictionary entry if it existed. I say again that the true-believer old school Communists of the former Soviet Union and Eastern bloc are sometimes referred to as "unreconstructed Communists" in the press, but I have never heard of the phrase "Unreconstructed Marxism." This is a case for outright deletion, not redirection. We are not in the business of creating neologisms. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't something have to not be in common usage for it to be a neologism? Unreconstructed Communism turns up 49 hits, Unreconstructed Marxism 803, Unreconstructed Communist 3710, Unreconstructed Marxist 2920. If you like, both can redirect to classical Marxism, but I've never heard of it is not a valid argument. We are not discussing the notability of a stand-alone article but of the existence of an alternate name. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTDEF. I'm usually not a fan of using that as an argument if I see potential for an article, but in this case it is not at all clear to me after a cursory inspection of the uses found in a Google scholar search that the meaning given in the "article" is a commonly understood meaning of the term, or even that the term has a commonly understood specific meaning. Without prejudice; if reliable sources can be found discussing the topic and providing a basis for a real article under this name, it can be written. --Lambiam 23:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sourcing has certainly been improved during the course of the debate, but there's limited agreement as to whether enough notability has been demonstrated. ~ mazca ^talk 12:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nyla Ali Khan

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

Unreferenced BLP Dawnseeker2000 19:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There were some sources, just not properly formatted, which I tweaked. Even so, the article still has multiple issues, but they can probably also be fixed with a bit more effort. A larger issue is that the subject's professional notability seems to be only marginal at this time. However, her status as a female Muslim who is also an academic, scholar, activist and author seems unique enough to grant her a certain personal notability. Doc Tropics 22:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS cites are 4, 1, 1. Academic in early career. Does not yet approach standards of notability expected here. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Msrasnw (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG and WP:PROF, Doc Tropics' special pleading notwithstanding. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the description of her on the University of Nebraska Kearney site as “a feminist-activist-scholar,” might more more appropriate than standard academic view - and the article is in my view a little over-promotional. My keep is based on

* her published books and their reviews,

* her two interviews in Epilogue magazine - November 2009 Vol 3 Issue 12 p 38-41-30 http://issuu.com/epilogue/docs/epilogue-november-2009 and December 2009 Vol 3 Issue 12 p 27-30 and

* her picture and quote from her on the front of the same magazine Issue 2 Volume 4 2010. (A little picture and quote seems clearly indicative that the magazine finds her notable)

Our coverage of the studies of role of gender in Kasmir is as yet not too strong and would be a shame to loose this. The interview in the magazine is referenced at the moment to a blog but my references here - which I have added to the article = are to the magazine proper - but I had a little difficulty accessing the pages as I have some difficulties viewing some kinds of pages. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

comment - Since the article was first nominated for AfD several editors have acted to expand the content and add references. While the subject may not yet have achieved professional notability, it does seem that her personal notability as a Muslim feminist from Kashmir is more clear. Doc Tropics 15:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, if some more sources can be added, I would recommend keeping. It is week but there does seem to be notability. Having contributed to encyclopedias, published academic papers, and written books, the cumulutive effect seems to be minor notability.Willbennett2007 (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep published author. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid keep rationale. Ironholds (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being published by a credible publisher makes her notable. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Bird-Feeding Society

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

I prodded this article, citing the lack of independently written sources. The prod was removed without comment by the article's author, so here we are. All sources on the article come from the organization itself, or from it's sponsor. I was unable to find any sources myself in searching, though you will find a fair number of trivial mentions on google scholar, reporting that they funded various studies. MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Independent sources do exist in news archives, see, e.g. Millikin professor heads up National Bird Feeding Society and For the birds: Advice offered on the feeding of our feathered friends. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – Per [2], [3] "Bird lovers begin education program. The Washington Times, November 8, 1989, Wednesday, Final Edition, Part B; METROPOLITAN; NATION; AMERICAN SCENE; MIDWEST; Pg. B8, 160 words", "Aiding all the little creatures; When winter comes, here's how to feed the birds. The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 14, 2001 Friday CITY-D EDITION, FEATURES HOME & DESIGN; Pg. E05, 541 words, Kathy Van Mullekom KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE", "KEEP BIRDS FED, GROUP URGES Article from:Wyoming Tribune-Eagle Article date:January 29, 1998 Author:Lee Colony" and dozens of others on gNews. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor requested the National Bird-Feeding Society article be deleted because it lacked independently written sources. The page was revised and now includes citations from 1 book, 5 magazine articles including Bird Watcher's Digest and National Wildlife (magazine), and 5 newspaper articles including Financial Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvsnature (talk • contribs) 17:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now well sourced and appears clearly notable. Nice work, Luvsnature. --MelanieN (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GCPC

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

OK, this is a strange one. Tidying-up some dead-end articles I came across GCPC, which contained no blue-links and only redlinks. I got rid of these according to WP:DABRL and this discussion yesterday so that the page could then be speedied, which it was.

It was then recreated by User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_) (who had created the original page) with some of the same links as it had before. However, in order that these were no longer redlinks he created pages for them, which were all only redirects (Grain Crude Protein Concentration, which redirects to Grain, which redirects to cereal, and Government Commercial Purchase Card, which redirects to Government procurement in the United States, and Granule-cell-Purkinje-cell, which redirects to Purkinje cell. As well as this, User:Freakshownerd came along and added a who load of things that we don't have articles on, but which could pop up on Google if you typed in GCPC.

So, we now have a dab page which has three bluelinks to specially created redirects, one redlink, and four things that are not linked at all.

I don't understand why this has happened. Whilst Grain Crude Protein Concentration is a real term, firstly we don't have an article on it, and secondly it's abbreviated to CP anyway. Granule-cell-Purkinje-cell is a neologism as far as I can tell - wehen it does pop up in the scientific literature, the hyphen in the middle is used to signify the interaction between grain cells and purkinje cells - it's separating two entities, not conjoining them into one.

As far as I can tell, all we have here is just a list of things that might be abbreviated GCPC, not articles with the same title (which is what DAB pages are for). Any thoughts? Is there some secret wikiproject to keep dabs from abbreviations that I don't know about?Chris (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did the speedy as at that time the article had sat for nearly two years without a single bluelink. While I think it is pretty lame resurrect the page in this particular manner, it is now a semi-valid dab page. I think some of those newly created redirects are worth discussing over at WP:RFD as they were obviously created solely to justify the recreation of this page and are of little to no value in navigating the encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion yet on whether to keep or delete this yet, but if the linked articles do not support usage of GCPC, then they should not be included on this page. older ≠ wiser 21:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP No different from other acronym disambig pages to multiple unrelated things. There's no principled basis for deletion other than deletionism. Lycurgus (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone point out where in editing policy it says that redlinks aren't allowed in disambiguation pages? It should also be noted that there are actually more acronyms that have been removed from the page for unknown reasons. It's unclear to me how removing the disambiguating content improves the encyclopedia. I do think the links should be well targeted to appropriate content where the subject is actually discussed. But just because there is no article on the government procurement card doesn't mean there shouldn't be a link to the government procurement article where that subject is discussed. Otherwise we should never merge anything beacuse we wouldn't be able to find things. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep It doesn't seem to be doing any damage, and, assuming that GCPC is indeed used as an acronym for multiple subjects, it'd be helpful. Of course, I know nothing about Grain Crude Protein Concentration or Granule-cell-Purkinje-cell(s?) anyway. The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some replies. Firstly, there is a protocol for redlinks on DAB pages; it's at WP:DABRL. Essentially it says you can remove redlinks which are do not appear elsewhere on the project, which was the case here. Secondly, my point here is not that we shouldn't have a page with things that might be abbreviated GCPC, but let's put it at List of things that might be abbreviated GCPC. What we have at the minute is a WP:DAB page which says at the bottom This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title, but we don't actually have articles on any of these things. Thirdly, what is the point of typing GCPC into Google, and then taking the hits from the first page and turning them into a DAB page? If people want to know what GCPC might stand for, then surely they can type it into Google themselves. That's all! Chris (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks like we have at least two genuine DAB entries (thanks Colonel Warden), but my comment about removing inappropriate entries still stands...
Comment. I think DAB pages should only have entries that link to articles that actually mention the DAB subject - they are, after all, supposed to be aids to navigating around Wikipedia, not substitutes for Google. So an entry that says, say, "GCPC can mean xxxxx, and there is one in Bolton" doesn't make sense unless Bolton at least mentions the xxxxx, as it is directing people to somewhere they won't find what they're looking for. I think all such entries should be removed from this DAB page ~~and then a keep/delete decision should be made based on whatever is left~~. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Greater Cairo Planning Commission seems quite notable and is commonly referred to by this acronym. As this has not even been mentioned above, we seem to have only gotten started. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Freakshownerd: You asked about redlinks on dab pages, MOS:DABRL is the relevant guide. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the guideline makes it clear that it's okay to have useful redlinks. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Unecessary duplication of information already available on wikipedia. Frank Fascarelli (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC) User:Frank Fascarelli is the newest incarnation of banned editor User:Torkmann.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abul kaif kaifi sarhadi

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

Unreferenced BLP of a non-notable person. No reliable sources can be found. Zero google hits, zero google-news hits. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^comment 18:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references are available, nor can any be found to establish notability. Cindamuse (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete Non-notable, and also WP:SNOW. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Manuwa

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

Has only fought for a small English promotion, so despite his success, he doesn't really have notability. No sources or argument that is he notable Paralympiakos (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No fights for a top MMA organiation. Fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fighter. Fails notability criteria at WP:MMANOT. Jakejr (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Valuation Analyst

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

This article seems highly promotional, almost to the point where I considered tagging it as a WP:CSD#G11 until I saw the age of the article. I was unable to find any independent coverage of the title "Certified Valuation Analyst", or the organizations that grant the title, in independent, reliable sources. The only sources in the article are from the organizations themselves. –Grondemar 17:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Unambiguous advertising that gives you a headache when you try to read it:

The Certified Valuation Analyst® (CVA®) is a specialist in business valuation standards certified by the National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts (NACVA®) & The International Association of Consultants, Valuators and Analysts (IACVA™). The NACVA & IACVA certifies CVAs and has this mission: The National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts (NACVA®) & The International Association of Consultants, Valuators and Analysts (IACVA™) supports the users of business and intangible asset valuation services and financial forensic services...
Through training and rigorous testing, CVAs/AVAs demonstrate they are qualified to provide capable and professionally executed valuation services. NACVA requires training as a prerequisite to certification to assure that practitioners have the knowledge and understanding necessary to perform competent services, and to assure a level of consistency and continuity in their work product. Users of valuation services benefit by having greater confidence that the service they receive is professional in quality, adheres to industry standards of practice, and meets a level of expertise the Association deems credible and worthy of one of its certified members....
...The Charter Member structure gives IACVA a unique ability to transfer knowledge relating to both disciplines among the international valuation and fraud deterrence communities by drawing on the vast wealth of experience, and resources, each Member brings to the organization.

Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Author requested deletion via page-blanking; I have duly deleted the page. TFOWR 08:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Scientific

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

There does not appear to be any third-party sources indicating notability of this company. The article's references do not appear to provide any support of notability either. With the conflict of interest evident with the article's creator, this seems to be merely promotional. Peacock (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does seem to read as promotional. No real establishment of secondary sourcing either. As the article stands currrently fails WP:ORG Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete few if any 3rd party references in appropriate publications to establish notability.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's ad copy; sources are not much help. Şłџğģő 07:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned creator now is asking how to delete the whole thing: [4] Şłџğģő 07:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not many 3rd party refs available, seems to be non-notable. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 07:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please delete the article, just got a better source and quotation from Encyclopaedia Britannica The only Internet Resource about Statistics Recommended by Encyclopaedia Britannica.

As an employee in charge of these operations, I am hereby ordering you to remove this article.

Thanks

Kyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleAraujo (talk • contribs) 08:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess we can consider that a delete vote, straight from the article's creator. Şłџğģő 08:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ad-like and no references. I've got to admit though: Kyle's above comment gave me a chuckle or two. ;) --Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 08:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator wanted it deleted, so I asked him to blank the page, whereupon I slapped a db-g7 speedy on it, which moots this section. Jusdafax 08:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now how do I remove myself from wikipedia? disabled account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleAraujo (talk • contribs) 08:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a request I have not seen before. I don't know the answer, I'm afraid. Perhaps someone here does, or you could ask... possibly at the "Help desk". Jusdafax 08:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VANISH, although "user in good standing" might be iffy. Also, that's a rather overcomplicated process. Şłџğģő 08:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as no one is advocating deletion. Non-admin closure. –Grondemar 05:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Wing (actress)

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

~~This actress I don't believe meets the notability guideline for actors. She apparently only appeared in one silent movie, and in an uncredited role.~~–Grondemar 16:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is further information. http://www.nsea.org/news/StCyrYoungDeerProfile.htm --Jrm2007 (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. Wrong/mis-typed URL? P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources that indicate she meets WP:CREATIVE. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remain ~~neutral~~ for now, as that reference above might indicate notability. Is it a reliable source? Are there any other mentions of this person in other sources? P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the coverage (and its depth) satisfies WP:CREATIVE. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- ℳono 17:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Painful attempt at an "article", but this person is definetly notable. And she appeared in approx. 50 films, according to IMDB. Lugnuts (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now expanded with those refs. Lugnuts (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- *Keep convinced by sourcing she has notability in her works. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Highly notable for her work in the early days of film. Even had a class in college that included her contributions to film. Cindamuse (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with thanks to those who added references and additional information. St Anselm (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree this actress is notable based on the additional sources provided. It might be desirable to move this article to a different name, however. –Grondemar 03:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the nom has opined keep, I believe that meets the conditions of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Anyone want to close this? P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 03:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of York City F.C. Clubmen of the Year

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

The only thing that separate this list from List of York City F.C. players is the smaller size and an ~~unreferenced~~ inclusion of caps. Who became clubmen could easily be indicated at the list of players. A little note could even indicate what level they where at, if that's important. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 16:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 16:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the interests of qualitative and productive discussion, I think that all the similar lists should be added to this nomination. Otherwise in all likelihood we will end up with either different decisions or fractured discussion relevant to all of the lists. --WFC-- 16:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but I don't know how to mass-nominate. It probably generate some opposition from article 'owners' Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 16:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nominator keep !votes should be completely ignored unless sound ~~deletion~~ AfD rationales are given. Besides, if the admin closes democratically, the decision should be taken to DRV. --W F C-- 16:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As this is a featured list, a notification has been added to the featured list candidates talk page. --W F C-- 16:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume Sandman has put this up for AfD as he disagrees with the notion of "Player of the Year" type lists (please correct me if wrong)? I understand that (but don't agree with it), but surely some sort of consensus should have been gathered at WP:FOOTY before going ahead and nominating this and possibly all the other lists of this type at AfD? And in regard to your comment about caps being unreferenced, I recommend you take a closer look at the "Notes" column. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also disagree with ~~the notion~~ his opinion. In Sandman's defence he did try, but got no response in four days. --WFC-- 16:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I retract my comments regarding caps. Whether this is a content fork or not, is not a privilege reserved for the footy-people. Regarding my thoughts of POY lists, I'll keep those to myself. Remember this is a deletion discussion, not a competition in second-guessing motives. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 16:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then exactly why do you believe the POTY lists should be deleted? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Se nomination. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For disclosure I'm an author of a similar list. I've had a think about whether it would be appropriate to expand on my position given my vested interest, but I agree with sandman. The important thing is the strength of the rationale, not the motivation behind it. This list was reviewed against the featured list criteria, which has explicit criteria against content forks. It is also part of a featured topic, which means it has been through another layer of scrutiny, where reviewers had the opportunity to object on the content fork front. The lead, season of the win, by position and by nationality detail would be out of place in the main club article or the list of players. Several players have made fewer than 100 appearances; while the list became featured with the caveat that "other notable players are also included", I don't think such a critereon would stand up in 2010. See the (complete) lead to the incomplete List of Watford F.C. players (fewer than 50 appearances) for how I believe noteworthy players who have made few appearances should be tackled. --W F C-- 18:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the recently promoted List of FC Barcelona players I had included players with <100 apps, due to them being noteworthy, so such a criterion does pass in 2010. The fact that it has passed FLC and FT doesn't make this list infallible. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair comment on the Barcelona list (albeit I don't think that was a good call, as demonstrated by how it's done with Watford). And you're right, no article is immune from deletion. I won't do this myself due to a conflict of interest, but I would suggest that if those two discussions are to be rendered null and void by this one, it might be worth informing the people that reached those conclusions. --W F C-- 19:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list is a Featured List and is a part of a Featured Topic, so it has obviously been deemed worthy enough to exist on a number of occasions. Btw, if Featured content is to be deleted, isn't it supposed to undergo a featured content review first? – Pee Jay 22:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nothing wrong with "Player of the Year" lists, especially one as impressive as this. Giant Snowman 18:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see anything wrong with the list. There is some overlap with another list but that is not a reason to delete. As a Featured List, there is (or at least was) consensus that the list meets all the Wikipedia criteria for content inclusion, and I agree with that consensus. Rlendog (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Featured content it would have been carefully scrutinised. --Jimbo^[online] 11:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These "its-FL-so-keep" does seem close to an appeal to authority.12:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  - I'd say you're clutching at straws trying to disvalue a well researched and more than notable list. --Jimbo^[online] 19:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Featured lists frequently get failed on critereon 3(b). Probably more than any other criteria. That is why it can usually be assumed that featured lists are notable. Ironically, its bigger, more recognised sister has no such layer of scrutiny. --WFC-- 23:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know that's true but it has not been brought up in neither the FL nor the FT nomination. I could better respect the arguments if they addressed the 3.b "not a content fork" directly instead of saying "it passed FL so I don't need to think about it". What would have happened if a non-FL list was nominated instead? Delete? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 08:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is exactly why we should subject the list to a Featured List Review before attempting a deletion discussion. – Pee Jay 09:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        An FLRC would have been nice, but based on precedent, it is not required. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC) (comment and indentation tweaked at 19:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
        Just for information: the FL criteria at the time this list was promoted made no mention of content forks. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously. Isn't a content fork, and meets the criteria for stand-alone lists. Big Dom 11:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Nothing wrong with Player of the Year lists for professional club's as far as I'm concerned. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Non-admin closure. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gariaon, Jaunpur

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

The article's title implies that it is about the city or village of Gariaon in the Jaunpur district. However, the article itself is nothing more than a very brief , broad, history of the district on the whole. --*Kat* (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but a clean up i really needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelJackson231 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- ℳono 17:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have stubbed and sourced it--Sodabottle (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable village. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Wilhelm Nilsson

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

The one source in the article appears to be a youtube channel. Does not appear to meet notability criteria.Pink Bull 14:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Privately made and posted Youtube videos aren't enough for notability, and I can't Gfind anything else of note. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the coverage to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Cartarrasa

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

Contested prod which was placed with the rationale of "possible hoax, at best self-promotion. No trace of "Illyrian Sky Productions" on Google". In addition to this, the article fails WP:FILMBIO, and there are minimal sources available— and none in Google News (including archive), Google Books, or Google Scholar. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- ℳono 17:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Nothing to support notability, apparent autobiography. JNW (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - there are no indications of notability. Nick-D (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON... and worse, seems that truely reliable sources are not available.[5] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liam O'Brien (1991 footballer)

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

Non-notable youth player who is yet to make a first-team appearance J Mo 101 (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- ℳono 17:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. He might make a senior appearance soon, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. St Anselm (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, but if by any chance the article is kept, it should be re-named to Liam O'Brien (footballer born 1991), as the current title implies that he played football in 1991..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Martin

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

Non-notable youth player who is yet to make a first-team appearance J Mo 101 (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - generally, I would !vote keep for current players who are likely/possible/could make their debut at some time soon, but after finding this article, it appears he is being loaned out and I don't know if playing for Salisbury City F.C. is considered notable enough? I'll let editors more aware of the English league system to make that call.The-Pope (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATH as he has not yet played in a fully-pro competition. Conference National is not fully-professional, being "likely" of making his debut is crystal balling. Martin also fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 11:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he hasn't done anything of note. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't made his début in a fully professional league and isn't likely to do so in the near future. Nuttah (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional genealogy

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

Unsourced article serves no purpose other than wp:listcruft. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seriously listcruft information and nothing in that list is sourced. It is just an indiscriminate list of information. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously, this is a wholly indiscriminate list that would have no end in sight. It would include the genealogies of every book, movie, film, television family ever created. In my opinion, it has no purpose here. Cindamuse (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list which would probably be larger than Wikipedia if ever completed. An article about academic analyses of genealogy in literature might not go so amiss under the title, but this... The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the specific caveat that if someone wants to write an article about the concepts of dyasties in fiction, it would be welcome at this name. While most "indiscriminate info" arguments raised at AfD discussions are nonsense, this one actually has merit: What do the McDucks, the Sopranos, and House Atreides really have in common? Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Jclemens that some indiscriminate claims are nonsense, but this is a textbook case. No third-party sources to WP:verify notability of this concept. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the first place you cover a topic, even if you can assemble a few things we know exist (like the Sopranos family and the McDucks family). If a reliable source directly covers the whole topic then recreate the article or list. But until then it should remain deleted. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted: unambiguous copyright violation. Also no context: article was a course description and reading list for a college class. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information Systems Management CA601

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

~~Appears to be nothing more than a course syllabus and reading list 2 says you, says two 13:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Blatant cut and paste from here 2 says you, says two 15:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the sourcing is insufficient. Sandstein 07:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No hope for gomez

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

A non-notable work of fiction missing references to reliable sources (contested PROD). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added many references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lepidecko (talk • contribs) 13:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lepidecko (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the "many references" added are reliable sources. This is the first novel by the similarly non-notable Graham Parke. No independent reliable sources provided or found. Not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- ℳono 17:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with SummerPhD's assessment of the cited references, and I cannot find any other evidence that this self-published (Outskirts press) first novel is notable. Note that the same contributor concurrently created articles at Wikiquote on this book and author. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't Delete User Dlduncan2 just added more notable sources. Thank you for also noticing the wikiquote article. It contains quotes, so that seemed like a good place for it Lepidecko 16 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.138.227.10 (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentFor us to keep the article, we need evidence that it is notable. The best evidence of this is usually substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. We have not been able to find such coverage. If you know of such coverage, please provide it. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect, closed early per WP:SNOW. Chaser (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calculator Tricks

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

Article is math trivia, with no notable reason to include in it's own topic much less as it's own topic. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 12:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC) *Delete. The idea of figure representing letters might merit a mention in the article on calculators but not it's own article. NtheP (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- We have a whole article on calculator spelling. Uncle G (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect then. NtheP (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial by definition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - There's no need for a discussion; speedy delete it as A7 (no assertion of notability). Tarc (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I don't think it's actually covered by A7, so a speedy probably isn't appropriate. On the other hand, an article about calculator tricks might actually be suitable, considering I used to have a whole book of them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calculator spelling. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - Agree that it does not come under the narrow A7 but never the less should be quickly deleted. Codf1977 (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calculator spelling as per SarekOfVulcan Codf1977 (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Nothing really here. Clearly a snow. Redirects are cheap. I'm boldly redirecting it now. Any objecting may certainly redirect and, as felt necessary, say bad things about me. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SummerPhD, just wanted to say "bad things about me" as you instructed. Seriously though, thanks to all for taking care of this. Do I remove the AfD tag, or SummerPhD? I fear this is my 2nd submitted AfD in many months, and I may have missed reading about this stage. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 15:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is not a typical AfD. Usually, the end result will be determined and carried out by an admin after it's been up a while longer. In this case, I suppose I could do a non-admin close, but just in case someone disagrees, I'm letting it go. After this sits here for a few more days, an admin will close it and/or say bad things about me and my recklessness. If/when anything happens, you'll see this page pop up on your watchlist. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This article is a copy|paste of Calculator spelling. Cindamuse (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before I Go to Sleep

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

Publicity for a book not even yet published. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unpublished debut novel. I have my doubts about the factual accuracy of the article itself, which even states that the primary claim to notability is "rumoured". That isn't good enough, source it or lose it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I agree that this book has not yet been published I do not feel that this article constitutes publicity as it makes no references to how good or bad it is, or where it can be purchased. Furthermore the sale of his novel for a rumoured seven figure sum, in a publishing environment in which large advances are increasingly rare, must make the novel noteworthy. It is the fact of publication of the book that makes it noteworthy, not the book itself. hence the inclusion pre-publication. It is inevitable that, if this article is deleted, it will have to be reinstated when the book is published.Panlight (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the problem: "rumoured". Wikipedia isn't a place for rumours or gossip. As an encyclopedia we can only cover topics verified by reliable secondary sources. And even if it is true, getting an advance doesn't make a book notable. See WP:BK for what does make a book notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - point taken Panlight (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.--YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 13:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure puffery about a forthcoming first book. Eleven UK publishers fought to acquire the rights... Ugh. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- ℳono 17:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As an amnesia survivor (skateboarding accident) this book sounds like a good read. However, separating my personal opinions from my role on Wikipedia, I will state that the article's inclusion is premature and inappropriate. Fails notability and WP:CRYSTAL. Cindamuse (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S. J. Watson

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

The article seems to be advance publicity for an author who apparently has not had a single work yet published SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree that this author's work has not yet been published I do not feel that this article constitute publicity as it makes no references to how good or bad the work is, or where it can be purchased. Furthermore the sale of his novel for a seven figure sum, in a publishing environment in which large advances are increasingly rare, must make him and his novel noteworthy. It is inevitable that, if this article is deleted, it will have to be reinstated when the book is published. Panlight (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Panlight. There is often semantic confusion over the definition of publicity, promotion, and advertising. One of the ways to better understand the criteria pertaining to appropriate inclusion on Wikipedia is to determine if the article has been written in an attempt to manage the public's perception of the subject of the article. Or another way to understand this is when an article is written prior to commencement, in order to initiate or enhance the anticipation of an event. Common subjects that are often written to promote include persons or groups (for example, political candidates and performing artists), goods and services, organizations and events of all kinds, and works of art or entertainment. Mere publicity, promotion, and advertising need not reference sales or reviews pertaining to the quality or feasibility of the subject of the article. Simply announcing the existence of a subject prior to notability would be considered inappropriate. Notability must be established and presented through reliable secondary and third-party sources before inclusion on Wikipedia can be accepted. Hope this helps. Cindamuse (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see also related AFD Before I Go to Sleep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More advertising. See above. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- ℳono 17:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —fetch ·comms 17:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of FC Barcelona legends

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

Albeit I am the 'principal editor' on this article, I will nonetheless nominate it for deletion to see whether this list is found interesting/notable/whatever-criteria-lists-use enough to warrant inclusion in wikipedia. My main reason for keeping it was the different figures given on this compared with List of FC Barcelona players, but I'm not sure those figures are really that interesting. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 11:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Copyright?. It's quite hard work to find the information in the article that this is based on a list produced by Barcelona and it's not just your POV. So, it's not POV (which is how it first seems) but is that list copyright? We've had similar problems before - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Players Who Shook the Kop --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Name? The club seems to call them "Legendary Players", not "legends", so if this is going to stay, it probably needs to be moved to List of FC Barcelona Legendary Players. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Non-encyclopedic? Is there any explanatory text anywhere about how these players have been selected? Or is it just the editor of the website listing 50 legendary players (and he may one day, at a whim, discard one for a new one? - In which case this probably isn't encyclopedic. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That last point was extensively discussed here. Essentially there is nothing to indicate that the list on Barcelona's website is anything other than a list of famous players that the website editor felt like profiling, somewhat akin to this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, that's useful, thanks. The commentary there says that Eto'o was added to the list during a period of time, which means someone else dropped out. I'd suggest it's not very encyclopedic then. --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that's true. Never thought of that before. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 14:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~As someone who has an interest in the outcome of this, I will recuse from explicitly taking a position. However,~~ Deleting because all sources are unreliable would be completely different to deleting because the basis of the article is non-notable. --WFC-- 15:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been several instances of lists passing FLC even though they were not remotely notable. "List of Nobel Prize winners from Princeton" springs to mind. A pure synthesis of two individually "notable" lists. The fact of the matter is that lists operate apart from the notability-guideline required of articles and that's very confusing. See a long-winded discussion here Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 16:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a List of FC Barcelona players suffices. Giant Snowman 18:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whilst the list is well-referenced, it may be easiest if players that are noted as 'legends' are somehow marked in the main Barcelona list, rather than have two lists? Eldumpo (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it should be indicated if it's un-encyclopedic. If it is unencyclopedic it shd be removed altogether, if not, it should be kept. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 15:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Been pondering this a while. Unencyclopedic POV made up by website editor on whim - as evidenced by Eto'o being added and someone else being discarded. --Dweller (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats Key

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

As the prod put it, Wikipedia is not a jargon dictionary. Shadowjams (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a dictionary or place for jargon. Cindamuse (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary for neologisms. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: This could easily have been speedied under g3.Qwyrxian (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Far too trivial, not notable enough (failing WP:N) and plain jargon that should be put in a dictionary. Rory Re loaded 10:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. –Grondemar 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the original nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Beckerman

AfDs for this article:

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

Beyond the fundamental point that this page is not NPOV (for some time now) the subject himself is not notable unless notable is redefined to such an extent as to render it meaningless. 98.110.112.197 (talk) Created at the request of an IP ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 08:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "NPOV" has nought to do with a reason for deletion - so we are left with "notability" being the only issue on the table. Person is published - writer fpr Esquire (27 items there), book author (eseveral found on Amazon with reasonable sales - "Generation S.L.U.T." is number 80 in books on Teen sexuality) thus meets author notability. Note: I just removed some of the puffery/anecdotalism from the article. Collect (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the notable works mentioned by Collect? Heck, I'm a preacher's kid and even I've heard about Beckerman. But then of course, most preacher's kids are the most rebellious. I'm just saying. Not that I'm rebellious or anything mind you. Okay, maybe just a little bit. Cindamuse (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*delete fails WP:BIO based upon the article in it's current state. If someone fixes it, let me know and I'll reconsider. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pasts WP:BIO as far as I can tell from the available sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I have no opinion about whether this article is worthy of inclusion or not, this sort of puffery needs to go away: Beckerman is considered a prodigy in literature and widely known for his alternative works... Carrite (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I reworked the article by copy editing, reformatting, added more refs and just general tweaking. Hope this helps. I'm not personally invested, just thought I could do a bit of work on the article. There is much more work and sources that could be included, but I am a bit swamped in my real life at the moment. Cindamuse (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely notable ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waves on Russia

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and I think this is the recreation of deleted material, but I can't find a log of it (possibly prod). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as artilce fails notability criteria for albums. (Demos are not notable.) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage for WP:MUSIC. Incidentally, Justin was right. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Strangers#Sequel. Consensus seems to be that this film does not find itself with sufficient independent notability yet, but may do so in future. The article history has been left intact so info can be merged to the target article, and potentially the article can be spun out again when more coverage is available. ~ mazca ^talk 12:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Strangers: Part II

AfDs for this article:

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

No source found that proves filming has started. The latest information I can find is that casting was beginning in April 2010. Also the article was created by a recent blocked editor. Mike Allen 05:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike Allen 05:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. Looking at the old AFD, I suggested it be redirected to The Strangers#Sequel. I guess that is the right thing to do at the moment. Mike Allen 05:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actual title:[6] (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect Yes... editor received a 31-hour temp-block.[7] Article was created before any block and was not the reason for the block. I had a hunch this might return as an earlier version was deleted instead of redirected as a plausible search term last January. No big surprise. A search for sources to suport a redirect find Variety (1), Bloody Disgusting, CanMag, Beyond Hollywood, Variety (2), Variety (3), Empire Online, Dread Central, Cinemagia, SciFi Universe, Horror Magazine, Insider, Le Journal de Québec, and others. As it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced... and as we do have sources for referencing, a redirect to The Strangers#Sequel is per guideline. Of course, incubation is an option as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the account was just blocked indef as a "Vandalism-only account". So.. I guess we won't be seeing a rationale from him/her on this article. Mike Allen 06:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite that, your suggestion to redirect to The Strangers#Sequel is quite sensible, and too... setting (and maybe protecting) a redirect might prevent a premature recreation of this article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes I agree with some salt. If casting started four months ago.. they should be moving into production by now? Sounds like the pre-production is slowing down. (The following message is basically for User:Forteana who has commented on the talk page) This is why we wait until principal photography commence to make a whole article. Nine times out of ten there isn't enough for a whole article anyway since it already fits quite well in a section of the previous film or franchise page. Especially when all of the sources basically say the same thing. Mike Allen 22:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A page for the film shall need to be made sometime: probably within the next few months if and when more information is given to the press. It's pretty good so far, and I'll work to make it better, so why must it be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forteana (talk • contribs) 22:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply stated... because per the criteria for judging film articles, it has not begun filming and does not have enough coverage to merit it being considered for inclusion per the notability standards for unreleased projects. Please see the governing policy for articles about future events. However, your observation is correct, in that the subject may quite likely merit an article in a few months. An article's author, or any interested editor, may ask for, and is usually be granted, "userfication"... which is a move of the article to a non-article user-workspace to continue efforts at improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, then; if the page is indeed deleted, I request userfication. However, do The Ghosts of Hanley House or The Rats Are Coming! The Werewolves Are Here! have enough "coverage"? Forteana (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The closer of this AFD will note your userfication request, and if (likey) granted, the article will be moved to such as User:Forteana/workspace/The Strangers: Part II. As for your other questions, I will answer them on your talk page, as it is preferred to keep an AFD discussion focused on the issue at hand. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the original film article. Nergaal (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, maybe merge anything verifiable that isn't already in the relevant section. Either way, it isn't independently notable yet, but it's a plausible search term. Alzarian16 (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. —fetch ·comms 00:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Am (2010 film)

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

No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a film. The prod was removed, and the following sources have been added:

This brief mention of the film
This press release
This one-sentence blurb on a blog. Not a strong source at all.

Ultimately, this is WP:CRYSTAL, borderline advert for a non-notable sunday school film. I'm more than happy to userify it for the creators, but it doesn't have encyclopedic merit. tedder (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Per nom. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as WP:TOOSOON. Let the film have its October 2010 release and then perhaps let it back once the author adds reviews and/or critical commentary for the film. Big search headache caused by the director having a common name and the simple title of "I Am". Yikes! The number of false positives are staggering. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be notable yet and not enough reliable sources. There may be sources as soon as it is released but for now, delete. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also recommend userfication at least until notability has been established, I'd be more than happy to help. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the fact that 20th Century Fox has JUST acquired the film for release doesn't mean anything. It would be really generous of all critical parties to give the movie a chance. It's insane that because a movie was financed independently and that it's in the faith genre that it has no merit. We just got started publicizing this movie and plenty of press is coming, but if you guys want to crush it without giving it a chance, then we'll post it up later. Are we the first movie to ever post an article before release? I thought that articles were supposed to be DEVELOPED over time. Open minds would help.Stefanhajek —Preceding undated comment added 07:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Userfy. Since the film has not been confirmed as notable yet, but it may be confirmed as notable soon, keeping the article in userspace for the time being will make it easy to restore the article if its notability turns out to be true. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy More a matter of "too soon" than any chance of it being a hoax to be sure - userspace is ideal for such. Collect (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy might be the best solution, per the above comments. It seems that WP:COI and WP:PROMO may also apply here. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the choice is made to delete this by the WikiPolice, then so be it, but I'm not taking it down or moving it based on assumptions that it's not notable. That's completely arguable, and if you're wanting to can it based on not enough references, then I shall repost it when more are available. A little research might lead you to clearing your mind of the wild allegations that this is a hoax or spam. I might have never posted the article on the film in the first place if I knew Wiki users were so repressive and autocratic. This article was intended for informational purposes, not promotional, and notes to the contrary as listed come across as accusatory in nature. I have seen plenty of other independent feature films on here with less information and fewer resources, so I'm not sure whey this film is being targeted. It's a very hypocritical position. I hate to have to prove you all wrong, but you have to do what you have to do. Stefanhajek —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I understand that you're upset, and I'm sorry that's the case. That's actually one reason why Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations and WP:COI discourage people from editing articles about projects they're involved with. In this particular case, the Wikipedia:Notability (films) policy has clear guidelines on when a film is notable enough for an article. Neither the references currently in the article, nor Google searches, are convincing people at the moment that the film meets those guidelines. People are aware that this may change, and so the "userfy" recommendations are suggesting that the administrators move this article to User:Stefanhajek/I Am (2010 film) to wait until such a change occurs. The final decision will be made by the administrators after about a week of discussion, which gives time for article improvements. However, it's worth quoting from the film notability policy: "A film may be brilliantly created and acted, fascinating and topical, while still not being notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an article in an encyclopedia." -- Radagast 3 (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy seems like the best idea here. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. the references given are completely inadequate to show notability, and are the best someone associated with the movie can find, so we could not do better, though i see some have tried. issues with the highly promotional style of the plot summary can be dealt with if and when the move gains notability upon church or dvd release. fixed the director link for when/if its recreated. and, of course, absolutely no prejudice to recreation upon evidence of notability. Article creator stefan hajek would make a better case for himself if he tried showing good faith towards other editors, refrained from arrogant statements that he is right and others are wrong, did not accuse editors of calling this a hoax, as no one did, and maybe showed his expertise here by editing more than the 2 articles directly related to his own financial benefit (do i need to quote scripture here?). Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point that I was making is that the judgment of notability is not consistent here, as there are many independent films that I have found on Wikipedia that have way less development for content of an article, and have zero sources, yet they've remained up for quite a while. The word hoax WAS used, inferring the implication on some level. As I said, I disagree with the idea that the film is not notable, and if it is targeted and pulled, then it will be posted again with more reliable sources as they come to light. Good faith goes both ways, and as I'm new to this space, a little room for time to develop this further and to contribute further would have been appreciated. It's not about financial benefit for me. It's about art. If I seemed up in arms, it was due to the comments calling the article an "advert for a Sunday School film" from someone who had not seen, and knows nothing about, the film. I understand many points here, but I don't have to necessarily agree.Stefanhajek —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an argument to avoid. As to the word "hoax," the only editor using it said it wasn't one. The editors saying "userfy" are hoping that the article will indeed reappear when more reliable sources exist (otherwise they'd say "delete"). WP:Notability is a term being used here with a very specific meaning. It refers to the existence of reliable sources, not to the quality of the film (see the quote I posted above). -- Radagast 3 (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are numerous articles on WP which are not properly sourced. they all need to be sourced, or deleted it determined to be nonnotable. articles can stay here as unsourced if someone can show notability at an afd (people sometimes spend more time defending an article as notable than actually adding references), its just not as professional and gets a "no references" tag. but radagast3 is correct, thats not an argument for this particular article to stay. we know you disagree that this film is not notable, but you are too close to it to be truly objective (youve seen it, no one else writing here has), and it simply doesnt exist as a released film yet, and has gotten no significant advance attention outside its own promotional efforts. Did you read my argument: i have no problem with this article being recreated when more sources are found, either at the time of release, or even before if they are strong enough. We are assuming good faith. if we werent, someone could decide in the spirit of meanness that you were just a spammer and permanantly block you and this film. you are not a spammer. this is a real, debatable, potential article subject, whose article at this time is in fact nothing more than advance publicity for a film being released for free to churches in a few months. "sunday school film" may be somewhat crass and snarky, but thats what it is for now, until it comes out and people have a chance to see it. if its userfied, just hold onto the material, trim out the overly promotional tone and excessive summary, add references as you find them (you will have the patience to do it, given the director and film name are hard to search for, and i presume you will have access to film company info on notable critiques/reviews and news articles (NOT press releases, please)). when you think you have enough, you could drop a note on my talk page, i would give my appraisal if you like. I am a believer in WP:IGNORE, so if an interesting reason to show notability arises, thats not in the canon of reasons, i am open to having articles stay.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ok, so it's a weakly sourced, soon-to-be released christian film. I believe in wikiland there's something called eventualism. Just let it be and give the chance to let the flower bloom. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added some more sources and working on additional ones. Appreciate those who have been supportive, no matter what your position on this article is. Doing the best I can to play by the rules.Stefanhajek —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no indication of any notability. Possibly move to Conservapedia. Nergaal (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seven-layer tea

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

Declined A7 nominee, fails WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails General notability guideline. No reliable sources, everything i find are blogs. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete writing is hopelessly confused, reading like a hoax (I really doubt it's made with dishwater, and 4 different kinds no less!) and occasionally forgetting it's about a tea and writing about a salad instead. Even setting all that aside though it's still a drink served at just one place and utterly non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this is a probable hoax. One of the layers is described as Layer 6: milky dishwater with a taste of lemon (like fairy liquid) - Fairy liquid? And still not notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bizarre hoax/promotion. The picture looks refreshingly like Thai iced tea. The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The item is real, and sold in one tea shop in Srimangal, Sylhet, Bangladesh. Here is a non RS blog where someone mentions his experience with the tea. However, this is not notable, at least notability is not supported by coverage in any reliable sources. --Ragib (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if so, I doubt any commercially-sold tea is made with several types of dishwater, and we'd be better of having nothing than having gibberish on Wiki. (Not that you were implying otherwise) The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —fetch ·comms 18:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Kirilow

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

Delete Non-notable petty criminal. One single newspaper article doesn't make someone notable. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually I beg to differ: this case has been followed by a fairly large media reaction (not including online reactions) in Canada. Maybe it's not such a big thing in the US or something. Anyways, there's much more work needed to be done on this article, [this first please] , the page was only created like 5 minutes ago, lol. Children of the dragon (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia presents articles on individuals considering their enduring level of notability. As such, WP is not the place for routine news reports of criminal activity. Cindamuse (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also, WP:BLP1E. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment exposes serious reasons why blp1e should be deprecated. First, blp1e gives no guidance as to what should and shouldn't be an event. In my experiences these judgments as to what does and doesn't constitute a single event are very highly subjective. In my experience nominators frequently conflate multiple events, when they are unsympathetic to the subject, or doubt their credibility. Second, blp1e allows for exceptions. I suggest it is not events that should count -- it should be topics. There is no single topic that our coverage of Kirilow could be merged to. (1) The psychiatrist who first described Munchausen syndrome by internet described Kirilow as an example. (2) Some charities pay for granting terminal patients a dying wish, and Kirilow had a "dying wish" to visit Disneyworld sponsored by one of those charities. (3) Kirilow's fraud is having a chilling effect on charities attempts to seek online donations. These three topics could all benefit from referring to Kirilow's case. Merging the information we have on Kirilow into articles on the three topics I mentioned, or to any other topic, wouldn't be helpful. Most of the information would be off-topic there, and it would make it hard to find. It would be particularly hard to find for anyone interested in Kirilow's connection to the other topics. Looking back on all the instances where an individual was a blp1e, and we kept the article about them anyhow, those individuals were related to multiple other topics, like Kirilow, so there was no single related article where the information could be merged. Geo Swan (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. She's had her 15 minutes of infamy, and most everyone has already lost interest. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this quickly stopped being a local story. Geo Swan (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephanie Dearing (2010-08-09). "Ashley Kirilow vilified for alleged cancer charity scam". Digital Journal. Retrieved 2010-08-18. Those in the know allege Kirilow made off with at least $20,000, an amount that under different circumstances would only merit the young woman a mention in the local newspaper after she'd been found guilty. But because Kirilow claims she faked cancer to get the money, her story has gone around the world. mirror
Keep -- We don't normally carry articles on individuals who are known for a single event, and then forgotten. We do cover individuals who rose to prominence from a single event, where their participating in the event takes on a life of its own. IMO, we should cover individuals who do not end up being forgotten, even if initially they were only known for one event. Consider coverage like that in the following reference. That article is not about the event of Kirilow's fraud. That article is about charities efforts to raise donations online, and how it will be effected by Kirilow's fraud. That article establishes that Kirilow's fraud has gone beyond blp1e, because its effect on charities' online donation efforts is a whole other topic. Some readers reading articles like this one are going to be curious about Kirilow, want more background than that offered here. Will they look to the wikipedia in vain for this coverage due to an overly strict interpretation of blp1e? Geo Swan (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reka Szekely (2010-08-13). "Charities extend their reach online". Durham Region News. Retrieved 2010-08-18. At worst there's the case of Ashley Kirilow, the Burlington woman accused of faking cancer and bilking thousands of dollars from people eager to support her. Ms. Kirilow is accused of posting pictures of herself bald and with plucked eyebrows and eyelashes on her Facebook group for an alleged bogus charity called "Change" for a Cure. Reading about the allegations against Ms. Kirilow is disheartening and inevitably leaves people feeling jaded about charitable organizing via social media. mirror
Delete for the reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E is clear: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." This means that this event can be covered in the context of an article about scams against charities, even if that article has yet to be written, but not as a BLP. Sandstein 07:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clear BLP1E case; this is not a biography, it is story about her misdeeds. If that event is notable, that is the article we should have. However, I am unconvinced as to the lasting notability even of the underlying event, hence, I favor deletion rather than rewriting the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Air Force Cadet Wing. —fetch ·comms 18:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Cadet Wing Squadron 1

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

I am also nominating for deletion the following parallel articles, for the same reason.

Such units are not notable, even if at the Air Force Academy. (was Deprodded by another editor) DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unit is not notable per WP:NOTABILITY and the developing MILHIST guidelines at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Possible_addition_to_MILMOS. Anotherclown (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into new article - These should be condensed into "Air Force Cadet Wing" each squadron having it's own small subunit section. The larger Wing which will have more resources on it, including general studies of the student body, i.e. sections like "culture" and "Demographics" and "selection process" etc. could be based off the current section The Cadet Wing in United States Air Force Academy, Sadads (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just not notable, if the discussion on the insignia is removed it is a jsut a one line article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into a list at United States Air Force Academy, or a standalone list, given the size of that article. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into a single article as suggested by Sadads and bahamut0013 above. The Air Force Cadet Wing Squadrons are notable and deserving of recognition in Wikipedia. Inniverse (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable by themselves, in my opinion. I have nothing against them being mentioned in the Air Force Academy article, though, but it would need to be done in a way that does not place undue weight on them. Sadads idea for a parent article also has merit, but would need someone to actually follow through on this, and would also need to satisfy sourcing that demonstrates significant coverage of the cadet wing squadrons themselves, rather than just the Air Force Academy. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above - I can't see the benefit of keeping individual articles. TheGrappler (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27th Special Operations Maintenance Squadron

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

I do not see how a maintenance squadron can possibly be considered notable, and no sources to show otherwise. Prod was removed. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unit is not notable per WP:NOTABILITY and the developing MILHIST guidelines at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Possible_addition_to_MILMOS. Anotherclown (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable as per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any necessary data can be incorporated into 27th Special Operations Wing. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Squadron has been decorated numerous times including the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award and the Meritorious Unit Award. This Squadron is notable, and it is a good candidate to be expanded into an excellent article. Inniverse (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only keep arguments were based on WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS and WP:ITEXISTS, neither of which are valid arguments. Consensus says delete. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 06:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Brothers of Colgate University

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

Organization is not notable. No references are provided with the article, and Google is particularly stingy with hits. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- ℳono 02:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep Organization is notable especially in the area of academia in upstate New York and extremely influential on the campus of Colgate University. The organization is responsible for the featuring of various renowned lecturers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wspjaskson (talk • contribs) 03:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, add reliable sources that verify this. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are merely routine announcements of the organizations speakers, and do not show notability of the organization. student groups like this are almost never notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any reliable sources at all outside the university discussing this organization. It appears to be purely local in scope, and I cannot identify any way that it would meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion for organizations. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage in reliable, independent sources. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising university groups. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The writer of this article does not attend school within 850 miles of Colgate University. Learned of the organization through interaction with Rev. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson at the State of the Black Union address in Chicago, Illinois; point of notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wspjaskson (talk • contribs) 04:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not routine announcements, The sources are articles, published on the website of a world renowned university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wspjaskson (talk • contribs) 05:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, add "-wikipedia" to the Google search and only two hits show up. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable orgainzation; fails WP:ORG due to lack of sourcing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable campus club. Only "Keep" argument ignores WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS: you don't get to be notable by inviting notable speakers to your campus. --Orange

Mike | Talk 13:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:SNOW. 2 says you, says two 13:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ Organization exists on college campuses in New York —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wspjaskson (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you considered reading the notability criteria? It's hard to make a case for keeping this article without understanding the rules the decision in based on. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment nobody denies it exists; only that it is notable; besides, what does the existence of similar organizations on other campuses have to do with this article? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Dumb World: The Onion's Atlas of the Planet Earth

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

not notable, no inline citations, not encyclopedic serioushat 02:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per good research done below. i think i need sleep, i didnt even do proper research.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)*Delete book is listed at the article on the Onion. that is enough for this funny but nonnotable book. their first book was a work of genius, and got lots of attention.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Got to NYT [8] "The maps are supremely unreliable. Plausible though it may sound, Norway does not have a Bay of Smelt. The Bahamas do not include the Gift-Shop Islands, and Japan’s tourist attractions do not include a 400-foot statue of Hello Kitty, which, The Onion assures its readers, is the country’s “primary deity.”" , making the NYT Best Seller list for miscellaneous [9], getting paperback (number 9) in the NYT list at [10] ryc. Meets notability especially since besst-seller status on NYT has generally been considered sufficient. Collect (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - page already mentions a couple of reviews by major newspapers, and there's more lurking in the Google News archives; if it's made a bestseller list too, then it's notable enough for me. Multiple independent sources mention this book. As for whether it's encyclopaedic, I think it is - wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) turn a blind eye to stuff that's funny. bobrayner (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like it was widely reviewed. If all those bacon books could become GAs, surely this article has some hope. Some of those cleanup tags are pretty ridiculous - "Its introduction may be too long"? Zagalejo^^^ 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a close call. The book is notable, not only because of its best seller status but because it was the subject of reviews and other detailed discussion in multiple independent sources including the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, NPR, Newsweek, the Denver Post, etc. Dlduncan2 (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High profile title = Wikipedia users likely to be interested. Carrite (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Widely read publication by comedy writers from a notable website. Keep Our Dumb Century as well.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —fetch ·comms 00:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creek Sculpting

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

Notability not proven, appears to be primarily original research. Perhaps it can be redirected to Land Art, but there doesn't appear to be anything about this per se. JNW (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Talk-page comment from article author says:
There aren't going to be really any resources for this article. I understand that it makes it more difficult to verify but this article was created mainly for ease of explanation.

That's a clear WP:V failure--article's hopeless no matter how well-intentioned it was. If there's no WP:RS about it, then there isn't even any viable content to merge. DMacks (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neologism, with the article fortified with gibberish: Besides art, Creek Sculpting can be used for other purposes as well.* * * Creek Sculpting can be used both literally and metaphorically to teach one about Physics, Geometry, Engineering, Architecture, Trigonometry, Algebra, Basic Mathematics such as Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, and Division and more. Ummmmmm, right. Carrite (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmmmm, would you dismiss fluidics as well if someone said it both literally and metaphorically could teach one about logic and electronics?? Neologism, verifiable, gibberish, not so much... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.48.36 (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- ℳono 03:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 17:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Norris (technology writer)

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

Declined prod. The subject has authored many books but unable to find any reliable sources to verify his notability. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. This WP:BLP has remained unsourced for over three years. J04n(talk page) 01:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP author. The books are published in multiple editions, translated, and . very widely held (a/c WorldCat,Understanding networking technology concepts, terms, and trend has 5 editions and is held by 1,325 libraries; Communications technology explained has been published in 10 edition in English and Polish and held by 952 libraries worldwide. At least one of the books is translated into Spanish as well.) The books are from major technical publishers. I do not think the nominator looked for reviews or sources, but there is [11] from the Philadelphia Inquirer, a RS. Checking for reviews, I find one of Survival in the software jungle in IEEE Spectrum v. 33 (Aug. 1996), one of Software engineering explained in Information and Software Technology v. 35 (Apr. 1993), and three of The healthy software project: a guide to successful development and management in IEEE Software v. 12 (May 1995, The Computer Journal v. 37 no. 3 (1994), and The Computer Journal v. 37 no. 4 (1994). Reviews in reliable professional sources of multiple books shows notability for a author DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I knew Norris slightly some years ago and we briefly worked on a project together. I don't believe this constitutes a conflict of interest, but I mention it so that others can judge. Over the years, he must have been active in industry, academia and writing, so there are probably thousands of people who have been associated with him at the same level as me. I created the stub (not at the time I knew him) because I was using his book on Gigabit Ethernets and noticed how many other books he had written: it seemed to me he was sufficiently notable as a prolific author to deserve a Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, the only biographical detail that I had to hand was the brief biographical notes in his books. If the consensus is to keep the article, it certainly needs a lot of work....and I'll try to contribute to that! Bluewave (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the biographical details derive from one or more book jackets, could you add them as references? It might not be an independent source, but would satisfy the referencing requirement for living people. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I declined the prod because I felt that the multiple textbooks with major technical publishers John Wiley & Sons and Addison–Wesley were a strong indicator of potential notability. I can't add to DGG's research above, but the book reviews DGG points to would seem sufficient to meet WP:Author. A past Visiting professor at the University of Ulster might also be an indication of notability, although I can't verify this. To state that the BLP is unsourced seems a little misleading, as the statement that "he is a prolific writer on technology subjects" appears directly supported by the textbooks, which are readily findable in library catalogues/Amazon &c. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn, I'm glad that the article was able to be sourced. J04n(talk page) 13:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation

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

Advertising-type tone; the Founder section also appears to be lifted from the site of the Inasmuch Foundation. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 19:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reason for deletion has been provided per our deletion policy. The tone of the article can be fixed by editing, and if a section violates copyright then that section can be removed. Neither of these problems requires deletion of the whole article to fix. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fix rather than delete. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep. Long established organization (1982). Fix it, don't nix it. Carrite (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am willing to userfy this to anyone who requests so on my talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by several values

I think this article may be deleted by the following reasons:

Its scope is basically very unspecific
Included lists are already dealt with more specifically at Lists of countries and territories
It's an orphan article
The values are dusputed (see talk page) and are getting obsolete. More updated values are found in the other articles in Lists of countries and territories that specifically deal with these subjects.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is a excessive listing of statistics. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#STATS, there's just no need for this in an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Userfy this first. There might be several useful pages hidden amidst that mass of gunk. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahdyar Aghajani

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

Non-notable musician. Seems self-written and all of the sources of the page is slef-published or unreliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapefarsiforlife (talk • contribs) 2010/08/02 21:25:54

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also google hits are low quality. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google hits become high quality once mixing his acronym with the rapper who he works for. Section 2 of WP:MUSIC 'Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.' The album 'Jangal-e Asfalt', was a multi-million selling album. --Halaghate.sabz (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT and WP:MUSIC.Farhikht (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if G hits are good only when you mix his name with others so the article is not idependently notable, also I dont think the references of the article can pass WP:RS. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given a work that was directly behind a successful album which sources recognise as notable, the composer of such work becomes notable as the creator of a notable work even so composer hasn't been mentioned rigorously. Hint hint, sockpuppeting is not to be tolerated. --Halaghate.sabz (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: sorry but you need strong reliable sources like Billboard chart to claim an album is sold multi million copies. the article has many problems. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Underground music in Iran, doesn't have Billboard charts (infact there is no such charts allowed in the country). PS 'the article has many problems' I like to think lets make it better then instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.19.246 (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable musician , Fails WP:MUSIC SaharJavadi (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Among other things, composed the music for a notable film, sourced to reliable sources such as Cineaste 35 (3): 47. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Computer 2000

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

The company is not notable and the article lacks citations and verification. Archdeceiver (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The article says that this business was Europe's leading provider of IT products to resellers until it was bought out. A middleman business of this sort, neither an originator of innovations nor a consumer brand, is an extremely unlikely candidate to ever have long term historical notability. And the name does not make it easy to do a quick search for real sources in Google News archive, which finds many press releases announcing product lines, personnel changes, and promotional events. (Wow! I bet when the year 2000 comes, the Future will have arrived. We'll have computers! And flying cars! We'll all live under domed cities full of beautiful bald headed women! I can't wait!) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, for the same reasons listed above. --62.49.171.1 (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- ℳono 03:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a company, unlike a news event, need merely have notability , not long-term historical notability -- for a company, that's equivalrnt to "famous", a much higher standard than we use. The largest firm in a major field of business is notable. I don't see the relevance of all the the reasons given above for deletion, but making fun of the subject of an article for being no longer current is not a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article certainly requires citations if it is to stay. Fiedorczuk (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There seems to be a fair amount of international coverage, e.g. of the acquisition: one example is an article in the St. Petersburg Times. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Dougan

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

Contested PROD. Same old, same old - a footballer who has not played in a fully professional league so fails WP:NSPORT. Lack of coverage in independent sources so also fails WP:GNG. Big Dom 13:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has yet to make a full appearance for PNE (being an unused sub doesn't count), so delete due to failing Wp:ATHLETE and Wp:GNG. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The two abandoned children of Osaka. arguably the delete consensus is invalid as it emerged before discussion on a redirect/merge. I'm going with redirect right now but see no reason why the redirect target cannot be nominated for proper discussion at any time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanae Shimomura

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

Article about non-notable person which contravenes WP:NOTNEWS --DAJF (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence that there was enough discussion of this event to transform the subject from NEWSWORTHY to NOTEWORTHY. --Griseum (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an alternative article entitled The three abandoned children of Osaka which is generally identical but stripped of the names of individual persons. Therefore I concur with Eekster's proposal to delete the article Sanae Shimomura. I maintain a strong belief that this alternate article be retained in the interest of the ongoing dialectic of child abandonment in various cultures, not only in Japan. Additionally I feel strongly that this would serve the interest of free speech and the spirit of Wikipedia as an open forum for collaboration and assembly of facts. Thank you for your efforts to make Wikipedia better. Respectfully, Maximilian333 (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that the event itself is noteworthy based on striking similarities with several well documented and famous cases that have been the subject of national debate, books, movies, and documentaries in Japan. Some examples of confined abandonment in Japan : + the real case of the four abandoned children of Sugamo + the case of the two abandoned children of Alberta. The Alberta case- very similar- is referenced in Wikipedia via the name of the convicted woman [[Rie Fujii}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rie_Fujii]]. + Coin-operated locker babies as detailed in research such as http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=153318, a type of baby hatch phenomenon unique to Japan where lockers known or thought to be checked by attendants according to schedules.

I agree that for now the name of the accused individual in this newest case is not crucial to the dialectic. Therefore the issue should be covered by my article the three abandoned children of Osaka. The accused person's name should not be needlessly flaunted in the interest of her privacy and that of her family given that she has not been convicted. It is quite obvious that this person was under many pressures in life whether or not they are guilty of anything. At the same time, the event is a front-page story that has been running in Japan for months because it very similar to the events of the affair of the four abandoned children of Sugamo, another case pertaining to a girl from this country living in Canada, and others. A disturbing trend with more than a small scattering of instances involving women abandoning children in Japan has made the general topic absolutely noteworthy. The film Nobody Knows (誰も知らない; Dare mo shiranai), translated into English and other languages, was based on the Sugamo incident and much has been said about these cases both on Wikipedia and in the media at large. My proposed solution: Perhaps this incident should be given a similar name so as to frame this event and include it in the cross-dialectic over this disturbing trend. I will lead the way and create an article focused on the phenomenon (not one that is unique to Japan or any other country, incidence in Japan is quite low compared to many other countries, Japan is trying hard to shed light on the issue to find solutions and has set up many policies that disincentivise the practice and create alternatives. My agenda here is to use this cases to help people inform themselves about prominent cases and link to related issues and associated efforts), not on the person. Maximilian333 (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given above. I have seen no evidence, by the way, of the enormous cultural influence of this event (one sensationalist movie does not establish that yet). Drmies (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is far more evidence supporting the claim that this event is important. Indeed more than than one "a sensationalist movie" that should be considered(Besides, the aforementioned movie actually cast the story in a less grim light, making it more palatable to the public than the real story- more toward the opposite effect of "de"sensationalization. For example in that movie one boy fell accidentally from a window when in reality he had been killed).

I have no hidden agenda in writing this article. Child abuse is less common in Japan than many other countries including China, Taiwan, and the United States and the Japanese government is proactive in preventing these cases from happening.

I suspect some amount of bias toward their goal of rapidly deleting this article. Please consider fairly. There are plenty of academic journal articles on the subject even if this specific case is too new to be documented as prominently as those similar cases have been. This is one negative event in Japan, but Japanese society and government do react in many positive address to fix problems like this- those are what I hope will eventually be explored as the article is developed and I will try to link those in as well.

Evidence:

One additional point: A phenomenon need not have enormous cultural influence in order to be important and noteworthy. Lady Gaga exerts powerful cultural influence and has a Wikipedia page, after all- but I don't think she is important in the grand scheme of things! If cultural influence were the measure of importance in this world, we would be in very big trouble indeed. Nor must Cultural influence in one country reach the united states or the UK to be important. Maximilian333 (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Now that a separate article has been created at The two abandoned children of Osaka, I think it is more appropriate to redirect this article to that one rather than deleting it outright. --DAJF (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These articles are a package deal - either they both stay or both go. Since The three abandoned children of Osaka, which redirects to The two abandoned children of Osaka was created from this article, the attribution history here would need to be retained by a redirect or a revision merge. Having said all that, I think they all should go. This is a news story, and NOTNEWS squarely applies. There has not been enough coverage to show that there is lasting impact from this incident. The article tries to point to a larger cultural debate about hospitals accepting newborns who are unwanted by their parents, but the no sources I can find make that connection here, it is synthesis. I do think that the discussion Maximilian333 points to is a topic that probably could support an article, and if a source then connects Shimomura to that discussion, the content could be included there. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KnowHow NonProfit

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

Non-notable website, article is written like an advertisement. Fails WP:WEB. All sources that can be found are either primary, myspace/facebook/twitter, or regurgitated press releases. No significant coverage in secondary sources, fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^yak 23:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it seems to be lifted from the company's website. Not a promotional SPA, though, but still a good Delete candidate. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 01:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Painfully blatant advertising: created to improve the efficiency of non profit organisations by increasing the knowledge and skills of people working in the non-profit sector – especially those that are new to training or come from 'hard-to-reach' groups. The portfolio of knowledge sharing resources provides expert content for those working in the third sector on anything from fundraising to managing volunteeers in organisations. If this has been copied from its website, this might be speediable as a copyvio. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage isn't up to scratch here, as the nom correctly explained. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Videoclips

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

Stub has existed with almost no content for 2 years Wjousts (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A true rarity, a Billboard chart that not even Billboard has paid any heed to. I found no information on this chart anywhere, not even on Billboard's own site. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this chart does or ever did exist. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Ortiz

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

Only hits on Gnews are false positives or trivial. Only roles are trivial characters. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a handful of exceedingly minor roles (some not even named, like "Cute Science Coed") do not equate to notability for encyclopedia purposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Life

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

No apparent notability outside of maybe the Cannes portion (even if that was 2005-06), plus creator User:Sharatc has a major conflict of interest, being Sharat Chandra, the short film's director. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 19:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not doubt the film screened... but after that it seems to have disappeared... and no reliable sources speak about it.[12]. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it was screened in cannes. Thats about it. No GNG or awards.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Culture of Gujarat#Gujarati engagement ceremony. No particular need to delete the history here, but the redirect is justified given the lack of sourcing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gol dhana

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

This article is a dictionary definition. SnottyWong ^verbalize 21:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's more than merely a dictionary definition but is not substantial enough to merit an article of its own. The article is now redundant as I have merged the content into Culture of Gujarat#Gujarati engagement ceremony. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Culture of Gujarat#Gujarati engagement ceremony. As Jimmy Pitt says, it's non-notable and redundant, but it's also a plausible search term so a redirect is fair. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SM Center San Pablo

SM_Center_San_Pablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

There is already an article SM City San Pablo. SM San Pablo is not SM Center. These page should be deleted. Keep the other article SM City San Pablo not this SM Center San Pablo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurchanning (talk • contribs) 2010/07/26 12:03:45

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It has a article of SM City San Pablo, Wrong name. Gabby 11:00, 07 August 2010 (PST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Supergabbyshoe. Wrong name, unlikely search term either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 18:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeharna South

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

I tried to find solid reliable third party sources for this article, but there are few to be had. The best I could come up with was a small blurb on a BBC local website from 2006. Notability has not extended beyond a brief period of attention that has since died down. The article also contains original research, and was likely written by someone close to Jeharna South. Finally, I'm not sure if there is much benefit in having so much information on a disputably notable minor included here. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 14:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails BLP standards for having undocumented potentially libelous material about education and religious beliefs. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep.(Non-admin closure) Perhaps a future Afd in case the article does not get improved. Right now, the minimal consensus seems to be for keeping the article. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 05:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MindPlay

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

I do not believe the subject has "significant coverage" per the notability guidelines me_and (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has citations for coverage in USAToday and Wired magazine, both recognized mainstream news sources. SpikeJones (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a good-faith search yesterday, the only two articles I could find covering MindPlay were the USAToday and Wired ones, dated 2004-02-11 and 2003-08-18. Considering notability is not temporary, and in particular "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage", I do not think this is sufficient to establish notability. In particular, I do not believe notability of the news source automatically confers notability of topics that source covers. --me_and (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After searching again, I've come across a little more coverage; the most recent being this, updated May 2005. That's the most recent mention I can readily find, and I stand by my original point that the coverage is sufficiently small, and sufficiently isolated to a small period of time, that WP:SIGCOV isn't satisfied. --me_and (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing in article seems enough to meet WP:N. Don't think small period of time or the like is relevant. Hobit (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to earlier KEEP vote: Have added NYTimes article to list of references on the Mindplay page as another example of coverage received in mainstream media. SpikeJones (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep I believe this article with this reference meets the notability. also I think this is a good point to keep this article for future improvement. mamali (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn nomination. The concerns I have no longer apply to this article. The New Raymie (t • c) 18:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shamkant Navathe

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

There may be notability here, but other issues concern me: multiple copypaste (nearly!) sections, a résumé...and a conflict of interest: creator Priyanka Prabhu is a graduate research assistant with Mr. Navathe. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 05:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (most of it) - Technically that's a "keep" vote. But this article is blatant Wikipedia abuse and I would cut this down to a stub of WP:V info. It is NOT anyone's responsibility to repair this article beyond that. --Griseum (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 06:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:PROF. Article issues can be sorted out by normal editing. Salih (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. meets WP:PROF. I have cleaned up the article. (removed the weasel bits and the resume like stuff)--Sodabottle (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (default to keep) — GorillaWarfare ^talk 18:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter Industries

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This company fails the general notability guideline and the specific notability guideline for companies because it hasn't received significant attention in reliable sources, nor has it made a significant impact in its field. Them From Space 04:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not see significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 06:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination. This is about a toy / hobbyist business: a third-party developer best known for their sensors which support the Lego Mindstorms NXT system - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I'm having a hard time believing their parts aren't covered by one of the many robotics magazines or by the First Robotics folks. I've found a lot of blogs that discuss their parts in detail but not much more. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps moving the page to an article on third party software supporting the Lego Mindstorms system would be appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraypark (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC) — Kraypark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak keep: The page includes some sources, and they seem to be making somewhat of an impact--although small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.7.42.101 (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC) — 146.7.42.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no way this passes WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I despise ads, but this one isn't blatant and anything externally linking to a site called "I'd Rather Be Building Robots" can't be all bad... Carrite (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But how does this meet WP:N or WP:CORP? Them From Space 17:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie Griffin

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable "glamour model"; fails WP:ENT, no indication the subject satisfies the GNG or an other specialized guideline. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. Garden variety lawsuit has minimal coverage, but notability for that would fail under BLP1E. Survived AFD years ago as a "notable pornstar," which was rather odd since the subject has no porn credits or credentials. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG and PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially a BLP1E involved in a rather ho-hum name dispute lawsuit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Natural monopoly . Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the consensus at the redirect target and this I have changed the close to a straight delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failure monopoly

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

This does not appear to be a legitimate term of art. It is used once in an article, but does not seem to have caught on, and there do not seem to be any sources that discuss the term itself, please see wp:NEO for a discussion about what kinds of terms or phrases should and should not have articles here. My concern is that readers my find this page and conclude that "failure monopoly" is a term of art that economists use and have a common understanding of. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete, weakly, per nomination. I am not sure from reading the article how the concept it seeks to describe, which does make some sense, differs from natural monopoly, where the costs of entry to a business are so high that it makes sense to only do it once. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or find an appropriate merge. The term is not one that shows up in use in textbooks, lectures, etc. It appears to be a Mises coined name that never gained appreciable usage. The concept is valid but, as suggested above, may fit under a term that is in regular use. --Stormbay (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where would you merge it? If we can't find support for "Failure monopoly" as a term, it would be great to include these ideas somewhere, but where? Natural monopoly? ErikHaugen (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the question and I don't have a quick answer. Hopefully, someone with an expertize in that area will arrive at this discussion. --Stormbay (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Natural monopoly would appear to me to be the logical target. A natural monopoly arises when the cost of entry to a market is prohibitive; utilities such as water and electricity are the classic examples, because of all the wires and pipes that must be installed on land where rights may need to be bought. According to the reference given from the Mises Institute, a "failure monopoly" is a "special instance" that comes about where the initial undertaking is so costly that even the firm installing it can never make a reasonable return despite the advantage of being a monopolist. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say that the natural monopoly article would provide a spot for a section on this special or extreme circumstance, given the Smerdis of Tlön rationale above. The merge would provide the info to those readers arriving via the failure monopoly heading and its own heading would make it easy to find. --Stormbay (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Natural monopoly seems sensible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except this suggests that the term "failure monopoly" is some kind of legitimate term of art that economists use. Is it? If so, we can keep the article. If not, then this redirect would be misleading and harmful. I have looked and found nothing to suggest that this is a legitimate term. Nobody else seems to be able to find any evidence, either. Additionally, a redirect to natural monopoly would be astonishing (see WP:REDIRECT#PLA) without mention of "failure monopoly" on that page. And we don't want to introduce unsourced material on that page either. So no, no redirect without sources. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A redirect does not suggest a legitimate term of art that economists use. Here, we seem to have a neologism. It has been reputably used, directly and non-trivially [13]. It may or may not grow into something (probably not, I think). If someone is looking for "failure monopoly", Natural monopoly is the best we have. "Failure monopoly" is a special case of a natural monopoly, so the redirect is entirely appropriate. Whether the neologism is worth a single mention at the target (I think it is, citing the single source) is a subsequent question. Redirects are cheap, and this one will do no harm. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll mention again the link to principle of least astonishment which explains why it is not ok to redirect without explaining the redirect in the target article. So we'll be in the awkward position of needing to discuss failure monopolies at natural monopoly despite there being no reliable secondary sources about the term. I'm not sure why you feel that redirects don't suggest legitimacy? This seems self-evident to me, I guess we'll just have to disagree about that. In any case, though, wp:NEO suggests that neologisms like this should be deleted. ErikHaugen (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - http://mises.org/humanaction/chap16sec6.asp seems reliable enough a source. "15. A special case [of a monopoly] is what may be called the failure monopoly" seems direct enough about the term. I'm not sure where you are coming or going talking about secondary sources. The source creates and provides information on the term, and so it is secondary, notwithstanding the fact that the source is here our primary source. I see it not astonishing at all that a reader will be taken to Natural monopoly, and I see no challenge to the legitimacy of the term as described in the (so far) single source. You are right that something should be at the target, and I clarify that I see the appropriate outcome as Merge and Redirect to Natural monopoly. I don't see this as a neologism. The information is not about the term. It is about natural monopolies that cannot yield a return. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being used only once, even by a reliable source, is not a sufficient basis for an article about a neologism. A redirect is inappropriate per WP:R#PLA. Sandstein 07:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein would be assuming that the material will not be merged to provide a suitable target as per WP:R#PLA. I think a merge is not unreasonable. I have pasted merge to/from templates and started a discussion at Talk:Natural_monopoly#Merge_Failure_monopoly_to_here.3F. I'm hoping that editors interested in Natural_monopoly will comment here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Natural_monopoly#Merge_Failure_monopoly_to_here.3F

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

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

The result was keep. The discussion re-enforced that there are adequate sources to discuss the band, and show it likely meets our notability guideline. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Painface

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems like an unremarkable band, as no importance or significance is asserted. Further, no reliable sources are given, and none are found. Reviews and interviews are non-existing. Looks like it qualifies for WP:A7 but it's been around a while so I'm going with AfD. — Timneu22 · talk 17:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/Speedy keep Timneu22, please read the criteria of notability for bands in WP:BAND, specifically #6 : "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". Here, the two independently notable musicians are Paul Gray (American musician) and Shawn Crahan. A withdrawal would be appropriate ... :) Maashatra11 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care. This band is not notable. Further, it is still unsourced, despite the comment below. — Timneu22 · talk 00:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm... See WP:IDONTCARE. Maybe you didn't notice, but I added multiple reliable sources. I can dig for more sources and try to add inline citations, but it is not utterly necessary. Maashatra11 (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now added reliable sources. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources added are trivial. Notability isn't inherited just because it has members of an otherwise notable band. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Slipknot, where they all went. lacks coverage independent of Slipknot. Already mentioned in that article. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by virtue of meeting WP:BAND #6, with any potential merge discussions saved for relevant talk pages. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Previous AfDs for the article suggested that this might be ripe for a "merge" but certainly not a "delete". Painface gets mentioned in books about Slipknot, and in Paul Gray's obituaries. It would be helpful if Maashatra11 could add some inline citations, which might make it clearer that the book mentions are not just in passing and therefore this subject merits a separate article. Otherwise a merge discussion might conclude with a "redirect" to Slipknot. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul Erik, I'll try to add inline citations but it's not me who wrote the article's text so it's a tricky task. Maybe I'll also contact the article's author and ask him where he got all this information from. What I was trying to do when I added references was to argue against the nom's argument that this band isn't found in reliable sources. :) Maashatra11 (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked the page's history, and found that an active contributor (User:Andre666) is the main author of the article (see this diff). I contacted him about the sources of this article, so let's wait and see what he responds. Maashatra11 (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andre responded and he says he doesn't remember. Well, I guess a merge may be in order if there is concensus for it. Maashatra11 (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Maas. And nom's response to Maas is notably unconvincing.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BAND #6. The issue of verifiability has been addressed too, as the ELs at the bottom of the article tell us that all the notable people were definitely in the band. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 18:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Paterson (actor)

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

Citing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argiris Karras as precedent, actors who are only notable for their appearance on "Degrassi: The Next Generation", and have little (ie. IMDb) to none sources, should be redirected to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. 117Avenue (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The cited "precedent" resulted in a redirect without deletion; therefore, there is no basis for bringing the matter to AFD rather than pursuing normal editorial processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect - There is no deletion argument here at all, this is an editorial process to redirect the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 06:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and, of course, Redirect. Precedent relevant and applicable. --Griseum (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-direct per nom. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but not with a deletion – The subject has not received sufficient coverage to warrant a separate article, but I don't recommend deleting the verifiable information contained in the article. If more coverage appears, it will be a good basis to revive and expand the article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-direct - 9 Google News Archive hits but, other than his network bio, the articles are all about the Degrassi show or the Soundspeed band. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I am repeating my argument from below, but I have independantly assessed this article too. Notability appears to be insufficient for a standalone article at this time, but I can't see why admin tools are needed here. How does deleting the history of this article assist anyone? If improperly recreated, the redirect can be protected, otherwise, if better sources appear the history could be useful. There's no case for deletion here at all. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 18:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Barrable-Tishauer

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

Citing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argiris Karras as precedent, actors who are only notable for their appearance on "Degrassi: The Next Generation", and have little (ie. IMDb) to none sources, should be redirected to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. 117Avenue (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The cited "precedent" resulted in a redirect without deletion; therefore, there is no basis for bringing the matter to AFD rather than pursuing normal editorial processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect - There is no deletion argument here at all, this is an editorial process to redirect the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 06:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. Precedent relevant and applicable. --Griseum (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just now I added a source confirming her performance in the Toronto production of The Lion King. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-direct per nom. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Actress well-known for a single role in a popular TV series that generated lots of press, as evidenced by newspaper mentions (brief but non-trivial mentions of her) over multiple years; I've added a couple of examples but there are many more. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a single role makes a person notable, as seen by the other actors listed in List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters who don't have articles. 117Avenue (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a useful precedent in our treatment of other actors on this show. One size doesn't fit all. Different actors' roles and tenures on the show result in different degrees of coverage in reliable, secondary sources. That coverage, not the show, should drive our deletion decisions.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nomination. Borderline case: 47 Google News Archive hits, but all to articles about the show, not about her (other than her show bio on CTV.com). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Notability appears to be insufficient for a standalone article at this time, but I can't see why admin tools are needed here. How does deleting the history of this article assist anyone? If improperly recreated, the redirect can be protected, otherwise, if better sources appear the history could be useful. There's no case for deletion here at all. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I close this without prejudice towards a speedy renomination should it be felt necessary -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmar Abuzeid

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

CitingWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argiris Karras as precedent, actors who are only notable for their appearance on "Degrassi: The Next Generation", and have little (ie. IMDb) to none sources, should be redirected to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. 117Avenue (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The cited "precedent" resulted in a redirect without deletion; therefore, there is no basis for bringing the matter to AFD rather than pursuing normal editorial processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)2010 August 12[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is more than just a fan page for an actor only in one show - he also is in a band, outside of the television show Degrassi, that has been mentioned in newspapers. The band itself is mentionable because it is a group of men that did meet on the show but includes other musicians, and they are performing around Canada. Although the band has not recieved mass covereage yet, and thus might not be considered notable, the fact that he is in an outside project that has been covered by sources makes him notable. Or at least, it means he is not not notable. Barbiegurl676 (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well before we call them the next Drake, what makes the band notable? Or are they just mentioned in the news because they are Degrassi actors? 117Avenue (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-direct per nom. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Multiple sources have reported on his involvement in the musical group, and there's an interview with him in Seventeen. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters#D . A Google News Archive search turned up just 6 articles that mention him and none that actually cover him. The band he belongs to, SoundSpeed, may or may not be notable.[14][15] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A close call, this one. I am closing it as no consensus but without prejudice to a speedy renomination -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa McIntyre

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

CitingWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argiris Karras as precedent, actors who are only notable for their appearance on "Degrassi: The Next Generation", and have little (ie. IMDb) to none sources, should be redirected to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. 117Avenue (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The cited "precedent" resulted in a redirect without deletion; therefore, there is no basis for bringing the matter to AFD rather than pursuing normal editorial processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As for the "speedy" keep, what are you talking about? Speedy has specific requirements, and in fact, I don't even think it's a keep. The argument is that she's not notable for being on Degrassi. The AfD supports that. That's a relevant reason. Would change if there's sufficient notability to meet bio notability otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One basis for a speedy keep !vote is that the nominator "fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging." Here, the nominator cited a "precedent" resulting in a non-deletion action. QED. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What more do you want me to say? I think that this person is not notable, and I have opened it for discussion so that I am not accused of a mass deletion. 117Avenue (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect - no reason given for deletion, this should have been handled through editorial processes rather than here. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-direct per nom. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Multiple reliable sources report on her role in Degrassi, for which she is well-known, and for which she won an award as part of the ensemble of actors. I added a citation to the Toronto Star just now, as just one example of brief but non-trivial coverage. It's acceptable that some of the article is sourced to her CTV bio (non-independent sources can be used to verify non-promotional info), though the article does need some neutrality cleanup. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that makes her more notable than other actors who don't have an article. 117Avenue (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- more notable than some other DeGrassi actors.[16][17]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Ablack

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

Citing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argiris Karras as precedent, actors who are only notable for their appearance on "Degrassi: The Next Generation", and have little (ie. IMDb) to none sources, should be redirected to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. 117Avenue (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The cited "precedent" resulted in a redirect without deletion; therefore, there is no basis for bringing the matter to AFD rather than pursuing normal editorial processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-direct per nom. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Actor playing a regular role on a popular TV series. As such, there are multiple brief but non-trivial mentions of him in a variety of newspaper sources. I've added a few citations. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nomination. 20 Google News Archive hits but they all mention in in passing while discussing the show. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Pilot Pen Tennis

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

Article is about an event which hasn't happened yet, although it is referred to in the past tense. I don't understand why people insist on creating articles for events which haven't happened yet. Just wait until the event happens, then create the article for it. SnottyWong ^spout 21:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being part of the 2010 US Open Series appears to be notable, and I'm seeing significant coverage on Google News. Far-flung speculative articles on future events can be problematic, but this is only a couple of weeks away. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an article about a future event, but it has been planned and the match schedule has been posted online (http://www.pilotpentennis.com/ScheduleAndDraws/MatchSchedule/). I personally agree that it was created before it was needed, but I am unaware of the exact policy regarding this. I noticed that 2014, 2018, and 2022 FIFA World Cup are already articles. 2012 and 2016 Summer Olympics also exist. I am sure there are plenty of other "future" articles out there. Therefore it seems that if the planning for a notable event has been made publc, there is some precedent for an editor to create an article for it. I certainly am opposed to deleting someone's good faith effort to add verifiable and notable information to wikipedia. Cmcnicoll (talk) 06:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably created a little early but not excessively so. Tournament is scheduled and, crucially, wildcards have been handed out so there is information to put in the article etc. --129.234.252.66 (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Marcus Fox. I will add the suggested hatnote on that page to aid those seeking the mayor. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Fox

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

No primary topic; both of the links on the disambiguation page are redirects to other articles with similar titles. Propose putting hatnotes on both of those articles and redirecting this link to a different disambiguation page.

Keep (creator of page). This is one of several pages created to cover the case where a red link exists to a topic that is probably notable (that is to say, will have an article one day), and an existing article on a different subject exists under a very similar name. Here we had a redlinked 19th century US politician (John M. Fox) and a 20th century UK politician (John Marcus Fox). Having gone to the effort of establishing that they are similarly-named but distinct subjects, creating a disambig page seemed the natural way to record this fact. There is some relevant discussion about having separate disambig pages for people with differing middle names at User talk:Boleyn#New disambig pages. - TB (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ome has an article but it doesn't mention him ever being known as John M. Fox and the other is only mentioned on WP once, on a list page. Unless an article is created on the mayor, this should probably redirect to Marcus Fox with hatnote to mayor list. Boleyn (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Boelyn and add hatnote. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and hatnote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MMO-Champion

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

Non-notable World of Warcraft news website. Fails WP:WEB. SnottyWong ^confer 22:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this passes WP:WEB, either in the article or anywhere else that I can find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online grocer

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

Should be a detail in the grocery store article, rather than the non-specific mess that this separate article encourages. A non-detailed explanation of the concept of an online grocer is all that's needed, we probably don't need operational details and spam for grocery stores. A separate article such as "List of online grocers" could detail the individual online grocers. Wentomowameadow (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenttomowameadow (talk • contribs) 2010/07/24 14:55:47 [reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant specialized business. Needs considerable expansion, DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are substantial differences to bricks-and-mortar grocers, and it's a significant business sector in its own right, so I think there's no harm in exploring these in a separate article. If some of it starts looking spammy (ie. links are added to many online grocers) then that's a content problem which could best be resolved by editing rather than removing the article. bobrayner (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very different business model as noted above. TheGrappler (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Further listing did not generate any keep comments -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thugs 'n' Kisses

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

Non-notable compilation album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - seems to fail notability, although I have turned up some resources, all are pretty minimal in information: allmusic, chemlab, discogs, culturshoc, and along with standard Amazon and yahoo music listings. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Froydis Ree Wekre

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

This orphaned, rarely edited, rarely viewed and barely referenced article fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Only one reference link actually works, and the article veers into puffery territory. Fiedorczuk (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a review of Gravity is Light Today by Froydis Ree Wekre and Roger Bobo in "Gravity is Light Today", Instrumentalist, vol. 52, no. 2, 1 September 1997 duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Orphaned, rarely edited, rarely viewed" are utterly irrelevant to whether an article should be deleted, as is the statement that the article "veers into puffery territory" (the only thing remotely resembling puffery is the single word "renowned", which would take far less time to change by editing than it took to create this AfD discussion). As regards sources showing notability, all that is needed to find them is to click on the word "books" in the nomination, which finds many reliable sources such as this profile. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep co-principal in a major symphony orchestra is notable DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ^{[citation needed]} 160.39.212.104 (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable. The profile link as per above- this profile is pretty poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuietCountry25 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC) — QuietCountry25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep A marginal case, but her book being translated into several languages, and having been President of the International Horn Society both seem (just) sufficient. Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How are those things relevant to wikipedia:notability? 160.39.212.104 (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 160.39.212.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion remain except for one. However, saying that an article is poorly written should be avoided, as it is a surmountable problem. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 06:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Rahr

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

A vanity article which appears to have been created by the subject's PR agency. Relies entirely on a brief Forbes "richest people" profile. Excerpt: Rahr's life is a true American rags to riches fairy tale come true story. Rahr started his career in his Dad's single pharmacy with just 4 employees and revenues of less than $1 million. Today Rahr's behemoth Kinray has 1500 employees and revenues in excess of $5 billion. Mosmof (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I hate this article with a passion, bragging BS about an ultra-wealthy entrepreneur, but cracking the Forbes list of the world's richest pretty much seals the notability deal, does it not? LINK. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's on the list, but he's in the 300s, so I wasn't sure. He gets plenty of Google hits, but they tend to be fluff, who's-who type stuff and beneficiaries of his philanthropy. If the article is kept, I'd be happy to purge and throw up a stub. --Mosmof (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: probably notable, buts needs total rewrite. Delete as spam otherwise. Hairhorn (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Take another look; I just did the rewrite and cleaned out most of the peacockery, irrelevant name-dropping, etc. It seems well enough sourced (Wall Street Journal, Newsday) to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Changing to Delete.~~ After I cleaned up and neutralized the article, the Special purpose account who created it came back and filled it full of fluff and peacockery again. It is clear that this article cannot be saved as long as User:Rosemarylora remains determined to turn it into a puff piece. Pity, because the guy might be notable if the article was allowed to remain encyclopedic in tone. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing back to Keep but watch. The changes by the SPA editor have been reverted back to a neutral article (thank you, Mosmof), and the editor posted this note on my talk page:

MelanieN- I apologize for deleting your changes. I did not realize that there are many administrators reverting my changes. I will no longer make changes to the article. Please advise... I now understand after reading the posts.--Rosemarylora (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I do think Mr. Rarh qualifies as notable, and I hated the idea of deleting any article due to style/editing problems, so I am back in the Keep column. --MelanieN (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I would normally have closed this as no consensus, but the deciding factor is the fact that the subject of the article has made a reasonable request for the article's deletion. With there being no clear-cut consensus to keep, I am closing this as a deletion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Moon

AfDs for this article:

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

Deletion requested by article subject at OTRS:5248120, essentially on WP:BLP1E grounds and undue weight. I have no opinion. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the subject has made a reasonable request to delete the article, I see no reason that request should not be honoured. As Jimbo rather famously said once, "Wikipedia is not here to make people sad". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By virtue of participating in multiple high-profile terrorism cases (thus garnering attention from independent sources), the subject has made himself notable. If his high-profile advocacy was limited to one case only, it would be acceptable to merge this with the case article, but he's been in several. Our responsibility to provide information about a public figure (particularly one who has become one volitionally, and not accidentally) trumps the subject's request that he be removed. The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment High-profile advocacy public figure? I would agree with you if that would be true but than we should be able to find a biography or at least articles about him. Is there any article or biography about him? The cases he has worked on are notable and we have articles and sources he is part of these stories. I think we should at least find a biography or some articles about Michael A. Moon himself before declaring it a major loss not to provide an biography about him. IQinn (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maher Zain

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

Non notable musician fails WP:MUSICBIO and also WP:GNG Mo ainm~Talk 11:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 11:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I declined speedy deletion on this article because of statements like "Maher has already performed at sold out concerts in Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Egypt, England, France, Holland, Sweden, and the US amongst others and is fast becoming the ‘next superstar of Islamic music’." which, if sourced, will be strongly in favour of this artiste's notability. No !vote. Kimchi.sg (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But there are no independent reliable sources to back up these claims that I can find. Mo ainm~Talk 11:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the fact that notability is claimed qualifies it to escape speedy deletion. Not always, but I chose to be cautious. Whether there are sources for the claim is better decided by AfD, not a single admin. Kimchi.sg (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep re the soldout concerts: There is "Fans throng to Maher Zain's Album debut concert at AUC", Daily News Egypt, 26 March 2010 for Cairo ("performed to a full house at the American University's (AUC) Spring concert Thursday.") and "An evening dedicated to peace and harmony...", Gulf Daily News, 3 August 2010 for others ("He has performed to sold out crowds at concerts in the UK, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Macedonia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.") The first article is a concert review with info about him and the second is announcing a free concert with a decent section (170 words) on Zain's life/career. Looks to me to just scrape in. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He had preformed at concerts that were sold and wasn't the only performer so it is not like a solo tour by him has sold out. Mo ainm~Talk 13:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desire2Learn

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

Promotion for non-notable company. All references given seem to be self-published, and I have been unable to find any significant coverage. Haakon (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company, all sources self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Cornerotte

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

no notable tour tournament results, has not played Fed Cup for country, and is too lowly ranked (for a career high) to deserve a WP bio Mayumashu (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for tennis players. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Beast Machines characters. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Savage/Noble

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

Not clear why this character is in any way notable or worthy of encyclopedic coverage. No reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems about the same as other transformer articles and there are sources cited, I'm confused what you have against this particular article. Besides, shouldn't you first seek to add whatever content you feel is needed to make the article notable before suggesting deletion? Deletion should be the last resort if a consenses is reached that the article cannot be imporved. Its the Wikipedia way (The Matrix Prime (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Yep, there are a lot of Transformer articles with serious issues. Now, do you have any evidence that this subject is worthy of encyclopedic coverage? I am not nominating this article because I feel it is a bad one, I am nominating it because I do not believe it is worthy of coverage. J Milburn (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This is a fine article. Please stop randomly nominating articles for deletion. Mathewignash (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ridiculous. Are there any reliable sources covering this character? Is there any non-trivial real-world information to convey? J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Beast Machines characters until WP:NOTABILITY is established and until the coverage is more than the character list can bear. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge: no third-party sources exist to WP:verify notability. Main choice would be to delete but would support merge for the sake of consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nerds in Disguise

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

Someone tried to AFD this but didn't finish the job. And as usual, I'm the only person on the whole project who can be arsed to fix redlink AFDs. Questionable notability, minimal sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no idea why you keep insisting that you're the only person who fixes redlinked AfDs, I fix them whenever I see them. Have a cup of tea and relax. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was performed by an IP, that's why. I think this is kind of a BLP1E case where all their notability hinges on the contest, so Delete. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 19:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primary (well, ok, only) claim to notability is winning a Pepsi contest we don't have an article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Won a contest? Not encyclopedia worthy... Carrite (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fancine. International Fantastic Film Festival Of the University of Málaga

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

Terrible machine translation of es:Festival de cine fantástico de Málaga. This article and/or its spanish counterpart show all the signs of being a copyvio, however I've been unable to find the source. The article's creator, Fancine (talk · contribs), clearly has a conflict of interest with this topic. SnottyWong ^chatter 23:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Snottywong stated, the article is a shoddy machine translation. It reads like an advertisement for the festival, and there is definitely a conflict of interest. Coasterlover1994^{Leave your mark!} 14:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changed to keep below per issue being shown as an addressable concern) or rewrite and source a very poor transwikification from the es.Wikipedia. It seems the author, in wanting to duplicate his existing work on the equivalent article in the Spanish Wikipedia,[18] for inclusion in the English Wikipedia, did not do a proper transwikification of his work from there to here. Open question: If the same author makes nearly identical contributions to different language versions of Wikipedia, is such duplication of his contributions across other language Wikis considered to be a copvio of his own unique original contributions under CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that, but this article appears to be a copyvio of a non-wiki source. More specifically, the spanish version of this article appears to be the copyvio, and this is a bad translation of that copyvio. I don't have any evidence of that, but it sure looks like that is the case. It has a subsection called "CONTENTS" with a table of contents, large unwikified lists, very few wikilinks, etc. I've been unable to find the original source for the spanish article on the internet, which is why I couldn't speedy delete it. SnottyWong ^spout 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... we both do agree that as written and sourced, the article does not best serve the project... but rather than guess at copyvio because of format, my own sense is that the original author at es.Wikiedia simply tried to create an article there that, in style, emulates many existing en.Wikipedia articles on festivals and awards. As actual content is different, the only thing then "copied" is a style and format... but yes... badly. Perhaps we might even simply redirect the title to University of Málaga as it is rare that a university's film festival would be more noteworthy than an independent's... but then and strangely, THAT new article is woefully lacking in content and itself would greatly benefit from expansion and sourcing... any expansion and sourcing. European Wikipedians, you listening? The University of Málaga aticle needs your help. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither bad writing or suspected copyright violations are grounds for deletion. The question that has to be answered is whether this film festival is notable or not.--Pink Bull 19:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No argument from me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I fully agree. I've seen a lot of copyvios, and this one shows every classic sign. Just because the source isn't internet accessible doesn't mean it's not a copyvio. Also, per Wikipedia:Translate#How to translate, "Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing." If we intepret that literally (and there is no reason not to), then that statement is equivalent to "Unedited machine translation articles should be deleted." SnottyWong ^squeal 03:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually appears to be sufficiently notable [19], [20] and many more in Spanish sources, - and I did copyediting on it to make its content less odd. IMHO. when faced with a poor machine translation, simple editing is preferable to just saying "it is worse than nothing." Note that WMF has officially endorsed such "poor machine translations" for some projects. Collect (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed. Fixing problems is far more condusive to building an encyclopedia then an un-needed deletion. That User:Collect was able to begin fixing, means it is do-able and does then not merit deletion simply because it had not previously been done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time allocation

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

Contested PROD. As the proposer of the PROD said it's a non-notable neologism - no evidence it exists outside the mind of it's creator. No Ghits returned and only a handful for the book (time management that doesn't suck) the author describes the principle in. It might grow into something but currently it's nothing more than another time management system. The one reference in the article is to the authors own website and a sample chapter from the book. NtheP (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition Possible WP:COI the author of the article is User:Jdvs82, is this short for John Davidson - the inventor of the theory? NtheP (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so...he's only ever edited Time allocation and Time management (to add links to Time allocation!). Delete as a neologism. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 19:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so let me get this straight. Because it's a self-published work, it's a neologism. If it had a fat marketing budget behind it, it would be worth having an article on. And where exactly does the fact that the article contains some valid, interesting concepts, that represent a departure from everything else on the existing Time Management page enter into the process? Oh wait, it's starting to sound like it doesn't! But I get it, you've got nothing better to do than indirectly feel a sense of power by deleting other people's articles. Go for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdvs82 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok so if I rephrase it to Non-notable time management technique that is no different from any other technique I've read or used that says "break big tasks into smaller ones to make them more manageable", would you like to explain how this is so radically different? I wouldn't care if there was a million dollars behind this, from what I've seen it says nothing different. NtheP (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trout the noob for the personal attack. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – you believe he should be trouted for a personal attack and yet you call him a "noob"? Hypocritical. FWIW I also believe the article should be Deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Time allocation is quite notable, being covered in works such as Household Governance and Time Allocation, The time allocation of young men, Consequences of deforestation for women's time allocation, Computing in the home: Shifts in the time allocation patterns of households, Who maximizes what? A study in student time allocation, &c. The article we have here is just a start on this rich topic and our editing policy tells us that we should build upon this rather than deleting it. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I'm amazed that our article on time allocation is so poor. This is a major area of study. TheGrappler (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Fappani

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

This appears to be cross-wiki spam which has been deleted twice from French Wikipedia, here and here as non-notable. If he's not notable enough for French Wikipedia, he's certainly not notable enough for English Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sounds reasonable. Article is incoherent. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This same chunk of biography also appears in the (equally unreferenced) article Archetypal_pedagogy#History. AllyD (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. And if this goes, some follow-on housekeeping is probably worthwhile, as Fappani and his "archetypal pedagogy" have been knitted into various places. AllyD (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete, as there is no evidence that Shapiro has played for the team -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Shapiro

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

I cannot trace any evidence that he has played lacrosse for the national team let alone that he is "one of Poland's best up-and-coming lacrosse stars,", here and here, for example. This reference, cited to show that he played, doesn't mention him. I have searched in English but am not able to search in Polish. Happy to withdraw if playing for the National Men's team, as opposed to a youth team, can be reliably sourced. Delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article asserts that he has played two games this season for the national team, but the link to the national team's website makes no mention of him at all. If there's some proof, I'm happy to reconsider, but the claim to fame apparently is that he's one of the better players who might just reach the big time. Mandsford 15:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Teairra Marí. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At That Point

AfDs for this article:

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

This should be ~~deleted and~~ merged to Teairra Marí because per an interview she gave with RapUp TV] she said she's re-recording the entire album meaning that most of the singles released won't be included as well as the fact that she's specifically said it will no longer be called "At That Point" and it has no firm release dates. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to artist but don't delete. If there's a better source to verify that the album is canceled, then it should be added too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apoligies, What I meant was that the the article should be deleted because the album clearly doesn't exist anymore. The source I've provided is from youtube but it is from Rap Up TV's own youtube channel therefore they are the ocopyright holder and it shows in her own words that the is no longer calling her second studio album 'At That Point' she also says she's re-recording the album. Therefore information about the singles charting should be merged to the discography/Teairra Marí but the album itself should be deleted because its been revamaped from scracth. Hope that makes it clearer. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the album is revamped doesn't give reason to delete the article. In fact, it means that we have even more information for the article. We should be able to use the information from the At That Point tracks to create a well-sourced "early production" section talking about the early recording and leaks. There were even a few listening parties which could be mentioned. Since the album's future is uncertain for now, I can see why a merge would be justified but not a delete. The album still exists, only the title doesn't. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She said the album won't be called "At That Point" therefore its incorrect for the album page to exist. Instead a section at her artist page under "second album" would better suffice. The album doesn't exist as of yet. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with page for Sincerley Yours.

Teairra Mari confirmed to Rap-Up Magazine that she will be releasing an EP entitled, Sincerely Yours on August 17, 2010. It will feature the album's second single, "Sponsor" (as its lead single), and another song, "Body" will be a single from the EP.^[1] As she also confirmed to the magazine that the album will be shelved,^[2], At That Point should be just talked about on that page. As for her artist page, there should be a section entitled "2009-2010: At That Point and Sincerely Yours ", which talks about the shelved album and the EP. And then a new section could be called "2010-present: Second Studio album", what do you think? --Drake&Ciara Fan (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, another user has expresed concern that User:Drake&Ciara Fan is a sockpuppet of User:CiaraFan4Ever. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 19:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, admin patrols determined Drake&Ciara Fan is NOT a sockpuppet. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 01:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The question here is whether an institution which awards degrees is inherently notable. In this case, consensus on that was not made -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Taralabalu Jagadguru Institute of Technology

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - degree-awarding institutions have long been regarded as notable. Indian educational bodies always have a poor to negligible Internet presence so local searches need to be carried out and time needs to be given for this. We would never consider deleting a college in an Anglophone country and we must avoid systemic bias. TerriersFan (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply What sources state that it is notable, and for what? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a degree-granting institution of higher education; such schools are generally assumed to be notable by consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article now sourced. Anybody is free to revert this close if they think my comment makes me "involved". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mate Mahadevi

AfDs for this article:

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

Weak keep - she seems to be eminent in her field (see last afd) and thus passes wp:bio. --Claritas § 21:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some excellent academic sources show that she meets WP:GNG.

"Mate Mahadevi (“The Great Mother Goddess”) (1946) is a prominent example. She is perhaps the first woman in history who has ascended [in 1980] the pontifical seat of Jagadguru (world teacher’ ...) so far reserved for men....” (Mitter, 1991: 111-113)" from Research Journal of South Asian Studies.[21]
"Mate Mahadevi, the first female jagadguru" from The Yogi and the Mystic by scholar Karel Werner.[22]
The source in the article says that "...Mate Mahadevi has also proved to be a scholar and an institutional leader...", "Mystic, writer, scholar, institutional leader and reformer.." Arvind Sharma, Katherine K. Young (1998) Feminism and World Religions, State University of New York Press. First Light (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's more, but clearly she is notable for some significant 'firsts' and for being just plain notable. First Light (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good sources for notability (and kept unanimously --except for the nom -- in the prev. AfD in 2008.) DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was about to close this "keep" as that is the consensus. However, this BLP is poorly referenced but appears to be sourcable. Recommend incubation until sourced. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's now fully referenced, with excellent academic and notable sources. I also removed any unsourced material and added a stub tag. Looks like "keep". First Light (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.rap-up.com/2010/08/06/cover-tracklisting-teairra-mari-sincerely-yours-ep/#more-53620?

[2] ttp://www.rap-up.com/2010/07/27/rap-up-tv-teairra-mari-is-past-that-point-re-records-album/#comments

[1]

[2]