Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 8

< 7 June	9 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Altamira

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

I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find a thing, except on Wikipedia mirrors. I also tried searching under "Altamira, Manuel" with 0 results. A notable Argentine musician, especally in the capital city would have something written about them, somewhere. It's true that the online archives of La Nación archives only go back to 1996, but you can't have an article based on what (I suspect) a family member or friend recalls with no external verification. No prejudice to recreation if reliable sources turn up in the future. Voceditenore (talk) 16:51, 14 June 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 characters in Married... with Children. T. Canens (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Married... with Children cast members

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

Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is merely a listing of actors who have portrayed recurring cast members or others who have made guest appearances on the show. Main characters are already discussed in List of characters in Married... with Children and Married... with Children#Cast and characters. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I don't have a strong opinion on this particular cast list, it is part of an enormous category structure. It doesn't make sense to discuss this one list in isolation. I'm not convinced that this meets the criteria of WP:NOT either. A better way to work on these lists would be to create a centralized discussion and build consensus about whether they're worthwhile and perhaps setting some inclusion criteria (limiting them to regular and recurring cast members). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simply because it's not indiscriminate. And part of an already established structure of cast member articles. Lugnuts (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom's criteria for deletion is flawed because the list isn't indiscrimate. The article doesn't sit quite right but the onus is on the nom to demonstrate what is wrong with the article rather than leaving afd participants guessing. Szzuk (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It is an indiscriminate list because it has no information on it to discriminate between one cast member and the next, and for many of these, one would be hard pressed to find mention of their guest appearance on the sitcom within their own articles. There's a pseudo-sophisticated statement in there that we should be aware that "this list should be restricted to those actors who were significant or recurring characters". Kind of a surprise, even considering that this is from 2007, when mediocre work like this was the standard. For those wondering why anyone ever thought we would need a list, in alphabetical order, of people who appeared on the show, I gather from the history that there was a category that was about to be deleted. Only a weak delete, because it would be easy to rescue this one with such things as — DUH — the name of the character played by each of the entries. There's this thing called imdb.com that would help. No reason that this has to be a piece of crap. Mandsford 12:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of characters in Married... with Children - adding in new information. Two lists are not needed, but save the edit history. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. This would also serve the aim of restricting it to main or significant cast members and weeding out any on-screen-for-two-minutes cameos or minor parts. Gwinva (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearian. A single list is sufficient. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearian. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 22:35, 15 June 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) 01:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Minervini

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

I don't feel that it is notable, as I could not find any coverage from reliable sources to indicate notability. In addition, the article does not cite any sources; too old for a BLP PROD. mono 21:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced BLP, can't find much coverage. —fetch ·comms 21:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While there are many news hits, most don't seem like more than a passing mention to me. Unfortunately, I can't examine most because they are in paid archives. —fetch ·comms 21:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 June 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) 01:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin Client Library

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

This seems to be something un-notable... perhaps it could be merged into Club Penguin. E♴ (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its previous websites have been lost, (http://www.penguinclientlibrary.com and http://www.rancidkraut.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordCharlay (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable software. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:47, 13 June 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 Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pension to member of same-sex couples in Brazil

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

Delete - per WP:Content forking these articles are unnecessary spin-offs from the main article Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil. That article is not long enough nor is the information about the pension or health plan decisions detailed enough to warrant separate articles. The information is covered in the lead article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil per Are You The Cow Of Pain?. Lechatjaune (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems an unnecessary spin-off, I can't think of a similar article for any other country. I'm sure the worthwhile content can find a home somewhere else. - Schrandit (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, if it's a spin-off then spin it back deletion is not the answer here. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the articles were not cut and pasted from the main article. They were written from scratch. The information is covered in the main articles from the original sources. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome is the same, merge all into the main that should be there. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there, as I said in the nomination. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Lechatjaune. Would form a suitable section for that article. Gwinva (talk) 06:46, 14 June 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) 01:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

720re

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

This is a non-notable file name that is used for movies that are pirated online. Joe Chill (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's not even a file name, just a string used in file names to indicate a codec. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:49, 13 June 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) 01:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Astra Films

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

I found no third party reliable sources to confirm the notability of this company; fails WP:CORP. ~~An IP~~The author removed my PROD. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. I was going to nominate this one for deletion myself. Claritas § 10:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Produced 1 film in 2008 and distributed 5 since 2007. Not very productive. Not much in distribution. Lack of coverage of this company fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:56, 10 June 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) 01:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Stowell

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

Non-notable author that has written a non-notable book. The award he was nominated for (Indie Excellence Award) doesn't seem to be notable either. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

Erpert, I'm new at using Wikipedia and was quite stunned at your comment to remove my article; especially since I wasn't even done with the editing process. Gone are the days where we had to wait 50 years for a "notable" author. After reading Nine Weeks, I was compelled to share the news about this up and coming author who happened to be a finalist in the Indie Excellence Award - a national competition that saw more submissions this year than previous years. Moreover, after reading carefully at the Wikipedia:BIO the following points are made about articles such as the one I've written...The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."The point about being "worthy of notice" and interesting enought to be recorded" stuck out to me - this article is significant and interesting to the fans out there. So, rather than delete my article, I ask that you reconsider it as an opportunity to share some insight about an up and coming author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esjackson (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC) — Esjackson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: The award is not major. Even the creator said that the author is non-notable: "up and coming". Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publish Wikipedia is one of the greatest, if not best source on the web for information. I've been using it for years and I finally found an author worth listing - who I couldn't find - I had to search several places for background information. This article is needed, especially for fans, followers, etc. to learn more about their idols without having to search the entire web. All the information I've written is verifiable, again, which meets the qualification criteria for Wikipedia. The article should maintain the status quo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esjackson (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC) — Esjackson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Joined the army. Self-published a book. Get the next one published by a publisher, and try again. Peridon (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable is important. So is notability. Lots of things can be verified but aren't notable. Peridon (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be a little confused with how Wikipedia works, Esjackson. That you think Mr. Stowell is an up-and-coming author is all well and good, but he isn't notable yet. Subjects have to be notable before they have a Wikipedia article, not after. By the way, even though you created the article, it isn't yours. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this resume. Fails WP:AUTHOR. SnottyWong talk 23:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully, since Mr. Stowell sounds like an admirable person and I'm sure his book is good. But is it self-published. Self-published books almost never qualify as notable under Wikipedia's standards, because they don't usually get any independent coverage as required by WP:AUTHOR, and as far as I can find, this one didn't. --MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 13 June 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) 01:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saintmoses Eromosele

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

Probable autobiography of self-published author. Lacks reliable sources for verification of claims. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know if it's an autobiography, but all I can find on this guy are blogs. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dleete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is now per lack of RS. This article would need to be wikified first of all, worked on, and community needs to be shown that sources are secondary, reliable, verifiable. I do not see that here as it stands. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 9 June 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 Userfication I'm not going to delete this, as I think it has potential and I'm going to give the author the benefit of the doubt, but in the current shape under the current title, it would be deleted. I think the author might be able to do something with this, but when he tries to move it back into the mainspace, I suggest naming it something along the lines of List of Angels according to Unarius Academy of Science that would cover the objection of the vagueness of inclusion criterion and objectiveness of the subject. The page has been moved to User_talk:Abyssal/Angel.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people said to be angels

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

Dubious and highly controversial categorization based on the beliefs of a single religious organization with which the majority of those listed had no association. Unverifiable and referenced by only one source. See also WP:BOLLOCKS. I42 (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's no controversy, every member of the list has been sourced as having been claimed to be angels. Period. Only a single religious group has been represented because I've only consulted one source. I've only consulted one source, because surprise, the article's only been up for a day. You say it's unverifiable and reference by only one source. That doesn't make any sense. It's either unverifiable, or it's sourced. It can't be both. Also, WP: Bollocks doesn't apply here at all. That's just dishonest Wikilawyering. Abyssal (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that list could grow quite long. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You voted twice. "The page could grow too big" isn't a valid justification for deletion. Long pages can always be split. For deletion, a page's problems should be insurmountable; See WP: Problem "Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." Abyssal (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Marcus Qwertyus has only !voted once. He has also added his signature to Mandsford's !vote immediately below. I42 (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. Sorry, Marcus, I42 is right. Abyssal (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of what's here now can be mentioned, in a few sentences, in Unarius Academy of Science. As Marcus says, it would be a long list-- my momma once said that I was a little angel, so I should be on the list. Mandsford 18:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC) ~~Citation needed.Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment: You voted twice. Also, that's ridiculous. You might as well say we could delete List of people who have been considered deities as some people have said "you're a god at guitar hero!" Is it true? Yeah, but you know it's outside the scope of the article. You're just ridiculing. Abyssal (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mandsford has only !voted once. Marus Qwertyus has added his signature, which makes this look confusing. I42 (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, sorry. Abyssal (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I42 is right-- I don't know what possessed Marcus to add his signature to my comment, or the "citation needed" bullshit. I can only imagine what he would have put on there if I had disagreed with him. Notice to him and to other new guys, do not edit other people's comments except in extreme situations. Mandsford 12:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the confusion. Merely joking.Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COATRACK. The article doesn't even state what determines a person to be an angel -- actually, it says these are people said to be angels, so maybe the article creator himself doesn't necessarily believe it? Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, I don't believe this crap, so you know maybe you should have AGFed instead making baseless accusations of me erecting coatracks. Also, you're violating WP:NOTCLEANUP as well. The deletion process is not for article issues that could be solved in 5 minutes. If you had issues with vague inclusion criteria, that should have been brought up on the talk page. Abyssal (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles Noah and Adam and Eve (LDS Church) provide notable sources about the beliefs that Noah was Gabriel and that Adam was Michael. If there is notable sources about a particular person being an anvel, then place that assertion in the page of the person/angel likes was done with Noah, etc. Prsaucer1958 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: That would be great information that anyone could have added to the article, but people are so busy trying to delete the article on the grounds that only Unarius information has been included that I don't have tie to add information not related to Unarius. Abyssal (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only entity listed on this page as claiming anyone to be an angel is the Unarius Academy of Science. If this list is worth including in Wikipedia at all, of which I am skeptical, it should be incorporated as prose (not a table) into Unarius Academy of Science. ("The Academy has identified various historical figures as archangels. All of the following have been identified with the archangel Uriel: Akbar the Great, Arthur, Atahualpa ....") --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you're skeptical about whether the article deserves to be included, you better cite some inclusion policy. Extremely similar precedents for this article exist, so it's your obligation to show how this article is somehow intrinsically different. For deletion, a page's problems should be insurmountable, again, see WP: NOTCLEANUP and WP:PROBLEM. The deletion process is not for problems that could easily be cleaned up. "Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." This article actually does better than the policy requirement, because there is already notable content with a reliable, scholarly source. Abyssal (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion because this page describes a non-notable fringe idea. Incidentally, the articles Abyssal mentions below, List of people who have been considered deities, List of people claimed to be immortal, and List of people who have claimed to be Jesus, all have problems themselves, particularly inclusion of some people on the lists without having sources associated with them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why is this article not notable, but the articles List of people who have been considered deities, List of people claimed to be immortal, and List of people who have claimed to be Jesus notable? Abyssal (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has notability as established by the above several precedents in the religious lists categories where people of various types of alleged extraordinary nature are compiled. It draws on a reliable scholarly source about new religious movements and the role that prophecy, especially failed prophecy, plays therein. It is not a sectarian source, as evidenced by its title; When Prophecy Never Fails: Myth and Reality in a Flying Saucer Group. Users accusing me of violating WP: Bollocks or WP: Coatrack, therefore are at best neglectful of what the article actually implied or at worst actually dishonest. Only one source has been used because I have only had time to consult one source.

The rapid attempts at deletion violates WP:DEMOLISH by attempting to delete a well sourced article on a notable subject faster than it can reasonably expected to be constructed. Criticism that the article is too Unarius-centered are frustrating because the list would already include content relevant to multiple faiths if not for the fact that this attempt at deletion has prevented me from adding it by distracting me efforts. Another user has pointed out LDS claims that would make good additions to the article, further invalidating already spurious criticisms of coatracking and me allegedly having a special interest in the subject. I have intended to add information about Jehovah's Witnesses have made similar claims about Jesus being the Archangel Michael and traditional Hebrew mythology holds that Enoch became the angel Aratron while Elijah who was taken to heaven in a fiery chariot became the angel Metatron. There are no doubt countless more, but again, attempts to delete the article while making no attempt to fix the problems is preventing my from adding this information.

Claims that I did not clarify the inclusion criteria are also because I haven't had time to write a good lead, which again, is due to my having to defend the existence of the article. Members advocating deletion have consistently ignored actual policy regarding what must be established for an article to be deleted by ignoring WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:PROBLEM. Some reasons for deletion are minor quibbles about what members imagine might happen in the future, like that the article might get too long. This when long articles are routinely split and no policy suggests that long lists should be deleted or that lists which might conceivably at some point one day become long don't qualify for inclusion. Apart from demonstrably false accusations of WP:COATRACKing and WP:BOLLOCKS, no one has yet brought forth legitimate criticisms of the article that are actually based in policy or inclusion criteria. One member actually voted against the article twice.

The consistent absence of policy based objections violates WP:BEFORE and WP:BEGIN which state that members advocating for the deletion of an article should have a thorough understanding of the relevant policies. They also state that problems that can be solved through normal editing are not grounds for deletion, the article including only information on Unarius, the vague inclusion criteria and most other raised criticisms fall under this policy as they could easily be fixed in the course of normally editing, which was disrupted by this whole proceeding. Other relevant policy violated by the attempt to cite surmountable problems as grounds for deletion are WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:PROBLEM. Even articles with surmountable issues that haven't been edited for years are still acceptable for inclusion, much less articles still being actively worked on! See WP: NOEFFORT. Abyssal (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inclusion criterion unclear and too vast (WP:NOTIINFO, WP:NOTDIR). Who called who an angel? If it's all claims by Unarius Academy of Science, then it doesn't deserve its own article as there is no independent source to establish the notability of this claim.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: THERE IS AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE WRITTEN BY A SOCIAL SCIENTIST AS ONE OF MULTIPLE PUBLISHED ETHNOGAPHICAL ACCOUNTS ABOUT THIS NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT. SURELY MULTIPLE PUBLISHED ACCOUNTS IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS AND A BOOK ARE ENOUGH TO INDEPENDENTLY ESTABLISH THAT UNARIUS AND ITS BELIEFS ARE NOTABLE. THE BOOK IN PARTICULAR IS CITED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE AND HAS BEEN MENTIONED MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION. DO I HAVE TO SHOUT THIS IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS IN BOLD FOR THIS FACT TO FINALLY BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY AT LEAST ONE MEMBER? I DON'T LIKE YELLING BUT IT GETS TEDIOUS REPEATING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER WITH NOBODY PAYING ATTENTION WHEN IF THEY HAD BEEN PAYING ATTENTION THEY WOULDN'T BE MAKING OBVIOUSLY FALSE ACCUSATIONS. You say the inclusion criteria are vague, which means you haven't been reading the discussion; the criteria are vague because the article was put up for deletion far quicker than I could right a lead delineating what they are. This was already discussed, and rebutted with reference to policy, those policies being ones pronouncing that PROBLEMS WHICH CAN BE SOLVED BY NORMAL EDITING ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR DELETIONit's in all caps and bold this time because apparently just putting it in bold wasn't enough that last few times I cited that policy. No, I've literally pointed out this policy multiple times in bold for no avail. Solvable problems (including vague inclusion criteria due to a lack of a lead section) are not grounds for deletion. By policy. I've pointed out before that this is even true of articles which are years old, much less articles I've had only a day or so to work on. Abyssal (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As is, it's a coatrack. If left alone, it would be an unmaintainable list due to the wide open and subjective nature of the inclusion criterion. Location (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You haven't read the discussion, I've already discussed why it's not a coatrack. I think it was like my second comment on the page. Ironically the only reason it even resembles a coat rack is because I have to sit here fighting off people calling it a coatrack instead of adding information on non-Unarius related subjects. As for vague inclusion criteria goes, once again, congrats on having ignored the preceding discussion. THE REASON INCLUSION CRITERIA ARE VAGUE IS BECAUSE I HAVEN'T FORMALLY NOTED THEM IN THE ARTICLE. THE REASON I HAVEN'T FORMALLY NOTED THEM IN THE ARTICLE IS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TOO BUSY ARGUING ABOUT THE LACK OF INCLUSION CRITERIA HERE TO ACTUALLY GO THROUGH AND NOTE THEM IN THE ARTICLE. This pathetic circus is a deletion feedback loop. People listing reasons to delete the article are distracting me from actually developing the article, leaving flaws for people to seize on as reasons to delete the article! Never mind that all the flaws given are surmountable problems and their use as justification for deletion are violations of multiple official policies including WP:PROBLEM, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NOEFFORT among others that I'm not going to bother looking up because literally not one single user has listened to a single thing I've said. Abyssal (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so belligerent, especially when you have no idea what I and others have or have not done. That fact of the matter is that I have read the entire discussion, including every single one of your lengthy replies to everyone who disagrees with you. WP:COATRACK does state that "[c]oatrack articles... can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject." I believe that to be true, and as you mentioned elsewhere, you disagree. Now, you have had your say on the matter and no one is forcing you to repeat yourself over and over and over. Rather than "fighting off people", get to work on improving the article if you think it can be saved. Location (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew that my edits wouldn't be deleted 5 minutes later, I would. If this AFD nomination hadn't happened most of the complaints raised here would already be resolved. As things stand I see little reason to suspect that even significant improvements would be enough to satisfy many of those advocating the deletion of the article because so many of the votes have been accompanied by justifications not based on, or contrary to, existing policy. By pure policy standards the article is already a keeper, being of a notable subject (in the same vein that people considered to be deities is a notable list), sourced with a reliable third party source (a book length ethnographic study by a sociologist), and all of the objections could be solved in the course of normal editing, meaning that in accordance with policies like WP:BEGIN, WP:PROBLEM, and WP:DEMOLISH they are not legitimate grounds for deletion even if they are legitimate flaws in the article. Abyssal (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the creator of this article is obviously upset about its early nomination, which has probably contributed to the unhelpful tone in this discussion. But the concept behind this list actually seems pretty reasonable to me. It's not completed yet and is being discussed while in a very premature stage; if the creator could add some additional information to the list (people considered angels by some other religious organization would be a good start) I think it would stand a very good chance of being kept; if there isn't time before this debate ends, my strong recommendation is that its content is userfied and worked on. I think in good faith, a better version could be re-added to article space and would be extremely likely to pass any subsequent AFD. The basic concept of this is certainly not "coatrack" nor is this article designed to push the point of view of a single denomination - it's just not finished yet, that's all. The inclusion criteria for the list are actually pretty well-defined and while the list should be a lot longer, it needn't be excessively long. TheGrappler (talk) 01:15, 14 June 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 Norton Internet Security---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NortonDNS

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Wait for the thing to exist first. Padillah (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Norton Internet Security. It does exist, but I don't know if it's notable enough for its own article. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a public beta, not RTM. I don't know where beta software falls in the scheme of WP:CRYSTAL but to us software developers beta isn't real. Padillah (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tedious. Someone redirect and close. Szzuk (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:32, 10 June 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. G12 and G11. slakr^\ talk / 20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KenCrest

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

This article is clearly not written from a neutral point of view and sounds very much like a advertisement. I don't feel that it is notable, as I could not find any coverage from reliable sources. monosock 18:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree about the wording, and have done a couple of searches to see if I can find the text elsewhere. (Unsuccessful.) I have it in my mind that this is a re-appearance of an article and that I had something to do with it disappearing then. I can't check this without wading through pages of contribs looking for a user talk page I probably wouldn't recognise. Perhaps a kind passing admin could look up the prior history of KenCrest? I must say it looks just like I remember it (but could be wrong there) - and it has no references to support what is probably an organisation doing sterling work in the community. What a pity they can't provide some backup - and do a bit of a rewrite too... Peridon (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. The article is taken word-for-word from various pages of kencrest.org, including here, here and here. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:35, 8 June 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) 01:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green oil

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

Would require a substantial re-write to become encyclopedic, as it reads very much like an essay. There are no sources, and there are several different products on Google, whilst the article makes no real attempt to say what it does. It could be kept, but I think it would need to be re-written and researched - if it is decided to be encyclopedic, something I'm sceptical about. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unsourced essay about an energy source that "has been shown to stimulate local economies, replace imported fossil fuels in the power and transport sectors, reduce balance of payments deﬁcits and improve the quality of life for many marginalised subsistence farmers." Plus, it's environmentally friendly and renewable! If you say so... Mandsford 18:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced "miracle cure" claims, appears to be a neologism. Hairhorn (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable essay (and a possible violation of WP:MADEUP). Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article appears to be describing biofuel, about which we already have an article. If this can be shown to be the most common meaning of the phrase "green oil" then a redirect would be in order. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford and redirect the page to Biofuel. Beagel (talk) 20:35, 11 June 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. Although the article needs to have a more 'encylopedic' title (and I comment everyone to comment at [[1]]), the consensus here is to keep -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Two New Jersey Men Bound for Somalia

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

Per WP:Not news. We can't cover every terrorist wanna-be. Terrillja also claims BLP issues which is not my area of expertise. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have you done a wp:before check? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What exactly do you want him to look for? It happened on Saturday, so we've established that it's "news". But Wikipedia is not the news. Mandsford 19:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What wp:before would have him look for. Coverage in notable RSs. The fact that an event just happened is not reason to not cover it on Wikipedia (which is made clear -- not by the misleading title, but by the content, of the "notthenews" guidance). Here we have all manner of national and international coverage not only across the U.S. but also in Aljazeera, France, India, China, Australia, the UK, the Dominican Republic, and Canada -- just to mention some coverage reflected in the article. Those 2,000 articles are the sort of indicia of notability that we look for in determining whether a subject is notable. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This story has been covered by most of the main news outlets and in this day and age each and every terror related incident is significant.--Supertouch (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. There has been a tendency to make "articles" on things that are news stories when they are related to "terrorism". This "event" may be appropriate within another article, but it does not merit its own. Any number of news stories can have a thousand news sources, and to somebody who looks at the number of references to make a determination on notability that will usually be enough. But Wikipedia is not a collection of news stories, and articles should not be either. Transwiki to wikinews would be appropriate, but there is nothing here besides a news story. nableezy - 20:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. --Nableezy 20:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh. Does this mean we are going to have the usual cast of characters who voted against the Nidal Malik Hasan article, the Jihobbyist article, and other Islamist-related article also try to wipe this one from existence?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? nableezy - 04:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I don't think we have an in-this-day-and-age policy for notability on anything. Mandsford 20:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that that policy is inapplicable, as discussed elsewhere on this page. We do have a notability policy. The coverage in the 2,000 articles (so far) clearly meets that.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provisionally keep it for two weeks, after which time the notability should be reassessed, as speedy decliner. If the coverage continues, keep the article. If it doesn't, merge the content to some list of alleged terrorist activities, arrests, or whatnot. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of the incident was added to Anwar al-Awlaki before this article was created...--Supertouch (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate or userfy until the Federal case is filed then rename "US Vs. whatever." If the case already exists, rename. This will generate the sort of coverage that inevitably leads to retention at wikipedia. But the childish name needs fixing. Crystal ball, but this case should throw up some interesting arguments having to do with the fed's action here. Lots of americans and US residents have gone off to fight in foreign civil wars.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case has been filed (U.S. v. Alessa). I've opened conversation as to the re-title here. In terrorism cases, it is not the convention, as you will see there, to title the related wiki article by the U.S. v. xyz case name.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS fit this. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Regent of the Seatopians (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

Yes, I only joined Wikipedia last week. What an obnoxious way to belittle my opinion! Thanks for making a newcomer feel at home, Epeefleche! Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. I assure you that the template -- which is a standard template used in Wikipedia to alert closing sysops when !voters at AfDs have very few previous edits -- is not meant to belittle editors. I commend you, at the same time, on being such a quick study.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not an SPA. The use of the notice is inappropriate, as this editor has edits going back a week before this AfD, to wholly unrelated topics, including other AfDs. A new editor, yes, but out of around fifty edits so far, in fact their comment here was the only one made on this topic, or on anything even vaguely related to it. N-HH talk/edits 10:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was the 26th page (or so) he had ever edited. The use of the template is therefore appropriate. It simply flags the issue to the sysop, who can use it as he/she sees fit in weighing the editor's !vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the editor is clearly not an SPA - they have made one substantive edit on this page, and fifty on wholly unrelated topics before that - so the use of the template is entirely inappropriate as well as being misleading and a personal attack on a new-ish editor. Perhaps the closing admin will indeed draw conclusions from its use. As noted on your talk page before you deleted my comment, the notice is intended for editors who appear to have signed up solely to edit on an AfD and related pages, where the suspicion is that they were drawn here by an outside campaign. N-HH talk/edits 12:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably the article will need to be retitled, but I think this is a typical Wikipedian hiding the collective head in the sand over what will be one the rather large number of notable potential terrorism-related incidents. Great public interest makes for notability DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've opened up re-title suggestions for consideration here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable. Well sourced. 62.90.15.98 (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The tip-off that this isn’t all that notable is the title of the article, which doesn’t mention the guys’ names (not earthshaking enough to remember them) and the title has lifted right off the AP wire feed. Greg L (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As DGG says, the title will probably need to be changed (see suggestions here). I would say that issue is separate, however, from the notability of the content. Their individual names redirect to the article, so anyone searching for them can find the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The notability of the arrest of these gentlemen is reflected in the broad (approaching ~~2,000~~ 4,000 articles as of this moment) national and international coverage of them, their plans, and their arrest. This reflects what we can expect will be the enduring notability of these people/events, and for that reason renders wp:notthenews inapplicable by its very own terms. This is by no means what wp:notthenews warns us against, to wit: "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."--Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and re-name per DGG and Epeefleche. While we are not the New York Post, major incidents sometimes get their own articles. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Acts of terrorism or attempted acts of terrorism are not run of the mill news stories, for which [[[wp:notnews]] applies. They are events with long-term notability, quite deserving of a stand-alone article. Don't know the background of any of the delete !voters here, but this may be a case of reverse WP:BIAS, where editors come from cultures that acts of terrorism are not noteworthy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with DGG and Epeefleche. Rename it, and its fine. There is plenty of coverage about Mohamed Mahmood Alessa on his own, mentioning the warning signs at school MSNBC. News coverage isn't just about the event, but the people involved, the places that the person was molded into a terrorists, and the failure to stop this from happening. Google news search doesn't show as many results as the regular Google search does, even though regular Google search shows results from news sites. Dream Focus 05:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure the arrest of two men, even if it generates a brief flurry of news reports, and may indeed yet have some ongoing coverage as any trial progresses gets beyond WP:NOTNEWS. If it transpires that this was part of a major conspiracy, or that a major attack was prevented or whatever, perhaps. N-HH talk/edits 10:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

temporary keep recognizing that wikipedia is not news we may want to merge this into a broader article about terrorist scares and so on... but as of yet it is possible that this incident will have lasting impact... keep the information around until we know if this is a sudden burst in news coverage or something of lasting interest... Arskwad (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't looked at this article in detail yet, but I am opposed in principle to articles about people who have merely been arrested for something, as opposed to actually found guilty, for WP:BLP reasons. Gatoclass (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Okay, I've read the article and I'm voting to delete. The article is full of qualifiers like "allegedly" and "reportedly" - and arguably should have more of them - and none of these allegations have yet been tested in a court of law. I think the article would potentially be prejudicial against them getting a fair trial, and therefore I see it as a clear WP:BLP violation. I also agree with the WP:NOTNEWS comments above. Gatoclass (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also voted delete, Gatoclass, but take issue with part of your reasoning. Nothing about Anwar al-Awlaki has been tested in a court of law either. But he’s sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Hardly anyone even knows the names of these two bone-cones. The article might as well have been titled The arrest of those two dudes from New Jersey… I can’t remember their damned names; had a "q" in one of them, I think. Greg L (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. We routinely cover people who have yet to be convicted. Did you also vote to delete the Bernie Madoff page? What about the 9/11 hijackers -- doesn't look like they will ever get a trial. For a sysop, that's some fairly novel ignore-all-rules !voting, Gato.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they're notable enough, perhaps. Per Greg L, I think there's a difference when someone is only known for an arrest. There isn't even a crime here yet - just an allegation that some sort of crime may have been planned. Gatoclass (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Breein1007 (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The key piece of evidence here that Wikipedia is being treated like a newspaper is the article’s title, which includes the word “arrest”. That’s the tipoff that something ain’t quite right. Is the article’s name going to be updated so it eventually reads like The ~~arrest~~ ~~arraignment~~ ~~trial~~ conviction (damn-it) of those two New Jersey assholes? Greg L (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair point about the title. Discussion as to what name might be a better one is taking place here. Thoughts are welcome there. I think there is a general consensus that the article would benefit from a new title. Would suggest we treat that as an issue separate from the notability of the article, however (where, as here, we have over 3,000 gnews hits, and coverage from major RSs across the US and in France, England, Australia, the Middle East, China, the Carribbean, etc., etc.)--Epeefleche (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can't cover every terrorist wanna-be, but we should be covering ones that are documented by reliable and verifiable sources, as these folks are. Alansohn (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to, and rewrite at, Wikinews. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep if a more appropriate title is created. U.S. v. Alessa works for me. upstate NYer 21:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename-This title is extremely ambiguous, it should be renamed if the article is kept.Smallman12q (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, and if a suitable title is agreed upon, Keep - numerous reliable sources have covered this event. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Operation Arabian Knight. This seems more notable as a successful FBI sting investigation than as a terror plot, but that could just be me. Movementarian (Talk) 07:23, 15 June 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) 01:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leoch

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

I PRODded this with the message, "Wikipedia is not a book of baby names and name derivations." The PROD was challenged with the remark, "this is not a name but a celtic word." To that I say, Wikipedia is not a Celtic language dictionary either. Appears to be already at Wiktionary under an alternate spelling. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Joe Chill (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would also appear to be a made-up neologism, not an actual Celtic word: Originates from the celtic word Laoch meaning warrior. This spelling is a variation combining the latin for lion (leo) with the before mentioned name Laoch meaning warrior. Still, let's all sing a round of Mo Ghile Mear. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Traswiki to Wiktionary per WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the correct Irish and Scottish Gaelic spelling is laoch, and it's already there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect' to Laoch as a plausible misspelling. Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that doesn't work, since Laoch is on another project. I don't think a soft redirect would be particularly useful. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While we do have articles on first names at Wikipedia (and rightly so), we do so only on well-established first names with long histories, not names that someone made up one day. At the bottom of the article as it currently stands, there's a note indicating that there's a locality in Scotland called Leoch (just north of Dundee, see [2] and [3]). An article on that town would be acceptable, but until one is written, there's no reason for this lemma not to be a redlink. +An gr 11:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about rewriting to change the article into one on the settlement (which would be notable enough to sustain an article)? Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 13 June 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) 01:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Reagan

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. One reliable source, mainly about the practice rather than Reagan, and Bullshido is not a reliable source. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support the deletion of this article. The tone has been problematic for a long time (i.e., not neutral), and it has a history of copyright violations. Trying to move it toward neutrality seems to have repeatedly attracted defamatory editing. I know a number of people who use this article as an example of how unreliable Wikipedia can be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writesingdance (talk • contribs) 05:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That certainly speaks volumes on the subject's notability, where someone who has actively worked to improve the article still ultimately supports the deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for getting my comment signed - I'm still new to figuring out the system and thought it would add my user info automatically. (talk • contribs) 05:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable as a martial artist--fails WP:MANOTE. The comments above only strengthen my opinion. Astudent0 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails BIO. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of martial arts notability. There appear to be a lot of claims about other topics, but no reliable sources to support them. Papaursa (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as a martial artist, and the other claims don't have sources Vartanza (talk) 23:06, 13 June 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) 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angeles Eskrima

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

Fails WP:GNG. A Google search yielded nothing conclusive, and Bullshido is not a reliable source. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unreferenced article that doesn't really say why the topic is notable. A google search didn't find anything that shows notability. If anything, article seems hostile towards subject. Seems like a speedy candidate. Astudent0 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find nothing notable about this subject. I agree with Astudent0's assessment. Papaursa (talk) 02:53, 12 June 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. Tone 21:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhoods of Knoxville, Tennessee

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

OK, Knoxville is a real city (I live close to it) that has real neighborhoods, but this article is a bit of fluff based on unreliable sources (notably city-data.com and a real estate website). One strong indication of the unreliability of the content is the inclusion of misspellings (Sequoya Hills and Tibbercrest are misspellings of actual neighborhoods). Converting this article into something useful would be more trouble than starting over scratch at some time in the future -- and more trouble than the topic is worth.
I also intend to add to this nomination several articles about individual neighborhoods that are entirely based on the same unreliable sources. Additionally, Template:Knoxneighborhoods has the same problems as this article and should be severely trimmed. (On its talk page, I have proposed trimming it to include only actual neighborhoods with articles.) --Orlady (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. --Orlady (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Knoxville, Tennessee already contains a list of neighborhoods. This article adds nothing. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 17:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The city article's neighborhoods section and the template are more than adequate coverage. Bms4880 (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The most important statement made ("Knoxville, Tennessee is divided into 45 neighborhoods") is not supported by any of the sources listed. If the intent is to simply duplicate the list that's in the Knoxville article, don't bother. Mandsford 19:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per other comments. Chris (talk) 13:45, 9 June 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) 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neptuloy

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

This is a fictitious alloy. Nothing comes up from a google search. Wizard191 (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This one does. And no other, that I could find. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rursus, that's a wikipedia mirror. Note the fine print on the bottom of the page. Wizard191 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what a ridiculous mistake! ;-) Sorry, zero hits then! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTABLE, ~~WP:NOTADVERTISING~~, WP:HOAX. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:HOAX and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 9 June 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 Shontelle. If/when the album is released with reliable sources providing information, the article can be re-created -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Gravity (Shontelle album)

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

way too much speculation with much of the information unsourced and unpublished synthesis. An album with no confirmed release date, no track listing, no album artwork and no recent singles should not be created. a definate breach of WP:Crystal and WP:GNG Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: fails WP:CRYSTAL with no verified track listing or release date. Information about this album should remain at the artist's article for now. Cliff smith ^talk 16:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shontelle. Based on WP:CRYSTAL and the spirit of Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law, but if the redirect suggested by WP:NALBUMS isn't considered appropriate, I'd agree with deletion. According to WP:NALBUMS, "(G)enerally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label". Time enough for this article if and when the album comes out. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shontelle. Best covered in the artist's article (where it's already covered) until there's more encyclopedic, sourceable information available.--Michig (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would work. Cliff smith ^talk 00:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if anybody can find some solid references, otherwise just delete it. Neither this nor (the target section of) Shontelle have especially impressive sources (a tweet, a blog, and a fansite). Most of what we have in either article is outdated and/or contradictory. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 June 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 G11) by Athaenara. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 05:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaudiya Mission

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

Not notable and is too short for a stub. No references or any reliable sources. Wikid ^as© 15:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Article is a promo based on an external link that is entirely unrelated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:47, 11 June 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) 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON Youth Forum

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

No notability or third party references in the article or even mention for inclusion. Wikid ^as© 15:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this forum. Joe Chill (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since Iskcon Youth Forum is mentioned in detail in Iskcon, this page is redundant. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Iskcon per above. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No third-party RS coverage. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant third-party RS coverage.Gaura79 (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is an add. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:37, 12 June 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\ 07:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kwes

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

Non-notable musician. DB declined by IP editor who has made no other edits outside of this area. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, fails WP:BAND GregJackP (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, not notable, fails WP:BAND. Toddst1 (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was added to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kwes instead of being posted here. I have copied it here so that the opinion may be considered in the discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I'm afraid I disagree-Kwes is a notable musician and producer in London-he is an important producer and writer for a number of established and thriving acts, and is working with most of the key independent labels in the UKLilponcho (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide citations to reliable sources indicating that Kwes is notable, then please do so. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:42, 10 June 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\ 07:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Trial Five

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

No evidence they meet WP:MUSIC Codf1977 (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author Keep The article is studded with references. I don't understand the reasoning behind this AfD. Chubbles (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see from the Article is they went on a tour - does not seem to be a Notable Band - can't work out what they have done to show that they meet WP:MUSIC Codf1977 (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a "national tour" - in this case Canada and parts of the United States - is one of the factors per WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the section you quote says "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour" the refs supporting any tour do not mention any Secret Trial Five tour only that they played a gig at a given venue. Codf1977 (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BAND #1 ("the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable") appears to be met through this, this and possibly even this. There's also a chance of #7 ("one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style "), but that's a little more subjective. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian and Newsnight refs are not about the band but about Taqwacores, as for The Ithacan Online (note the redlink) it is the student-run publication of Ithaca College and the article is about Michael Muhammed Knight's book and film. Codf1977 (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Clearly we have differing views about what constitutes significant coverage, although if The Ithacan (note the blue link!) isn't a reliable source that would change things. However, the argument you've given actually convinces me that they pass WP:MUSIC. If two reliable sources feel the group are worth mentioning in an article about Taqwacore - a notable genre of music - then it's reasonable to say that they're "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style ", hence are notable under WP:BAND #7. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your conclusion. However with out the coverage of the Band at all - how does it pass WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably agree that it doesn't pass WP:GNG, but it doesn't have to. Under WP:BAND it can be notable without having received significant coverage at all, so long as it's verifiable (which it is). Looking at the Guardian and Newsnight sources I'd suggest that criteria #7 is met, so GNG is irrelevant in this case. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:37, 10 June 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. Tone 21:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hansel and Gretel in 3D (movie 2011)

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

A PROD tag was removed from this article without addressing the underlying problem; films not yet in production, as stated in the production company's website linked from the article, do not meet the future films policy. There is also no evidence that anyone thinks this film has any notability, and strong overtones of advertising. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until there's anything to say, this is just a trail of bread crumbs. Mandsford 19:10, 8 June 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 concensus is that significant coverage at independent sources is lacking, so no evidence of notability as Wikipedia defines it -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Paramount Ballroom

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

Delete No evidence of notability. Most of the references are not independent sources, and I can see no evidence of substantial coverage in independent sources. (Note: Speedy deletion was declined with edit summary "decline speedy deletion, buildings do not qualify for A7". This depends on interpreting the article strictly as being about the premises, rather than about the company which runs the ballroom.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It it is also SPAM. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there are several mentions of this ballroom on Google and the information in the article seems verifiable, there hasn't been any article written about the Ballroom or the company going in depth. Using the "Dancing with the Stars" television episode can be used as a valid reference, but that isn't what is being cited here nor is it apparent that the episode really had much to do with the ballroom either; to talk about its instructors, its history, or its cultural value that would make it notable and novel in some way. That is what is being asked, and by itself a lone ballroom (even a company that manages that ballroom) isn't notable even if the person who happens to operate that ballroom may be notable in their own right. "Substantial coverage" seems to be a significant problem here. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have listed a link to two news articles and a video report by WPTV-TV on how Paramount Ballroom is making a difference in the community.

Wolgan (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked very carefully through all of the changes made by Wolgan to the article since this AfD was started. I cannot see any addition of a "link to two news articles", though Wolgan has made numerous minor changes to existing references, mostly merely changing the reference formatting without changing their content. As for the video, for some reason I don't get any sound on it, but it lasts almost exactly 2 minutes, and does not look like very extensive coverage. Wolgan has also, however, added some promotional language to the article, such as "Alec Lazo through the ballroom made world-class dance lessons affordable for college students who would not be able to otherwise afford lessons". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw in the references two links that were (3 and 6) WPTV news articles, and 7 was a video story done by News Channel 5. 6 seems to be a broken link, but I have read the article in the past. Also, I played the video, and the sound played just fine. As far as Wolgan's "promotional language," Alec Lazo is a US champion who has traveled judging dance competitions across the globe for over 30 years, so "world class" isn't a very exaggerated adjective at all. I have read on the PBA website about Lazo's college program, and Lazo teaches these students only $5 per lesson, which given his experience, would be several hundred dollars normally. He has also sponsored several students and given free lessons. Aside from the tone, which could seem promotional, that sentence was a fact, and it describes the sort of "charity work" that Paramount Ballroom is doing for the local community. To improve the tone, I rewrote the sentence with "professional" instead of "world class." Jax3llington (talk) 22:01, 10 June 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 redirected to Growth medium (non-admin closure) Gonzonoir (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meningomedium

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

~~Think this is a hoax but not sure - No English lang sources I can find (see Find Sources below) reference this. Codf1977 (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)~~ - as per Gonzonoir below , Redirect to growth medium. Codf1977 (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find anything. Dewritech (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to growth medium - I don't think it's a hoax, but (based on the Polish-language Google hits) refers to a medium used to culture bacteria associated with spinal cord and brain tissues. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see it Speedy Redirected if everyone else is. Codf1977 (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same with me. Dewritech (talk) 14:24, 8 June 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\ 08:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling promotions in New Zealand

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

Created by an IP through a poorly sourced AFC, who appears to have a vested interest in this bringing a possible COI issue into consideration. Fails WP:NOTDIR under Section 4. Promotions that do not have WP articles are not notable and this is therefore an unneeded copy of the content of List of professional wrestling promotions. The country's wrestling scene as a whole is not notable. Suggestion of a violation of WP:ADVERT in the pushing for the inclusion of this material promoting these promotions. This is not encyclopaedic and should be deleted. !! Justa Punk !! 11:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete, overriding concern that this type of content is not encyclopedic and mass advertising. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep and move to Professional wrestling in New Zealand as a prose article. Although I have personally sought the deletion of a number of articles on individual promotions for lack of sources/lack of notability, there are sources (e.g. the Herald article) to create a single overview article detailing the history of pro wrestling in New Zealand (from early 20th century onwards). Advertising can be dealt with. Yes, the country's wrestling scene is small (and the wrestlers all have day jobs) but it does exist and has been written about. And there was one era (the 1980s) when wrestling had a high profile. dramatic (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As per my response here. I had specifically addressed the concerns given by the nominator prior to removing the prod by referencing the single supposedly "non-notable" promotion with cited references from multiple news articles. The list currently lists only three promotions, two of which already exist on Wikipedia, and find it hard to understand why this list is "unsustainable". Nor do I agree that it qualifies for deletion under WP:NOTDIR or WP:ADVERT and the nominator has yet to specify how it does. 71.184.39.119 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability and does not seem sufficiently encyclopedic. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. May I ask what specific criteria this list fails per WP:N? Professional wrestling in New Zealand seems a perfectly notable topic of interest. 71.184.39.119 (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or keep and move per User:dramatic. There are also equivalent articles for other countries in the same format. They are bordering on being a directory which is not what WP is about. Also, these articles are pushing the boundaries of what should be included in WP. Professional wrestling in New Zealand is a suitable topic but not lists such as this. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To those who are suggesting an article for "Professional Wrestling in New Zealand" this has already been looked into and it fails the GNG. There have been no significant promotions in the country's history (unlike Australia for example) and what's there now is essentially nothing even though two promotions pass the notability test. But that's as individual promotions only - and they don't represent the scene as a whole. !! Justa Punk !! 09:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Not enough promotions to justify this listing. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 09:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there are only 3, hardly worth creating a separate article. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD G12 Table is a blatant copy. AinslieL (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable list. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 03:02, 15 June 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) 01:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional wrestling promotions in Australia

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

Created by an IP through a poorly sourced AFC, who appears to have a vested interest in this bringing a possible COI issue into consideration. Fails WP:NOTDIR under Section 4. Promotions that do not have WP articles are not notable (and that takes in all but two of the promotions listed here) and this is therefore an unneeded copy of the content of List of professional wrestling promotions. Suggestion of a violation of WP:ADVERT in the pushing for the inclusion of this material promoting these promotions. This is not encyclopaedic and should be deleted. Recreation of article deleted via Prod ("List of wrestling promotions in the Australia"). !! Justa Punk !! 11:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete, overriding concern that this type of content is not encyclopedic and mass advertising. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As per my response here. I specifically addressed the concerns given by the nominator prior to removing the prod. While I was unable to provide additional references for all the promotions, I did add a number of news articles to many current promotions but only a few for the defunct ones. I would not have objected to the removal of said entres, however, the nominator's assertion that the "vast majority" are non-notable is incorrect. the editor's claims that this is an attempt to list "every" promotion in Australia, or that this is an attempt to advertise these promotions, is misleading and in bad faith. That the nominator's insistance there are no notable wrestling promotions in Australia, or there are not enough to compile a listing, suggests systemic bias. 71.184.39.119 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of promotions have already had articles deleted. As I am in Australia, I will check the references - and I'm willing to bet they are unreliable under WP rules. It's happened before with things like press releases (which are not allowed) and fan sites. !! Justa Punk !! 09:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought as much - four of them were press releases/advertising. They have been removed per WP:RS. !! Justa Punk !! 04:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete [COPYVIO] Mal Case (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per Mal Case. Also WP:NOT, as this is a directory without a doubt. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 09:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Note: The nominator has removed several valid references from the article during this deletion discussion. This is a tactic used by several of his allies, and supported by the nominator, in a previous deletion discussion. Because of the irregularities caused by their insistence to not have the article viewed on its merits, the result was declared invalid. If, as the nominator claims, the references are invalid, there is absolutely no justifiable reason to remove them during this discussion. If people commenting in the discussion don't agree with the sources, the article would be deleted. They should be given a chance to decide for themselves, however. I trust that the closing administrator will have the decency to make it clear that pushing one's point of view as the nominator has done is unacceptable on Wikipedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - the references removed were press releases/advertisements. They were therefore not valid under WP:RS and the removal was perfectly reasonable. To impute that it will make a difference between deletion and non-deletion is bluntly ridiculous. Such refs should be removed no matter what. !! Justa Punk !! 10:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Mal Case also under CSD G12. AinslieL (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, CSD G12 concerns aside, most of this is excessive detail. List of professional wrestling promotions is not so large that promotions with sources and the like cannot be added in there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:24, 14 June 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) 01:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Pimentel

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 5th May 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seven fights in 3 years, all in minor events. No way he made enough money fighting to be fully professional and thus fails WP:ATH. Astudent0 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATH, as Astudent0 points out. Also fails MMA notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments. 173.79.40.25 (talk) 22:03, 13 June 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) 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Renaud

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

A7 contested, but I doubt the notability is there. Elevating for discussion. delete UtherSRG (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest google-ing his name. He is a relevant figure in the fashion world, however there are few biographies on him aside from his website which specifies very little. Just a lot of magazines with his work in it, but no articles accompanying. Considering he has published work, and has been mentioned in relevant publications relating to the fashion world, I feel he is an important inclusion among the fashion designers listed in Wikipedia. He may not be a Donna Karen, but I started this page so I could hopefully find others who have more articles and information on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mezmaid09 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Unfortunately none of this helps the meet the criteria in WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet - Actually if you read the sources i have provided, it proves that this indiviual is of notable origin, not only in the fashion industry, but the music and art. Please see the references. Art Forum and Surface magazine are both two notable and reliable sources are they not? He absolutely does meet criteria for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mezmaid09 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – <sigh>I have read the resources you have provided.</sigh> None of the references amount to "non-trivial" coverage. A quick mention in a article about another topic does not fit the criteria. Again, I suggest you reread WP:BIO and while you are at it, please see WP:RS. ttonyb (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. After examining the references provided, I feel that the subject does not meet the guidlines in WP:BIO. Movementarian (Talk) 12:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lacks "non-trivial" sources, fails WP:BIO.

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Krav Maga in popular culture may be considered at AfD seperately. Hut 8.5 16:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krav maga in popular culture

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 5th May 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you proceed and delete it. There is another identical article about this subject. Krav Maga in popular culture This article includes references and it is almost identical with the article nominated for deletion. --Der rikkk (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Der_rikkk is the article's creator and only substantial contributor, so I've suggested that he apply a WP:CSD#G7 tag to the article. It looks like he created Krav maga in popular culture with incorrect caps in the title, and then created a near-identical, correctly capitalized copy at Krav Maga in popular culture. I'd normally just convert the erroneously-titled version into a redirect, but since the AfD's underway I thought I'd discuss first. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. I pasted the tag in the article. When I created the article I was new to Wikipedia and I wasn't 100% sure what I was doing so I accidentally created the same article twice. So if one can be deleted that would be great. Thank you --Der rikkk (talk) 16:13, 8 June 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) 01:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Ghaffari

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

Non-notable per WP:CREATIVE, autobiography of television presenter on small regional TV station, unreferenced, no coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator; previous version was speedied A7 on 5 June. Empty Buffer (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 14:31, 8 June 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 as a blatant hoax/vandalism. Reso lute 14:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Parisi

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

Fictional personality, story has no credibility Pemoco (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 June 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) 01:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matix Group

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

Delete No evidence of notability. No sources are cited, and searching has not produced any substantial coverage in independent sources. In addition, the article is substantially a copyright infringement of http://www.naukri.com/gpw/matix/new/index.html, but I am not tagging for speedy deletion as a copyvio, as that problem could be dealt with by a rewrite, and it seems more constructive to give a chance for notability to be discussed. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:COMPANY; unreferenced; the only GNEWS hit appears to be a press release about them placing an order with KBR. Empty Buffer (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 14:54, 8 June 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) 01:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battleaxe Records

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

Bands may be notable, but can't find coverage of company itself. Codf1977 (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 14:34, 8 June 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. Tone 21:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proionic effect

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

Pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. Reads like a recipe for snake oil using the same sort of language that you would see in a L'Oreal or Max Factor advert. I suspect that none of those (100% offline) references would stand up to scrutiny. Biker Biker (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete neither google nor google scholar show anything related. Suspect the title is a misspelling of "pro ionic effect", but that doesn't turn up any hits on google scholar either, so it is WP:bollocks imo Yoenit (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You have to wonder whether somebody is testing our nonsense detection abilities. Google has hardly heard of this term. It apparently offers boundless though vaguely defined health benefits, with a curious mix of fine detail and vague generalities: The proionic-care effect , consists in the interaction with biological tissues rebalancing their activity by acute mobilization of the ions. This mobilization is obtained with high technology devices that provide high frequency current at 448 kHz combining Capacitive and Resistive modes. This stimulation maintains the physiology of the living tissue and improves the cells metabolism.... I smell a duck. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is at the outer edge of WP:FRINGE, and in this light would need extraordinarily convincing sources to stay. --Pgallert (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as a hoax. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is pseudoscientific nonsense and does not belong on Wikipedia. ChemNerd (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (WP:CSD#G10: patent nonsense, backed up unrelated scientific material). -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G10 is for "Pages that disparage or threaten their subject". That isn't the case here. G1 is for "patent nonsense". However the article "Proionic effect" is not "patent nonsense". Indeed it does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake: I meant G1. It certainly reads like patent nonsense to me: "The proionic-care effect , consists in the interaction with biological tissues rebalancing their activity by acute mobilization of the ions. This mobilization is obtained with high technology devices that provide high frequency current at 448 kHz combining Capacitive and Resistive modes. This stimulation maintains the physiology of the living tissue and improves the cells metabolism." That's "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." -- Radagast 3 (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article is not "patent nonsense". The examples for "patent nonsense" under the description that you use include "word salad", "derailment" and "wall of text". None of these apply to the article. Indeed the article as it stands is plausible (and in my opinion understandable; I understand it, although I accept that it is full of jargon). If only there were reliable sources for it, it would justify clean-up, not deletion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:26, 14 June 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. Tone 21:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky 1

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any information that would help the film merit inclusion. The age of the film could be a factor in that; however as it did not have a theatrical release and does not appear to have any type of cult following, this is unlikely. Movementarian (Talk) 12:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The film exists, but fails WP:NF. I worked for William T. "Bill" Naud a few years ago on a family film called Young Davy Crockett... so when I saw his name on this film, I cleaned up the article. But when digging for sources, I came up empty. Sorry Bill. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:05, 10 June 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. If there is significant coverage when the album is released, the article can be either restored, or userfied (note to the creator/other editors: contact me if you want this userfied so it can be worked on until there is enough coverage after the release date to move it to mainspace) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alive Till I'm Dead

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

DELETE!! This is a non-notable and UNRELEASED album by an also non-notable musician. Sheeeeeeeeesh. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUM and WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable album. The musician is notable: he's made No3 in the British chart, which is enough to pass Wp:BAND. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. Prof. Green is certainly notable. Some brief coverage already exists ([4]). There can be no question that it will receive a lot of coverage as its release approaches (and that it will therefore be 'notable'), which is in about 6 weeks time. People should really learn to create these articles in userspace until they have some sources to make a proper article, but when it's so close to the release date I don't see the point in deleting it.--Michig (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it has a tracklist already no need to lose that. I would've voted delete but does pass WP:HAMMER. STAT -Verse 23:38, 11 June 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) 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Theory

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

There's a few assertions of notability in this article but I can't find any significant discussion of them or the article's subject in any reliable and nonpromotional third-party sources to meet WP:N. Them From Space 20:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find significant coverage for this musician. —fetch ·comms 17:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of coverage about this artist.

Heading text

Here are a few more sources:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/alex-theory/id80608463

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/events/2010/yuris_night/schedule/index.html

http://www.amazon.com/Alex-Theory/e/B001LH12GW/ref=ntt_mus_dp_pel

http://www.pandora.com/music/artist/alex+theory

http://2012timeforchange.com/demo/media-music.html

http://www.macworld.com/article/53544/2006/10/lunagroove.html

http://www.harmonyfestival.com/alex-theory.html

http://www.ilike.com/artist/Alex+Theory

http://www.tower.com/saturn-returns-alex-theory-cd/wapi/113753600

http://www.whiteswanrecords.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/bio.detail/bio_id/49

http://www.elevatefilms.com/content/alex-theory.html

http://emcritic.blogspot.com/2010/01/alex-theory-saturn-returns.html

http://www.earthdancelive.com/h2om.html

http://draves.org/blog/archives/000275.html

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2008/10/review-water-and-light-full-spectrum-sound-healing-alex-theory/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowelucat (talk • contribs) 18:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The links posted above lead to any of the following: trivial coverage (album and track listings, performance dates), descriptions copied from his myspace website and album reviews at blogs, which do nothing for his own notability and are not reliable sources anyway. Not notable per WP:NM. I am also worried about a possible WP:COI for user:Sowelucat Yoenit (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources that were provided do not show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 14:49, 8 June 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. Consensus is to Let It Be -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wreckorder

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

Unreleased album with no indication of notability beyond album will be (when/if released) the first solo album by an established artist. Per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUM (there is some coverage in reliable sources, but doesn't appear to be significant coverage. (There's been some discussion at Talk:Wreckorder which may be of interest). No tracklisting, no firm release date. I believe the second paragraph (McCartney, vegetarianism, cookbooks) should be merged to Francis Healy, and the first paragraph (album itself) to ~~Francis Healy~~ same. TFOWR^{is this too long?} 10:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---TFOWR, you failed to mention that the album also features Paul McCartney, the most successful songwriter and musician in the history of popular music.--Froggo64 (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the second paragraph (McCartney, vegetarianism, cookbooks)... Uh, no. Though I will concede I didn't say that McCartney is "the most successful songwriter and musician in the history of popular music". Sorry! TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're going to be precise, no, you didn't. You mentioned his name (now in bold green), but seemed to leave out that he's on the album (which clearly makes it more noteworthy/significant).--Froggo64 (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the usual proceedure for anyone participating in an AfD is to read the article, read the arguments in the AfD, and comment. There really was no need for me to repeat the article for the benefit of a hypothetical AfD participant who hadn't read the article (if there is such a person, I would encourage you to read it - it's a quick read). TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —TFOWR^{is this too long?} 10:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —TFOWR^{is this too long?} 10:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete. I can see arguments either way for keep or merge, but wouldn't this be better discussed as a merger discussion? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. My thinking was that the content here is mostly already in Francis Healy, but it might be worth doing a cross-reference during the AfD to see if there's anything to add to the main article. The key facts (album, McCartney) are already in the Fran Healy article. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 16:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from a mention that Healy is about to release a solo album and that it features McCartney, none of the content is in the main article. As the album is noteworthy/significant in it's own right (and if it is deleted, it will just appear again very soon), neither should the contents be merged with the main article. It's pretty straight forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froggo64 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uh, Sir Paul McCartney. Hello? Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:34, 9 June 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) 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wembley Point

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

Non Notable building Codf1977 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think. Difficult to tell from GNews as the vast majority of articles showing up are company reports for companies based in that building. I'll be receptive to accounts from any who's familiar with the area though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to neutral as building may be notable as landmark. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Sounds NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As someone familiar with the area I can attest that this building is familiar to anyone who regularly drives along the north-west section of the North Circular Road or Harrow Road, but the only decent source that I can find is this book. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:53, 5 June 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) 04:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Racepacket (talk) 06:20, 8 June 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 Menace (Marvel Comics). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Character Assassination (comics)

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

Delete Appears to be little more than a plot summary of an average comicbook arc from The Amazing Spider-Man with little assertion of notability. Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- You should probably look at WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Spidey104^contribs 02:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary, I do know about it and I am very familiar with Spider-Man and friends. I have been following Spider-Man comics for almost a decade now and have been a fan of the character since I was in elementary school. But thanks for assuming good faith.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do assume good faith, but your argument comes across like the examples that link provides. So I followed WP:DUCK. Also, arguments are not supposed to use sarcasm to degrade another editor, so please refrain from that in the future. Spidey104^contribs 02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I've read the article you linked and I'm not seeing how I fit that criteria. I never went "I've never heard of it, therefore it's not notable" or suggest that just because it was a comic it wasn't notable, etc. On the contrary, I do know about this arc and I do think comics can be notable for Wikipedia.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do realize that there is no perfect comparison between what you said and what is in that link, but it is similar. Saying "Appears to be little more than a plot summary of an average" is similar to the arguments to avoid that are presented there because it is based on your personal opinion. Spidey104^contribs 02:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Joe Chill (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How do those sites prove notability for the subject, considering that those sites write similar articles on nearly every comic on the market?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - My argument would be if they cover nearly every comic book on the market, then nearly every comic book on the market is notable. It's already the approach we take to films with theatrical releases - they're inevitably heavily reviewed so they're nearly inevitably notable. An outcome that sees every comic book able to gain wide distribution as notable would not be a grossly unjust outcome. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So let me get this straight...you think every single comic arc that gets coverage from niche sites like Newsarama and Comicsbulletin should get their own article on Wikipedia? Giving an article to a comic title is one thing. Giving individual articles to separate arcs of comics regardless is another.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability is notability. If it's got significant coverage in reliable independent sources, it's notable. TV shows get individual articles for notable episodes; albums get individual articles for notable songs. I'm not sure what's so different about comic books that they shouldn't have articles for notable arcs or even notable single issues. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not against giving articles to notable comic arcs and issues--such as The Death of Gwen Stacy of Kraven's Last Hunt. This is not a notable arc, no more than any of the other comics published and reviewed each month. The fact said "reliable sources" for this comic are from sites who publish similar sources indiscriminately for each month's comics prove that.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        "Indiscriminate" isn't any part of the test of notability under WP:N. It requires only significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I don't think you're disputing these sources are reliable and independent and that the coverage is signficant, so I'm not sure that you have a (policy-supported) leg to stand on in your claim the arc isn't notable. For a comic of the pop-culture weight of Amazing Spider-Man I would fully expect virtually every arc to be notable, and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a process that returns that outcome. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "For a comic of the pop-culture weight of Amazing Spider-Man I would fully expect virtually every arc to be notable, and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a process that returns that outcome.

Notability is not inherited. Just because Spider-Man is notable does not mean that every single arc and storyline featured in over 600 issues of Amazing Spider-Man and tertiary titles are notable as well. That's just beyond ridiculous.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I said "expect". My expectation is that the level of interest in Spider-Man is so high that it would not be surprising to see each arc receive enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources to pass WP:N. Unless you're going to suggest that the article doesn't meet one of the criteria of WP:N, I'd invite you to take your personal frustration at the notability of comic arcs to Village Pump or a similar forum. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree with Sandor on this one, which is why I've change my argument to merge this with the article about the character it most affects rather than keep it. Spidey104^contribs 02:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. No need to completely delete it as that would destroy all of the effort put into this article. And it is notable, because the appearance is deceiving to editors like User:Sandor Clegane who are not actively involved in comic book article editing. Spidey104^contribs 14:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like Character Assassination should be merged or redirected into related articles. There is the possibility for arcs such as that to gain future notability if the information from that arc is revisited or expanded upon in the future (such as Nothing Can Stop the Juggernaut!/Something Can Stop the Juggernaut). I don't think that storyline is notable enough as alone as it is, but the work to create it should not be deleted away. Merge/redirect the article so the old information can be easily resurrected, if necessary, in the future. Spidey104^contribs 18:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am actively involved in editing comics articles and the article is poor (with no out-of-universe perspective and no explanation why this is more notable than any other Spider-Man storyline). Similar Spider-Man articles started by the same editor (who left a string of very thin articles in his wake) have been deleted or redirected. This article is also suffering similar problems so if you don't want to lose it then improve it. (Emperor (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Just because am I not actively involved in editing comic-related articles doesn't mean I can tell if something is notable or not. Even as someone who is familiar with and is fan of Spider-Man and his related storylines, there is still nothing in this article to suggest any sign of notability. Obviously I wouldn't be going after articles like Kraven's Last Hunt or The Night Gwen Stacy Died which are notable for numerous reasons.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still no explanation as to why it should be deleted instead of merged as I suggested. Spidey104^contribs 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what merging location do you have in mind, exactly? The article's way too long and plot-heavy to fit into "Fictional History of Spider-Man" or something similar. And you yourself have yet to prove how it's notable enough to deserve it's own Wikipedia article.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my bad. It could be merged to the Menace (Marvel Comics) article as this storyline is important to that character's history. (Joe Chill seems to have provided proof for notability.) Spidey104^contribs 14:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: While I don't like Wikipedia's nobility rule that much I will suggest that merge is a reliable option to use or if anyone needs additional primary sources for it to be kept I can provide it since I handled citations before and can help since I prefer not to speculate. Anyone with the original comics or the collected edition known as Election Day can find adequate details to source this article. -67.171.250.39 (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with the original comics or the collected edition known as Election Day can find adequate details to source this article.

We're looking for sources outside the comics. Sources within the comics aren't good enough.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JoeChill provided six such sources. In what way do you say they're not significant coverage, independent, or reliable? - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sites such as IGN and Comicsbulletin review the same comics each month indiscriminately. They're hardly good enough to prove notability of one arc over another.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was actually looking to close this AfD, but looking at the arguments above, and then looking at the article itself, I am inclined to agree with the nominator. I am not a comic enthusiast (although a fan of comics!) but I do not see how this particular storyline is important to the history of Spider-Man (fictional or otherwise), or that the notability of this storyline has been established. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Merge - see below -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Merge where? Abductive (reasoning) 03:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JoeChill's sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest others to take a look at JoeChill's sources before making a judgement call and keep in mind that sites such as Newsarama cover almost anything related to comics indiscriminately.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ESPN covers almost anything related to sports indiscriminately. How many sports articles are there? An article for every season of almost every team. My point here is that degrading sites like Newsarama does not support your point to delete. I no longer think the article should be kept, but rather it should be merged to Menace (Marvel Comics) Spidey104^contribs 02:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm hardly degrading Newsarama, just pointing out that sites like Newsarama don't prove that this comic arc is notable among all other comics. Unless you're like DustFormsWords who thinks that the notability of Spider-Man by itself is enough to warrant notability for all related subjects, because that's all I'm seeing.
  - And I don't know much about the sports articles, but if there are articles for every season of different teams, then I imagine it follows different notability criteria. Because I don't see Wikipedia giving articles to every single comicbook arc of different characters, even if said characters are notable.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - DustFormsWords argument about Spider-Man giving all of his arcs notability is a separate argument from claiming that a site like Newsarama covering the arc does not give it notability. Newsarama does not cover all story arcs, so its coverage of this arc can prove notability. Spidey104^contribs 02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse me, I never made the argument that Spider-Man gives inherent notabilty to individual arcs. My observation was that there is such a general level of discussion about and interest in Spider-Man that it would not be surprising to see each arc of (the publication) Amazing Spider-Man receive enough significant coverage to pass WP:N. Sandor seems to be proceeding from a starting point that only X percent of arcs of ASM should be notable, and I'm saying that that's a faulty assumption - there's no reason they can't all be, provided they each pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Menace (Marvel Comics) (Change from Delete) Although I am not convinced that JoeChill's sources are quite enough to warrant an article about this particular arc, I am convinced by this discussion that the content should be kept, and as Spidey104 says, this is the obvious merge destination. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:02, 11 June 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. Despite two relistings, there is still no consensus -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Orp

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

Speedy contested, is a valid article on de:wiki. Elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Examining de:Ron Orp, I see only two newspaper articles, one looks like a bit of local interest/PR story, leaving the Brazil launch story which also looks very "press release". To meet WP:ORG there has to be significant impact. I'm commenting as "weak delete" as better sources may be forthcoming from those with access to German news. Fæ (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dont see any reason for deletion. this articles subject has reached the level of notability needed.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Account was blocked for block evasion. Amalthea 21:54, 14 June 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, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources showing notability have been produced. The only arguments for "keep" are such as "this articles subject has reached the level of notability needed" but no indication how or why this is shown, and "per his own notability", with no explanation what that means. In other words there are just assertions that it is notable, with no attempt at all to justify those assertions. The strangest of all is "Keep per notability. just keep".JamesBWatson (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to [Ron Orp's Newsletter]. 2 of the 3 listed sources are substantial articles, and I found a third in English. That is enough to establish notability: significant local coverage (all 3 are Zurich). I have integrated all but the English one as references (it's primarily audio) and added important info that was missing: the names of the founders/owners and the fact Ron Orp is almost certainly fictional. The article still needs its subscriber numbers/dates referencing, and one source mentions cities not listed in the history - are these still to come, or on hold? And it's mistitled. But it passes on notability.Yngvadottir (talk) 18:05, 7 June 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) 04:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Ron Orp's Newsletter per Yngvadottir. The person fails WP:BIO, but the newsletter seems to have enough of a circulation to merit inclusion. Movementarian (Talk) 13:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the basis of circulation, I see that the 1000th most popular twitter account, "Milton (GeekPolice)", (geekpolice.net is a computer novice and enthusiast website) had over 123,000 followers. By your logic this ought to have a Wikipedia article along with the rest of the top 1000+ as these are more 'notable' than the Ron Orp newsletter. Fæ (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point. Using my own argument, the newsletter fails WP:WEB and WP:PERIODICAL, though the latter is a proposal and not specifically intended for web newsletters. I guess I was a bit hasty in my opinion. Delete. Movementarian (Talk) 14:22, 8 June 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 Closed as a redirect already. Tone 21:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona boycott

Another proposed deletion of this article was closed on June 2 with a result of keep, no consensus with over 20 editors commenting. Relisting it so soon after the last AfD closed is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia.Facts707 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a trivial list. It contains only 2 elements. RussianReversal (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How absurd. How is a list of two items any less useful or notable than a list with three or more items? Facts707 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, i.e. putting two things together to make a new topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How absurd. How can listing two boycotts of the same state together be "original research" and a "new topic"? If we listed "milk" and "cream" under "list of dairy products" would that be OR too? Facts707 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unencyclopedic content, list which is too short in scope (see WP:SALAT), and impermissible content fork of Arizona. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How absurd. How is a list of two items "too short in scope" compared to a list with three or more items? Facts707 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what do you mean by "impermissible content fork of Arizona"? Do you mean that all content relating to Arizona should be navigable from the Arizona article? Does this apply to the United States article as well? If that is what you are suggesting, that is not only practically impossible but there is no such WP policy. Facts707 (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is NOT encyclopedic. Roundfile, please! JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How absurd. How is noting two prominent boycotts of a U.S. state "NOT encyclopedic"? Facts707 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge info into List of boycotts, which is woefully inadequate, but the right place to list them. this solves the OR problem by not linking 2 boycotts just cause they are of the same state. list them all, sort out the bodies afterwards:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you suggest would be useful, but that is a long term goal with no contributing editors at present. I'd be pleased if you were to take on such a task, but until there is a section in List of boycotts containing a "United States" section and subsection "Arizona", we have to leave this or something similar in. Doing otherwise would be going backwards and a disservice to our readers. Facts707 (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful search term which breaks no policies. To address the 'delete' arguments above: 1. "putting two things together to make a new topic" is not an example of original research. It would be an example of synthesis if any conclusion was drawn which wasn't found in the original sources, but since this is just a list with no development of ideas at all, that clearly isn't the case. 2. I guess the WP:SALAT argument being made is that the list is "too specific". To me it seems that it is at a useful level of specificity. In addition WP:SALAT - as a guideline - may be overridden when it is useful to do so. 3. Not encyclopedic? See WP:UNENCYC. Thparkth (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This appears to be intended as a disamb type of page, and for that I can see its purpose. Is it better handled another way? BTW, prior AfD closed as no consensus just a few days ago.--Milowent (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This started out as a disamb but during the previous AfD was changed to a list to counter the objection that disambs should technically point to articles, not sections within articles - even large and significant sections. Personally I think it should have remained a disamb. Thparkth (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that background. If you search "arizona boycott", after this page, you will not automatically find the two most prominent known boycotts that this article links to. So I can see a reason for the page, but how to best accomplish navigation is a procedural task I am not going to get chuffed about.--Milowent (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last nomination closed as a no consensus on June 2, a week ago, after the usual length of time for comments. There's no reason given to seek a different result now. Mandsford 19:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. How ridiculous to hold another AFD just days after the first closed with over 20 contributing editors with no census! Facts707 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would you call a list with two elements a list? Sounds more like a synthesis to me.RussianReversal (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a synthesis at all. Its simply the fact that there are two different major news events in Arizona's history where the term "arizona boycott" has freely been used. I take it that the article was created to help people find the one they are looking for. See, e.g., Seven Years' War (disambiguation).--Milowent (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's their problem, not ours.RussianReversal (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked we were writing a wikipedia for readers, not for personal resume building.--Milowent (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How absurd. How is a list of two items any less useful or notable than a list with three or more items? Facts707 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ridiculous -- only two "boycotts"? Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How absurd. How is a list of two items any less useful or notable than a list with three or more items? Facts707 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

** CHANGED TO A REDIRECT ** I changed this page to be a redirect to Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act#Boycotts as per WP:Primary topic. The other known boycott was 23 years ago and is not nearly as well known. Changed by original creator of this article. This should resolve any questions of whether a list of 2 items is appropriate, etc. Facts707 (talk) 21:14, 11 June 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. Consensus after the relisting is clearly for keep. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten (manga)

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

Does not assert notability or demonstrate coverage by reliable third party sources. Prod disputed by IP. —Farix (t | c) 20:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 20:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Hmm, I find it hard to believe there isn't significant coverage of anything by Fukumoto in Asian language sources. The title being a very common kanji makes it hard to search for, though. Doceirias (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I agree that the article needs improvement, especially in the references department. Unfortunately, like Doceirias already said, is it very hard to find anything about it because of its common name. I mostly found shops selling the manga, and some blogs [11] and review sites [12] about which I'm not sure if they qualify as references. Maybe a Japanese speaker may be able to find more. By the way, the Japanese Wikipedia's article doesn't cite any references either, and its only external link appears to be dead, yet the subject seems to be notable enough there. Furthermore, I think the article is notable because it first introduces Akagi. WakiMiko (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that's dashedly hard to search for: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=Nobuyuki+Fukumoto+ten+manga

I did find http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2010-04-08/creator-of-akagi-and-kaiji-to-visit-finland-in-june which says "Mr Fukumoto established himself with a mahjong manga Ten – Tenhoodoori no Kaidanjin in 1989 during Japan's economic boom, when the popularity of gambling manga soared." so at the very least it should be merged into an article (either Akagi or the author's). --Gwern (contribs) 21:49 6 June 2010 (GMT)

The dead external link in the Japanese article is to D3 Publisher. They published the Mahjong game adaptation of the manga for PS2. (Internet Archive) --Kusunose 18:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BK and WP:N - a minor mention in ANN alone is not significant coverage, and non-reliable sources of course cannot establish notability at all. Without actual demonstrable, verifiable coverage, claims of probably coverage also cannot make it notable as they are not actually shown to exist. As it is now, it is an unnotable book and deletion is appropriate. Recreation as a redirect to Nobuyuki Fukumoto would be appropriate if there are links to it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article has not even been around for two weeks and it is already being tagged with AfD? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:06, 7 June 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) 03:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' It was published for 13 years in a magazine and then reprinted in 18 volumes. It had a notable writer, Nobuyuki Fukumoto, whose other works have articles. He went on after that to publish the prequel Akagi (manga), with the same titular character, and this got turned into 26 anime episodes. You don't need to find reviews to tell you something is notable, you just need to think for yourself. Insert your regular insane arguments here if you must, I honestly don't care, I'm stating my case, and hopefully no one will be discouraged from stating their opinions also. Dream Focus 21:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AnmaFinotera. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. SnottyWong talk 23:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
week keep i'm convinced the sources are out there but i don't speak japanese... very notable international author and would at least merge the content to a list if it were too early in his career to be notableArskwad (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, articles can always be tagged for AfD at a future date, I see no discussion in this article's talk page about any improvements only that it is not notable and that it needs to be deleted. I feel that sources should be looked for internationally for this notable author. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 14 June 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 16:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akrapovič

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

Withdrawn Fails WP:COMPANY. There is no independent coverage focused on Akrapovič. Quote, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.". Most of their media attention is bought and paid for via sports sponsorships. There is a single, highly-biased post at a blog [13] that primary trades in warmed-over press releases. Needs much more than that to justify existence of article. Dbratland (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , infact speedy keep per recent expansion. First of all try googling Akrapovic with a plain C. Turns up 2,000,000 searcxh results as opposed to 95,000 under the native C letter. Now look in google books, no independent coverage????. Is this a joke? This is a major leading exhaust company and used for many motorcycles in racing etc, particularly it would seem on Kawasaki bikes. See BMW site etc. An article about it being a major success story which states that "Akrapovič has become a top-class global brand". Which it has in its field I believe. No there isn't a massive amount of sources online, but neither is there for many Slovenian topics. There are sources like this and a Maribor University source dscussing the comany available on PDF in Slovenian..... Also there are University of Ljubljana sources widely discussing it. To me it seems Akrapovič is to exhausts as Pirelli is to tires and Castrol is to oil otherwise I wouldn't have started it. Look at the logos on the bike in link I gave you Pirelli, Castrol, TItan now look at the exhaust, Akrapovič.... "Akrapović provides exhaust systems for MotoGP, World Superbike and World Supersport" and some of the sources I've mentioned above and below should be enough to establish that it is actually a notable company. Just needs expansion. I would also guess that there are many moto magazine articles mentioning it..There are even independent books on the company like this meaning "Akrapovič. Technical and financial genius". Not to mention a lengthy book about it by Igor Akrapovič and coverage in reliable books such as this. Unless you've actually looked through resource material such as books and magazines.... You should know that the Internet often does not have the best sources for certain topics on here. I can think of many notable companies which online are only mentioned briefly in news sources and are only discussed in non reliable sites. Funny how you deem a bunch of American outlaw riders as notable because they make good news material and have a lot of coverage yet you think a major global exhaust supplier to motorbikes in professional racing doesn't cut the mustard. How many people want to write extensively about a Slovenian exhaust company I ask in news? Your claim about no independent coverage is false, there are books on the company as I pointed out and many reliable independent materials that could be found to improve it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - hopefully I have demonstrated the company's notability by adding a number of references. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, I think we both have. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I stand corrected. Thanks both for your fine work. --Dbratland (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are you OK to withdraw it? I suspect we won't get our DYK if it is still listed for deletion. So that done, what's the next bike-related article you think we should put through the AfD/Rescue cycle?--Biker Biker (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. Withdrawn.--Dbratland (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, somebody care to close it? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 8 June 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) 01:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metania

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

Unreferenced and promotional article fails to show notability of the newspaper which is the subject of the POV article. Was once a disambiguation page to a redlink city and a type of religious gesture said to be dubious. Edison (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article failed to show that YSEE has a WP article Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellenes Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The section entitled Criticism found at Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellenes seems pure POV directed against YSEE and which seems to bear a strong likeness to this article. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pure wp:Soapboxing --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 06:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI The Criticism section was only added @ 01:41, 10 June 2010 shortly after the same editor added to Metania. --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 06:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can find no mention of this newspaper on Google. OrthodoxWiki and other Greek Orthodox websites define Metania as a form of prostration. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: unreferenced and potentially defamatory (WP:CSD#G10). -- Radagast 3 (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After deletion, the original redirect to Zemnoy poklon is still appropriate. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex han

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

Alex isn't notable. Dawnseeker2000 01:42, 8 June 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\ 09:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of software and BPO companies in NOIDA

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Joe Chill (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a directory, see my comments at a similar afd. Rehevkor ✉ 01:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Full of redlinks and spam too.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just remove the many redlinks. A list of anything with WP articles is intrinsically not indiscriminate or a violation of DIRECTORY.the cure for lists with much inappropriate material is to remove the inappropriate material, not remove the list. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is *just* on the side of deletion. Should future significant coverage is available (or the album enters a reliable chart as a hit) then it can be recreated (should this happen, I would not be averse to restoring the article) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mechanical Renaissance

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, non-notable album —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 25 May 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, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NALBUM officially released studio album from a band with it's own wikipedia page Psyborg Corp. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was almost entirely made by a [[WP:COI|COI] editor, Psyborg Corp. (talk · contribs). —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:18, 3 June 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. There may be WP:COI issues with this article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while I do not disagree with with the potential WP:COI issue with Psyborg Corp. (talk · contribs) does that change the fact that the album passes WP:NALBUM? -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. No independent sources, no chart info, no reviews. 24.4.101.72 (talk) 06:18, 12 June 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\ 09:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities

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

Fails WP:N and WP:ORG (note that it's an organization and not an academic institution). I can find no significant coverage by a reliable and independent source (see here and here). Also, please note that some of the sources in the Google search are posted on behalf of this organization. OlYeller^Talktome 18:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Admin DGG (talk · contribs) declined the A7 CSD saying that it might be notable. The article made no indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content) but I respect him so I moved to an AfD. OlYeller^Talktome 18:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Comment. Can the nominator please demonstrate that the 37 Google News hits, the 39 Google Books hits and the 71 Google Scholar hits for this organization are all trivial? Abductive (reasoning) 23:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would but I'm not getting all of those in my searches. Add some links and I'll check them out. If I'm wrong, I'll close the AfD myself. OlYeller^Talktome 00:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to see references and add them myself but again, this Google news search provides nothing, this Google search provides self published info from what I can find, and this Google Books search has lots of mentions that it exists but no significant coverage from what I can find. Please help me if you find something. OlYeller^Talktome 03:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take a look at [14], [15], [16] and [17]. Also, there might have been a name change. Abductive (reasoning) 08:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Ok. I'm headed out now but I'll take a look later this afternoon. I'd appreciate any help others could provide in adding references. OlYeller^Talktome 15:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 26 May 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, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very Week Keep : I think that the Times Higher Education shows clear coverage, the others are less so. But the article it's self is poor, and if it stays the list under The a typical CUMU member institution has several characteristics: should go as un-sourced, possibly OR and just un-encyclopaedic. Codf1977 (talk) 10:35, 1 June 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. There may be copyright issues with this article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 8 June 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) 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Blundell

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

Declining speedy A7. Looks borderline non-notable. Elevating to AFD for a better review. UtherSRG (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 25 May 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) 23:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his band Frost*. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:11, 3 June 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. An entire row of Frost*'s navbox only contains readlinks, as well as per nom. RussianReversal (talk) 03:48, 8 June 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. enough consensus for deletion JForget 02:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Eyre (activist)

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

I do not think that any of this amounts to notability. Since possibly controversial, I sent it here instead of using speedy A7 for no indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 10:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Admittedly marginal, but the "Motorhome Diaries" project would seem sufficient to this inclusionist. Carrite (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tend to agree with Carrite. The Motorhome Diaries project was quite a phenomenon but this AfD really underscores the growing inadequacy of WP:RS and WP:N guidelines to accommodate the reality of what is well-sourced and notable. Because of the guidelines, I can't say "keep" without being in direct conflict with the rules (with the possible exception of WP:IAR), but because of how the glaring nature of these guidelines' suckiness is put on display here, I'm finding it difficult to stomach giving my assent to deep-sixing the article. I'll leave that to those who are more willing to walk in lock-step with a misguided community consensus. Tisane (talk) 16:18, 26 May 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, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm happy to jump into this poisoned well. Forget about the rules, I've read this article a half dozen times and I'm still trying to figure out why he is notable. He has worked at all these different places, yet the article doesn't assert what he has actually done as an activist that is important. He sponsored a scholarship, confronts police officers for parking illegally, and refuses to attend Washington Nationals games? Is that it? He uses YouTube to spread his message. For real?! I'm sure he is a pleasant fellow and a smart guy, but his resume sounds exactly like a dozen people I know. If the Motorhome Diaries project was notable and his being "involved" with it was significant, I'm OK with him being mentioned there. Location (talk) 06:40, 5 June 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has done lots of things, many of which were reported by the media. But there does not seem to be any coverage in depth required by WP:Notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to inclusionists I'm glad that in the USA (and Canada) there is freedom for people like Mr. Eyre to make their verbal and symbolic statements. And really we need people like him. However to make an encyclopedia article worth reading there needs to be some in depth coverage of the person and his effect on society (from reliable sources of course), not just reports of the things he has done. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Motorhome Diaries project is nifty but it isn't the subject of the article. There's very little, perhaps just enough in the way of reliable independent secondary sources to write an article on that project, but Eyre (IIRC) is just one member of that team and isn't mentioned in many of the articles involved, even less given biographical information. As a result, I don't believe Eyre meets WP:N. --Joe Decker (talk) 08:13, 13 June 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\ 10:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang blum

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

Contested BLP prod, the reference added was from an associated act's official website. The one assertion ofd importance that saved this article from speedy deletion (he frequently contributed guitar and vocal tracks to several top of the charts records of the decade) is unreferenced and not specific enough for inclusion. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:16, 25 May 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, 1 June 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 8 June 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 Super Star (Arabic television show). Redirecting per WP:BLP. Please do not revert without sourcing the article. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yusra Hamzawi

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

Subject does not pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, finishing in 12th place in Super Star appears to be her most notable achievement. J04n(talk page) 13:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:28, 25 May 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, 1 June 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 8 June 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Comes to Your House

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

I can't find significant coverage for this compilation album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:11, 1 June 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Stambaugh

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

I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - i cant find any coverage either. Dwayne was here! ♫ 02:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 1 June 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything either. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. I'm not sure if Bob Stambaugh is notable for at least two events, thus failing WP:1E. RussianReversal (talk) 03:43, 8 June 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. After a relisting, the consensus seems to be for keeping. Merge can be discussed separately. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McIntyre

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

Only indication of notability given is the debian project leader position. For me, this by itself is not enough to meet WP:BIO. No independent references are given. TexasAndroid (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable position covered by IT news sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:43, 1 June 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep occasionally interviewed by the mass media, e.g. by Heise (a leading german computer magazine publisher), ZDnet, ComputerWorldUK --87.174.111.142 (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or Merge into an article on (all) the Debian Project Leaders. --Chire (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a Debian article, notable only for temporarily held position. guidelines: WP:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary WP:BLP1E —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwrandom (talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 June 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. JForget 02:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Zacchiroli

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

Only claim to notability is leadership of the Debian project. To me, this alone is not enough. No independent references are given. But I have reversed my CSD deletion in order to give this a chance at wider input into what I see as the key question, whether that one position is enough to grant notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep has articles on him in several IT news sources like iTWire, and linuxtoday. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, ~~he's stepped down from the leadership position[18]~~ --Nuujinn (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? That link looks like it just describes the election three months ago? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, you're right, I read it completely backwards. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Debian is one of the major Linux distributions. Being a leader at some point on its development ensures notability. Pxtreme75 (talk) 07:17, 3 June 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is coverage in Gnews and other sources like [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], etc. etc. Dewritech (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per references, here is another one: itwire.com. He has been elected just a few months ago, I expect to see more coverage during his term than before ... he is scheduled for a panel interview LinuxTag 2010 [24], and giving the keynote for the mini-debconf there [25]. --87.174.111.142 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or Merge into an article on (all) the Debian Project Leaders. --Chire (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: being a Debian Project Leader is notable, imho. 190.189.227.89 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 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 5 albums on indie labels does not convey notbaility.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Thurston

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

This rapper unfortunately died at a young age but he doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO (not to mention WP:MEMORIAL). I couldn't find any reliable Ghits (not even the MySpace page listed in the article), and the article even says he wasn't signed. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was not sgned personally to a label but yet had at least five solo albums all his compositions. He was also a member of a rap group Binkis Recs and that group was actually signed to Serious Knock Entertainment (See http://www.seriousknockent.com/Binkis.htm)werldwayd (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Serious Knock Entertainment isn't a notable record label though. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a member of a non notable band (band's article was deleted after the above !vote) does not make him notable. He lacks coverage in independent reliables sources. duffbeerforme (talk)
Delete - Nothing notable about him. --Dezidor (talk) 10:09, 8 June 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, 8 June 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.

I have restored the AFD to the text at the time of closing. It should be noted that the socking block against Inniverse was later reversed, and the suspected relationship to Azviz has been determined not to exist.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Weiss (author)

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

Author of non-fiction who does not meet WP:N or WP:AUTHOR. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, and his works, as opposed to the series in which they have been published, have had little reviews. Claritas § 07:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] Inniverse (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock of Azviz. Claritas § 15:23, 8 June 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO for lack of reliable, independent sources about this person's life, and does not satisfy the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Deor (talk) 12:42, 8 June 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Block diagram Language

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

Notability in question since 2008, no reasonalbe attempt to address this since then. _{BigGayAllison talk} 07:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - the list of literature on the subject is substantive - I think someone with relevant expertise needs to check these sources and provide in-line citations if they do contain references to it. Per WP:BEFORE, it would have been appropriate to do so before nominating the article for deletion. Claritas § 08:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hardware description language#History. Almost all papers listed are not in peer-reviewed literature, and the few that are, are either (co-)authored by the designers/implementors of ABL, or do not mention it, or both (for example the paper by Ayala-Rincón et al.); all together not enough to establish that this has an intrinsic interest that merits an encyclopedic article on its own. In my opinion the present article is not truly informative anyway. --Lambiam 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 1 June 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References seem to provide quite a few papers and articles published in publications that are independent of the creators of the subject language. Whether written by the creators or not, the fact that they have been accepted for publication by independent editors working for notable academic publishers (Springer-Verlag, Elsevier) suggests that the subject was considered noteworthy by these editors, who know their field better than I do. JulesH (talk) 21:03, 11 June 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 'delete's *just* pip the post here, with there being no specific 'keep's, just a neutral and a suggestion to disambiguate -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Level Environmental Science

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

Notability and References lacking since 2008. _{BigGayAllison talk} 07:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of textbooks and so on which would cover the course/syllabus adequately to source the article, but whether any textbook based on a syllabus counts as an independent source is another matter. Claritas § 08:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 1 June 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. There's a topic here ("environmental science") and a qualification ("GCE A-level"), and this article concerns the intersection of the two. This is an encyclopaedia, not a textbook, and it's aimed at the general reader, not the A-level student. Therefore coverage of the topic belongs in Environmental science, and coverage of the qualification belongs in GCE Advanced Level. The subject should be mentioned by name in the List of Advanced Level subjects.—S Marshall T/C 12:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may be verifiable but it is not notable. Wp should not be used for documenting individual educational qualifications at this level. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:19, 12 June 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) 04:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CreationFlow

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotion for non-notable company, article by SPA who is the COO of the company. While many sources are given, none constitute significant coverage, and I have been unable to find any such. Haakon (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About notability and Oscarguindzbrg being the COO of the company: This issue was already covered more than a year ago and the decission was to keep the page. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationFlow "Keep. Business seems to have won several local & national awards, although my Spanish isn't good enough to determine the precise nature of these awards. Certainly looks like it's notable, though. JulesH (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)". During the past few months, some other wikipedia users have edited the page and nobody marked the article for deletion. Besides that, CreationFlow has thousands of users around the globe. Since this is a tool for a specific market, maybe someone working on graphic design, animation, architectural rendering, advertising or post production, may give an opinion on this issue. CreationFlow is part of a new category of tools and yesterday I created an article Online artwork proofing, feedback, review and approval tool to provide information about this new set of tools (which mentions several other tools). Oscarguindzberg (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the sources, many of them are independent reviews of the tool, including The New York Times (The most relevant ones: http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/04/02/02gigaom-integrated-collaboration-and-project-management-w-10206.html, http://www.centernetworks.com/creationflow-collaboration-tool http://www.appappeal.com/app/creationflow/, http://www.brighthub.com/office/project-management/reviews/27371.aspx, http://www.denbagus.net/creationflowcom-collaboration-via-the-internet/), news about awards the product won (http://www.iae.edu.ar/iaehoy/IAEtv/videos/Paginas/naves.aspx, http://www.agencia.gov.ar/IMG/pdf/08.07.08_Emprendedores_aprobados.pdf) and links about investments the company received (http://www.iecyt.org.ar/inversores/red-de-inversores-angeles). Oscarguindzberg (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The decision wasn't to keep, there was no consensus. It just defaults to keeping the article. Rehevkor ✉ 14:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —— Zhernovoi (talk) 10:34, 1 June 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage by reliable source is not significant enough to establish notability. Most of the references given are not independent reliable sources. It's also hard to see what is referencing what without footnotes.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing the significant coverage required here. Most of the "references" don' seem to be valid or reliable references at all (blogs, database entries, profiles etc). Rehevkor ✉ 15:05, 8 June 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 WP:CORP explicitly calls for significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The coverage provided in the links here are trivial/incidental at best. Saying a company is notable isn't enough, it needs to be demonstrated, and based upon what is here and in the article, that hasn't been established.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nachi Robotic Systems Inc.

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

I cannot find anything to establish notability under either WP:GNG or WP:ORG. noq (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see a few sources out there. Perhaps the most interesting is this one, which says "DaimlerChrysler plants are almost 100% populated with Nachi robots for spot welding and material handling applications". — C M B J 03:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a press release. Can you find any independent sources? noq (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[33]"The rear rails and ladders for the LH car are welded together as floors are shuttled in for join-up at DaimlerChrysler's Bramalea, Ont., facility. The automaker is using Nachi robots in a DCT Systems' integrated cell."

[34]

[35][36]

Plus Tata [37] and Fiat PDF Fiat and others which have used them in the past...Chaosdruid (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it appears that the company is notable enough if under publicised. It also looks as if the page was created under COI but with a little work can be made good :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 18:44, 8 June 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'm satisfied both about the lack of notability and the BLP considerations. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sheen

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

Seems to fail WP:BLP1E. He's basically known for getting in trouble with the law society, something covered in all of one source. In addition, privacy is a concern; we've received an OTRS request for removal (ticket 2010053110001242) Ironholds (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 1 June 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, upon looking closely at this one, I concur with the nominator. The sole significant coverage about Sheen seems to be an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. While this material would certainly have a place in the article if Sheen were a more notable individual, I can't really find anything else much on him. The other sources provided in the article do not address Sheen in depth. For this reason, I feel he does not meet the WP:BIO criteria at this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mothering (magazine)

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

Appears non-notable per WP:NOTE and WP:ORG. No evidence of substantial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. As a result, article is basically a free-fire zone. Should be deleted until/unless independent secondary sources are available enabling the creation of a neutral, encyclopedic article. MastCell ^Talk 23:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 2 June 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ive found minimal coverage in other sources, plus the magazine has generated two books from a major imprint of one of the largest book publishers on earth. also removed some obviously poor content. I believe i have established the minimum of notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 400+ hits at Google News Archives, and just on the first few pages I find overwhelming evidence of third party coverage. There was a fracas over a breastfeeding cover[38][39]; a 1997 Albuquerque Journal article (reprinted in the Denver Post) commenting that "The magazine, once a fringe publication read by hippies, has taken on broader appeal because its long-championed controversial issues - such as breast feeding, circumcision and vaccinations - have more mass appeal in the 1990s."[40]; reports in other media of articles from this magazine[41][42][43]; a role in a legal battle[44]. It gets nominated for awards[45] and sometimes wins them[46]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable enough + good referenced. Aleksa Lukic (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 14:38, 8 June 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.