Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 28

< 27 July	29 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Beqiri

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF noq (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to have started life as an autobiography but it got cleaned up by enough other people to avoid deletion for that reason however notability never really got established properly. Being rector of a university sounds like a good step but the university in question, European Vision University, has a very low profile when Googled. Nothing at all in Google Scholar so I wonder if it is a large enough organisation to confer notability on its rector. Beqiri himself is not showing up much when Googled. Maybe language issues are hiding additional notability but it is not looking encouraging to me. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am from Kosovo and have never heard of him. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 01:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from London and their are thousands of notable Londoners that I've never heard of, so that is not in any way a reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant delete - Hesitant because nothing I can find in English establishes him as notable - virtually nothing at Google Books and Google Scholar. And the university where he is rector is only 4 years old, with possibly not enough of a reputation to enshrine its president/rector as notable. But the university's website is in Albanian, and it may be that most of his supporting documentation is too, so there might be info out there that I am not finding. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryde Panthers

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

No claim to notability. Search reveals little coverage in reliable secondary sources, apart from scores. Not likely to change. Stub for more then 4 years. Note redirect from Marsfield Soccer Club. Bleakcomb (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be a smattering of local sport league coverage but nothing in reliable sources. Just seems to be a run of the mill grassroots sporting club.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable team. Giant Snowman 21:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable social club.--Grahame (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Jujutacular ^talk 03:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dazer Laser

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

This article was previously created and shortly thereafter redirected to Dazzler (weapon). It has now been expanded as its own article, but has a single-product commercial tone to it. It was nominated for CSD, but I am declining and am changing to a AfD for further discussion. I do not believe it should be retained in its current form, but some information may be salvageable as a law-enforcement grade (as opposed to military grade) product category. Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Wikipedia rule is "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." It does. If there are disagreements over style and tone, that is for the talk page, not a deletion forum. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a trademark should not be used as a re-direct.... your really dont want to understand that.... also there are plenty of examples that cover xxx products for either military or commercial use.... simple example: Humvee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee).... and of course all the apple products... so if your contesting the way its writted please say specifically how if differes from all these examples... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannesdisilenti (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia rule that bars trademarks as redirects. There should be a standalone article if there is enough info available on the company and the product, and there is here. I started the entry for Dazer Laser, but got lazy, or maybe dazy and redirected it to the more general concept. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to work on the article... but some poeple here just want to delete by compulsion.... its impossible to let the community add material to make a solid article when you have trigger happy poeple reverting to original, deleting and now this... nobody wants to be proactive...

--Johannesdisilenti (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the sources I found were press releases and thereby not reliable sources, with the exception of a Deseret News article about the military dropping the project. Not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 00:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per nom. Şłџğģő 00:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most articles in this category follow equal referencing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannesdisilenti (talk • contribs) 00:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The volume of references is large enough to support the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.192.224 (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has no edits not connected with Dazer Laser except for ones which, to judge by the edit summary here, may be intended as "vengeance" for the nomination of Dazer Laser for deletion.

Delete the sources are either press releases or descriptions of a Dazzler (weapon) and not about what makes this specific product notable among that general category of weapon. Also, the article content is mostly non-sensible jargon ("Variable Range and Variable Focus, a patented technology") of the sort used to advertise but not inform. A third-party scientific critique or government report would go a long way to making this seem non-promotional, but I think none exists. Blue Rasberry 00:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the three "keep" comments above, only the one by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) makes any real attempt to address the question of sourcing. He says that the subject of the article "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but, having looked at the sources cited, I do not agree. Several of them are not independent sources, others, as Blue Rasberry has suggested, do not relate much to this particular product. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing ones used for notability and ones used for verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that you understand how Wiki works. A subject must be notable. You prove notability by using verifiable and reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. There are not some sources used for notability and others for verifiability. GregJackP Boomer! 00:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says: "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The first three show notability, the non-independent press releases are used to verify specific details of the product within the article. To point out the press releases and ignore the independent ones, is called the strawman fallacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CNET ref is almost a word for word copy of the Seattle TV report, and is not really another source - it even refers back to the Seattle article. There are really just 2 sources, hardly the "multiple" sources required. The press releases do not serve to verify anything, as the are not reliable, independent sources. GregJackP Boomer! 01:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a mathematical genius but last I checked two was still multiple, one is single. You still are confused between notability and verifiability, and I don't think I have the ability to teach you. There is no ban on using press releases to verify a fact, if there is please cut and paste the Wikipedia rule here. The CNET and Live5 are not work for word copies at all, and have two separate authors listed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may notice that all biographies of Abraham Lincoln are "almost word for word" copies too, they start with his birth, his law career, the civil war ... and all end with getting shot in the head." Its crazy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the rule banning a press release here is WP:SELFPUBLISH because the company issuing the press release is not currently a recognized expert in the field and may not be notable for anything other than this product, if it is even notable for that. I recognize that different authors are listed in various articles but language such as "puke ray," "No mention is made of tactical possibilities involving mirrors, reflective sunglasses etc," and "Especially if some of that green might be of the kind that Linda Blair offered in "The Exorcist," indicate that the authors have ignorant curiosity about the device, but do not indicate that they have any source of information about it beyond the press release. I am aware also that there is a claim of independent scientific review, but again, for such an extraordinary claim there should exist a statement from a reputable scientific authority and not a hired non-notable organization which communicates exclusively through the press releases of its employer. Blue Rasberry 04:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are prohibited per WP:SPS. I also didn't say exact word for word copies, but almost word for word copies, which is also the reason that we don't count news articles that are all based on the same AP item as separate sources for the purpose of coverage in multiple sources. There are only 2 real sources for this article, which does not rise to the level needed to show notability. GregJackP Boomer! 07:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is an AP article uses the AP byline. Can you show me the rule where multiple AP articles cannot be used? If you follow the AP feed you would know that the AP feed changes continuously as new facts are found. The AP feed from 10 am is not the same article as the one at 10 pm. The AP feed may contain 50 facts and the New York Times use 20 facts and the Washington Post use 20 facts, with 15 overlapping facts and 5 non-overlapping facts each. Look at the Google AP feed and then look at what different media outlets carry of that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, that rule reads: "self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Is your argument that the maker of the Dazer Laser is NOT an expert on the Dazer Laser? You appear to be moving your argument from the strawman fallacy to now grabbing at straws. Every article on a product or company uses their own website for verification of facts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am stating that the maker of the Dazer Laser is not an expert on the Dazer Laser until established as such by an independent third party, and I see nothing desperate about the claim so please entertain it. Products get removed from Wikipedia despite good documentation in self-published sources because there are no good sources from third parties; this is a common occurrence and this article is not special for being nominated for deletion because of this. The other sources covering this product are either basing their reports on the press releases or otherwise not supplying to a minimally acceptable extent such information which would make this product notable. Blue Rasberry 22:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are the one engaging in original research when you say: "the other sources covering this product are either basing their reports on the press releases ..." Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to be engaging in speculation. A reliable source is a reliable source is a reliable source. That they all contain the same information, well, duh. Unless they are going to invent facts, all the information comes from press releases or the companies PR department repeating what is in the companies press releases. That is is the nature of B-list reporting. And that is the Wikipedia definition of notability, when secondary news outlets take notice. There is no Wikipedia rule that demands an authoritative investigative report from an A-list journalist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are further correct that I am engaging in original research when I made that statement, but this is not the kind of WP:OR which is prohibited. Determination of whether a source meets WP:RS is by nature original research because that is a Wikipedia criteria to be applied by Wikipedia editors. I feel that you err when you suggest that it is natural that the press release is natural source (or the "duh" source) of information. The Seattle news source, for example, could have had a police officer say something about the device. Instead, the entirety of the report is that the company gave a sales pitch to the police department combined with their general press release. Other sources I might expect are perhaps a comment from a scientist in the field or a government report about regulating or approving this non-civilian weapon. I already mentioned references above saying that the device is a puke ray and making other jokes. This is not B-list reporting; this is yellow journalism and satire derived from an ad about a product designed by pseudoscience, and I say this with awareness that I came to that conclusion by OR and that the sources cited are generally reliable. Reliable sources sometimes publish articles which are less appropriate for citation than others because reporting is for entertainment as well as to give information. This references says that the device was supposed to sell US $200 million in units by the end of summer 2009; yet there is no source following up on this. I feel that enough time has passed with no new data to delete this article for now, and if the product really is as extraordinary as the claims, then eventually other sources will arise.

There is plenty of room here for us to have the same facts, understand each other, and still reach a different conclusion. You yourself say this is not the best reporting. Different people have different standards of what should be deleted; see deletionism. This article's sources currently are below my standards; maybe they are not below yours. Do we understand each other? Please correct me if you feel it is not appropriate for me to come to my conclusion in the way that I did. Blue Rasberry 05:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how do you geniuses explain the creation and sustain of the Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personnel_Halting_and_Stimulation_Response_rifle) article.... it has a single bogus article and yet its been there for a long time... this is how you do your mindless job as administrators... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.192.224 (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the current promotional content is annoying and needs to be fixed, this "puke ray" device is notable, whether one wants to call it innovative and humane, or controversial and dangerous. It's attracted national and worldwide attention recently and in the past, [1] [2]. The test is notability, not writing quality. Mandsford 20:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Mandsford that this topic has recieved significant coverage which makes it worthy of an article. Absolutely agree that it needs cosmetic work.

--Oykucum (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In dire need of work though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.222.15 (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources indicate notability. Wording concerns should be rectified by editing.--Pink Bull 17:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. 23:08, 28 July 2010 Athaenara (talk | contribs) deleted "Rodney Siziba" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Siziba as well) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Siziba

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

This article (Rodney Siziba) must be deleted immediately because im the author and its about me..and i want to delete it..i no longer want to play football, its been changed by anonymous editors who simply have nothing better to do with their pathetic lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickrodzz (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hwang

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

Delete Does not meet academic notability standards Bhickey (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He sounds fun, but he clearly does not pass WP:PROF or any of its factors. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. extransit (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Industrial

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

Delete: No evidence that genre is notable. As an aside, something needs to be done about this; maybe a CSD tag for bogus genres? C1k3 (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just another made-up genre. There is a certain spread of the term on the internet due to Ms. Autumns usage of it, but I can't find any relevant evidence for notability. -- Lacrimus (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not only is it not notable, it is not a real genre. Much like HIM's "Love Metal" it is a term that was made up by the artist in question. In order to be "Victorian Industrial" one would think she would have to at least play some derivative of industrial music, no? - ParadoxBacklash (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Would appear to be redundant to steampunk, the usual label. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. Over and over, articles of new or obscure genres are deleted. AfD is littered with such noms/deletions. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Jujutacular ^talk 04:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Steele

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

CitingWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argiris Karras as precedent, actors who are only notable for their appearance on "Degrassi: The Next Generation", and have little (ie. IMDb) to none sources, should be redirected to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. 117Avenue (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The Encyclopedia of Television has noticed this person and so we should do no less. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom. Agree with 117Avenue per WP:OSE. She's at least as notable as all those Pokémon characters. --Whoosit (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the precedent is to move or redirect the article and that is the goal of this discussion, than you can simply propose merger of the article on the articles talk page, since there has been no objection as of yet. I do however support a merger/redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The cited "precedent" resulted in a redirect without deletion; therefore, there is no basis for bringing the matter to AFD rather than pursuing normal editorial processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Schmidt

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

CitingWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argiris Karras as precedent, actors who are only notable for their appearance on "Degrassi: The Next Generation", and have little (ie. IMDb) to none sources, should be redirected to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. 117Avenue (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She appears to be in multiple projects outside of Degrassi. --KingMorpheus (talk) 06:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The cited "precedent" resulted in a redirect without deletion; therefore, there is no basis for bringing the matter to AFD rather than pursuing normal editorial processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator neglected to mention that a newspaper source did turn up at the previous AfD – an article about her from The Record [3]. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Earle

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

Citing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argiris Karras as precedent, actors who are only notable for their appearance on "Degrassi: The Next Generation", and have little (ie. IMDb) to none sources, should be redirected to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. 117Avenue (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The cited "precedent" resulted in a redirect without deletion; therefore, there is no basis for bringing the matter to AFD rather than pursuing normal editorial processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This actor also has quite a bit more than Degrassi and was not only involved in film but in theatre also and Charity work. His Charity work can not neccissarily be cited with a website by imbd. His page has more than other Degrassi stars and therefore should be kept. Also as said as above, the preceden is no basis for bringing matters to the AFD over the editing process. DegrassiTNGFan (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This charity work is the same as many other Degrassi actors. He isn't known for his charity work, so that doesn't make him notable. 117Avenue (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Basics

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

This article about a rapper/poet does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. There has been a {{notability}} tag on it since July 2009. I found one interview and added it to the article, but there's very little out there. Google search for "Al Basics" -wikipedia brings up a lot of pages but the few that are relevant are trivial mentions. ... discospinster _talk 22:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has no coverage in reliable sources. The Latino Hip Hop interview is not what I'd call a reliable source. It's essentially the work of "Cristopolis is a Latino Hip-Hop artist based out of Washington, DC, who fuses Latino rhythms & Hip-Hop with positive lyrics focusing on personal development." and is his blog. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. All I can find on Google are the usual suspects: his official website, Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MannaRelief

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

PROD-contested by article creator. Potentially non-notable per WP:ORG. Lacks third-party sources. Has a possible WP:COI issue. Possible cut-and-paste move or article recreation when created. Reads like an advert. elektrik SHOOS 21:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Organization does not seem notable. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 21:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content was written from scratch. Third-party source was added. How can others be invited to add content? Is there a specific place I can place a request.. such as an Article Request? jaredhimself ^talk 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no advertising was intended. It reads similar to that of other similar non-profit organization pages on Wikipedia. jaredhimself ^talk 22:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete: I'm also having significant trouble finding independent sources. I did find one that could be usable, but that seems to be the only one. However, if more can be found, I would be willing to change my vote. The weak part is simply because the COI issues, advert issues, and original cut-and-paste (now rectified) are no reasons to delete an article. It seems like this organization could prove to be notable, it just needs sources and more info. If those can't be provided, then delete. Evidence of notability is not coming forward as promised by the main editor, and it's seeming like the organization simply doesn't meet WP:CORP. GorillaWarfare ^talk 13:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and notable content added. Kruely (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)— Kruely (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The sources are unrelated to the company, only related to hunger information. No additional information asserting the notability of the organization seems to have been added. GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources support why the organization provides the nutrient delivery services. The context in which hunger is used relates to malnutrition and how current relief efforts aren't solving the problem of malnutrition. The organization works to correct, or add to, the current relief efforts by providing nutrient-dense supplements, which one of the sources (Doctors Without Borders) has called for. More information is still needed and, for the sake of the organization, hopefully it will be added. Kruely (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was simply coat-racking and providing not support for the notability of this organisation. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree -- a notable problem does not necessarily make an organization trying to fix the problem notable. GorillaWarfare ^talk 13:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Organisation fails WP:CORP. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without third party sources, this is simply too spammy. VQuakr (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Survivor: Heroes vs. Villians. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Hantz

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

Article is about a Survivor castaway that didn't win the million dollars. Old consensus was to merge, but i feel this person isn't notable for his own article. RobotSwept (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, he doesn't have his own article. The name redirects to the article about the applicable Survivor season. Zeng8r (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because RobotSwept redirected it to that season and then made this nomination. This is the version prior. [4] Tampabay721 (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Well, I have no opinion on this matter, but User:RobotSwept and his obvious sockpuppet User:Sleapaside have been causing minor mischief all afternoon, so I wouldn't take this nomination seriously. Zeng8r (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The previous AfD consensus was to merge with Survivor: Samoa, and I agree with it. I don't see why you see that to be a problem. You don't believe he's notable for his article, but merging combines this article with a preexisting article, thus getting rid of his own article... Perhaps you should read up on merging? GorillaWarfare ^talk 21:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Survivor Heros vs. Villains. He is not notable for any other reason then competing on the show two times (see WP:ONEEVENT). 66.194.187.100 (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.
Keep: One of most notable players of the game ever, subject of much coverage. Note also that the AFD tag has been removed from the article as a result of the premature redirect, thus depriving us of any comments from people looking for the article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I reinstated article and AFD notice, would recommend relisting since 7 days are almost up and article wasn't tagged. Also saying "Article is about a Survivor castaway that didn't win the million dollars" is meaningless as to whether GNG is met. The world, and Wikipedia, is full of notable losers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted that nominator has been blocked. Oh what high school bollocks.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the nominator AND the nominator's sock AND perhaps two or more socks that might have been the same person have been blocked since this nomination was made. Like I said, this was not a serious nomination made for serious people. Zeng8r (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Just like I noted in the prior AFD result, his accomplishments outside of Survivor are not notable, and hence, there is nothing here that can't be covered in the Survivor articles. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The prior AFD occurred before the 2nd appearance aired, and he came in 2nd again (and won the 100,000 fan prize a 2nd time in a row). In notability terms, the coverage grew greatly after the 2nd time round.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Survivor: Samoa or Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains per WP:ONEEVENT. His accomplishments really don't exist outside of Survivor, and all the information is already covered in the Survivor articles. —Untitledmind⁷² (let's talk + contribs) 23:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Survivor: Heroes vs. Villians. He accomplishments outside the show aren't really aricle worthy. 203.117.33.23 (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:ONEEVENT. 64.134.64.120 (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maturity road mapping

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

No coherent content. Comprises mainly lists of management buzzwords, with a few homely observations. No sourcing for the title "Maturity road mapping". Tagged for notability for a year. Fayenatic (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the other hand, Maturity road map or roadmap appears to be a valid technical term in project management, with about 50 ghits on Scholar and 20 on Books. I think that's what this article is meant to be about. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Perhaps an article could be written on the subject. Nevertheless, this page is not it. I can't see anything in it worth keeping. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I would speedy delete this as something that no one can be reasonably expected to make sense of. Complete bollocks, patent nonsense, and that other thing besides: a general procedure to increase the speed and reduce the cost of achieving the maturity condition in a process, product or an organization and with similar approach like PDCA and we call it as productivity management.... Plan, Do & Modify, PDM cycle is a closed loop like PDCA that shows the inter relation of three elements for improvement. Instead of the elements check and action the modify that consists both of mentioned items is proposed.... Nature and biology is a good sample and we can use the human general characteristic stability by DNA repairin genome..... optimization is another result of MRMM and like process optimization or product optimization is a logic to improve process or product or organization by help of operations research and (section ends here}.... Probably meant to sell something, too, but too incoherent to make a sale. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a fine article, but it is entirely original research and fun links. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A9 deleted by Gdonato. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surf Crazy (album)

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A9 as none of the artists seem to have articles. No notability asserted, we don't even know the label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Irving

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

This article is about a musician which does not establish notability. His main claim to notability is as a film score composer. His IMDB profile confirms he has done scores for film and TV. But I can find no coverage about him. Nor can I find any indication of awards or other recognition that would establish him as a notable musician. Whpq (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not finding any third-party sources on him whatsoever. GorillaWarfare ^talk 22:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmosis (figure of speech)

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

Maybe I'm having a bad googling day, but I can't even find a single use of such a word. It doesn't even appear to be a neologism. Original contributor (User:Tryforceful) is on a years long wikihiatus and unlikely to elaborate what the term means. Bxj (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a really peculiar one, it looks like it was tagged onto a band article and then split out as its own article. Are we dealing with a neologism? A hoax? Original research? A legitimate article on an arcane topic, albeit improperly footnoted??? Who knows... Fails verifiability, feels dictionary-definition-y, smacks of original research — take your pick. Carrite (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, seems like a hoax, OR, or something. No references to it outside of Wikipedia that I'm seeing, other than on some band page... If this is kept for some reason, it should at the very least get a {{confusing}} tag... GorillaWarfare ^talk 22:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to fail WP:V. Word does not appear in Lanham's Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, in the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, or in the Oxford English Dictionary. Deor (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harty the clown

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

Non-notable person. References indicate insignificant coverage only. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Non-notable, no third-party sources that I can find. I'd say speedy delete per A7. GorillaWarfare ^talk 22:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alphabet murders. Courcelles (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Maenza

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

Not notable beyond being a victim of the Alphabet murders. See the WP:VICTIM and WP:BIO1E guidelines. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Redirect to Alphabet murders.
Redirect: I agree, redirect to Alphabet murders. Perhaps merge in the part about the club that was founded after her death. GorillaWarfare ^talk 22:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alphabet murders per GW and per WP:BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 as copypaste hoax, deleted by Gdonato. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Fox

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

No evidence that this award exists. Editor who created this article also created Pelham Publishing which has also been AfD'd for no evidence of existing. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

The article contains material cut and pasted from other Wikipedia articles with key words changed. For example compare this sentence from the article:

Initially, two awards were given, one for fiction (or imaginative writing), the other for non-fiction work, but in 1993, a poetry award in honour of John Beymer was added.

With this sentence from The Age Book of the Year:

Initially, two awards were given, one for fiction (or imaginative writing), the other for non-fiction work, but in 1993, a poetry award in honour of Dinny O'Hearn was added.

Green Cardamom (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - How can an award by a NN organization (redlinked) qualify as notable? None of the links can be considered "significant" coverage as required by WP:GNG … Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{20:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 as copy-pasted hoax, deleted by Gdonato. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pelham Publishing

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

Unable to find anything on Google that this publisher exists. The editor who created this article also created Golden Fox which I will also be AfD'ing as having no evidence of existing. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further notes:

More evidence of a bogus article: Sentences have been copied and pasted from other Wikipedia articles with key words changed. For example

"The early Pelhams were somewhat similar in appearance to the existing paperbacks of Pocket Books"

Compare that with this sentence from Avon (publishers):

"The early Avons were somewhat similar in appearance to the existing paperbacks of Pocket Books"

There are other examples like this. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

José Manuel Hernández Hernández

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

This article about a Canarian politician fails WP:POLITICIAN. He may have been a local councillor and once stood for national office but that is it and there are no RS out there. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, but even if everything in the article is true, he still fails WP:POLITICIAN. Having run unsuccessfully for national office does not qualify one as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11 WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Street Marketing

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

Non-notable company. Claims of notability relate to the company's awards, but these all appear to be rather indiscriminate awards. The "Healthcare Advertising Award", for example, lists 25 pages of winners for 2010. Other awards are similarly indiscriminate, and therefore do not really signify any particular notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to userspace at User:Pathare Prabhu/Pathare Prabhu Community's Ancient links. Frank | talk 07:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pathare Prabhu Community's Ancient links:

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

Contested PROD. Original PROD nomination was on the grounds that this was complete original research. I contend that this is still the case, and thus unsuitable for inclusion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete because - WTF? Is this some sort of completely unsourced history? -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G7, deleted by Gdonato. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Crow (2011 film)

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

PROD-contested. Per WP:CRYSTAL. elektrik SHOOS 19:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the author blanked the page but it was reverted by another editor for some reason. Unless the author states otherwise, move to close per DB-G7. elektrik SHOOS 21:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsey Montgomery

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

Fails WP:BIO with only passing mention in obscure sources and no indication of notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After sorting through all the assertions of notability which are really assertions of notability for his relatives, as best as I can figure, his main claim is that of being the author of 4 choose your own adventure books. Not particularly notable as evidenced by the lack of significant coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Julia Bender

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial, WP:BLP1E; yes, it's an inspiring and sad story, but it doesn't meet notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that notability is questionable. — Timneu22 · talk 18:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason for writing a Wikipedia bio page for her was that Wiki has the list of Venus crater names (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_craters_on_Venus#B) and Heidi's is one of the few without a bio link. That's now corrected unless this bio is deleted. Is it Wikipedia's position that some individuals recognized as notable by governmental organizations (in this case, the U.S. Geological Survey and the International Astronomical Union) are not notable enough for inclusion in Wiki? Hjbender1 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the person is only notable for this one thing, why not just add a sentence in the related article? — Timneu22 · talk 20:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what you mean by "related article". The only article on Wiki related to Heidi is this one. Hjbender1 (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the Venus crater article. That was obvious from context. — Timneu22 · talk 00:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Wikipedia Venus crater article seems intended to be an exact reflection of the USGS and IAU planetary names listing except the names on the Wiki page include links to their Wikipedia bios. No other explanatory info is included for anyone else. Are you saying that, in this case, an exception should be made? 96.231.149.245 (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having an astronomical feature named after you is not one of the criteria mentioned in our WP:BIO notability policy. The majority of the individuals on the crater list you mention are notable for other reasons, not because they are on that list. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Basic Criterion in WP:BIO is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The first element in Additional Criteria is "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." It seems to me that Heidi definitely satisfies those criteria for notability in Wikipedia. Are you suggesting other criteria supersede those? Also, as you must be aware, nobody on the crater list is notable for being on the list! All, including Heidi, have achieved that recognition for other reasons. Hjbender1 (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, what are the reasons? — Timneu22 · talk 00:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The specific reasons the USGS and IAU chose to honor Heidi probably were done in internal discussions. The notation on her listing shows her to be an author and artist. The IAU said in a letter, "Heidi is the only child for whom a crater on Venus has been named. While she doesn't have the quantity of substantial works of other authors and artists, the USGS and the IAU recognized that a child who accomplishes so much in such a short time under such duress, and has had such a positive effect on so many people, is famous indeed." 96.231.149.245 (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        — 96.231.149.245 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. I cannot find enough significant secondary source material to support an article about her at this time. "Artist and author" is not precisely accurate; the Make-a-Wish foundation printed some of her work, but it doesn't appear to have been published, or reviewed in any significant way. Although there does appear to be a crater named for her, I can't find any journal articles that discuss that, or any published work that discusses it. The phrase 'famous indeed' is used, in this context, to affirm that she was important to the people who loved her, even though she was not 'famous' in the more traditional sense of the word. The article includes no independently published secondary sources, and I wasn't able to find any with my own search. I'm sorry, because I'm sure that this article was created by someone who knew and loved her, but I don't think this material is right for Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sad, but not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heidi's life was not sad - it was inspirational to a great many people, including First Lady Barbara Bush, 20 years ago. Heidi was considered notable enough by the international astronomy community to be the only child for whom a crater on Venus was named. When you say, "'Artist and Author' is not precisely accurate" you might also note, on the same Venus crater page, that Catherine Beecher is shown as an "author" and Sarah Bernhardt is an "actress" and, of course, they have Wikipedia bio pages. The Venus crater naming people were very brief in their descriptions of people. Also, just for clarification, Lucky Books and Berryville Graphics published Heidi's book, from a request by the Make-A-Wish foundation. What would be sad is if visitors curious about that named crater couldn't find bio info because Wikipedia's managers decided she wasn't notable. Is that what you want to indicate to the US Geological Survey and the International Astronomical Union? Wouldn't that show an arbitrariness that lessens the goal of Wikipedia to be a complete reference source? If the current bio has issues, those can be edited and corrected. Let's just make it better. Hjbender1 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look, Hjbender1... the consensus is becoming clear here. There's no need for you to reply to every single "delete" comment and complain. People can have opinions one way or the other, but when the same person replies to every delete statement, it's frankly quite tiresome. Your position is quite known on this issue. Thank you. — Timneu22 · talk 12:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is why I offered to delete the article for you immediately, when you posted it- so you wouldn't have to experience the AfD discussion, which can be unpleasant. I tried to communicate the rules to you in a way that would help you to see that this subject didn't work, and gave you a chance to request deletion, because I know these discussions can be an unpleasant experience. You can let the discussion run its course, you can provide independent, reliable sources that show how this person meets the notability criteria, or you can request deletion. Your reasoning, however, isn't useful at all without sources- nothing you say that doesn't include sources will affect the discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, the discussion can be quite exasperating, especially when people cite Wikipedia policies and criteria incorrectly ("doesn't meet notability guidelines") and ignore independent, reliable sources (as explained in independent, reliable sources) that I've presented. Everything I've done conforms to Wikipedia's documented expectations, but that doesn't seem to matter in this discussion. Don't know what you want. Hjbender1 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Last comment on the matter It's also exasperating when someone new to Wikipedia asserts that three editors, two of whom have been editing since 2006 and one who has been editing since 2005, don't understand policy. There are many other ways to memorialize a loved one on the web, as FisherQueen has kindly pointed out. Wikipedia is not one of them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        User:Hjbender1, you say you presented reliable sources- I'm afraid I have missed them, and I thought I'd reviewed everything you've posted on this subject. By reliable sources, we mean published sources, like newspaper articles, magazine articles, and books about her- I didn't see where you presented those, and if you have, it would definitely affect this discussion. Could you add them to the article, or share them here, or link to where you presented them? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        New users have as much right to argue a case as established users, but it is important that these debates centre on WP policy, not emotion. They should never become personal and established users should know assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Having said that, new users (particularly those who want to be taken seriously) should also take the effort to learn Wikipedia policy and understand that the encyclopedia is a collaborative effort and, therefore, have to let these debates run their course. Having got that off my chest, I'll move on to the actual debate in question! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The guidelines for determining the notability of a biographical entry are set out in WP:BIO, which states that 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.". Based on this definition, there is a prima facie argument for notability. This is not just a simple memorial or sad story. The fact that the individual has been recognised and honoured by a notable third party organisation does add a level of interest beyond what is usual. The main problem with the article, as I see it, is the lack of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, which is required for verifiability. If the claim of notability can't be verified, then we have a problem. In this case, the one thing that makes this subject unusual (and therefore arguably a candidate for notability) is referenced with a primary source (the letter from the International Astronomical Union). Successfully meeting the notability requirement would require a secondary source or sources - in other words, other people need to find it interesting or unusual enough to write about it. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case here. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added an endnote to Bender in List_of_craters_on_Venus with a little information about Heidi Julia Bender, as per Timneu22's suggestion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CashCard

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

This product is one of many products covered in the Debit card article. As a stored-value card in a limited market, it does not seem particularly notable in its own right. There are also, by the way, other products called Cashcard, such as this Australian product: cashcard.com.au Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as commercial spam, or Merge to Debit card. Maybe we should take a look at EZ-Link while we're at it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anson Montgomery

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

Fails WP:BIO. No references forthcoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:N --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:AUTHOR, which sets out the notability criteria for creative professionals, including authors, suggests that one of the following must be true for an author to be considered notable:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

In the case of Anson Montgomery, there is no evidence, supported by reliable secondary sources, that any of the above are met. Given that he is, according to the article, an original author of the Choose Your Own Adventure series, it could be argued that he has contributed to the development of a "significant new concept", but it seems that it was actually his father R. A. Montgomery who was the originator, as this article confirms. There is certainly a case for including multiple Choose Your Own Adventure authors in the main article on the series, but Anson Montgomery, in his own right, does not meet WP's notability requirements for authors. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Dragon Trojan Horse Virus

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

No third-party coverage, partially written like a how-to guide, and states "recently created", which is a) inappropriate for an encyclopedia article and b) an indication that this is probably not notable. — Timneu22 · talk 16:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sounds like a pile of horsebleep. "As mentioned before, computers are not prone to the virus if their bandwidth stays constant and does not significantly drop, as when it drops, the security lessens and more viruses are allowed to enter." Really? "This virus is able to spread to other computers in the network of the infected computer, thus it is advisable to disconnect the infected computer from the current network, and when past bandwidth is achieved, it should be reconnected and removed if possible." So with no network, how does one achieve the past bandwidth? And in any case, neither F-secure nor McAfee have it listed in their virus databases. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it's the Speed of viruses? Well, I can't find any sources for it, so delete. Reach Out to the Truth 18:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources mention this. Google search couldn't find it. Even the one reference in the article doesn't mention it. Hoax? First Light (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Richard Bailey

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

A high school kid who ran for office and lost. Seems to fail WP:BIO. — Timneu22 · talk 15:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:N --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria. The claim regarding him being the youngest is unsourced and even if it is true, it would deserve, at best, a line in the relevant constituency article. Valenciano (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of how much coverage he may have received for his candidacy, he would only be notable for one event.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN, which states that "being...an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." There is no significant coverage in reliable, independant sources to establish notability of this failed candidate. Perhaps he will be successful in his political career and establish notability in the future, but it does not exist at present. Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piedmont Valley, South Dakota

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

Delete Not notable. Piedmont Valley is not a named populated place in South Dakota, and the article as written duplicates some of what is already in the Piedmont article. This article appears to be synthesis. Piedmont is in a valley, so someone created an article titled "Piedmont Valley." There is no officially named place in South Dakota called "Piedmont Valley" per the Geographic Names Information System, which as been generally viewed in other Afds as a minimum standard (but by no means the only standard) by which to justify an article. The only google hits for Piedmont Valley, South Dakota seem to be aggregators that key off any "Place, State" search, or are links that reference back to this Wiki article. Searching for Piedmont Valley, South Dakota without quotation marks finds two businesses; Piedmont Valley Lutheran Church and a bank's branch location. The Red Valley or Race Track mentioned in the article is a named geographic feature that circles the Black Hills.[5] I think these items would be more appropriately included in the Piedmont or Black Hills articles rather than a stand alone article with little to no available reliable sources supporting the name. DCmacnut <> 15:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There does not appear to be such a place as "Piedmont Valley." Not even a once-occupied hamlet, or a dot on some government map, or a name used in a Census, such as have been used to justify article on places which fail general notability. When I try "Piedmont Vally" in Google map, it finds no such place and points to "Piedmont, Virginia," which also has a valley. Fails verifiability. Even if someone used it as a mere description ("I plan to buy a farm somewhere in the Piedmont valley.") with valley lower case, that is not sufficient to justify an article. Edison (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary article about what many would simply call Meade County, South Dakota. We also have an (older) article about Piedmont, South Dakota, and this seems to be one of a couple of SD-related contributions by an editor now long gone. Mandsford 17:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. I significantly improved the other Piedmont article a few weeks ago, but it still has a long way to go. As originally written, both it at the Valley article had much of the same text. It makes no sense to have two articles about pretty much the same topic. Piedmont is now an incorporated city, and I plan to significantly expand and improve it as 2010 Census data becomes available.DCmacnut<> 19:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking of what a shame it was that we had this, and lacked Piedmont Butte (which I turned up when looking for sources on this). Uncle G (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Piedmont Valley, South Dakota per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect "Piedmont Valley, South Dakota" to "Piedmont Valley, South Dakota"? That sounds like driving down the street and making four right turns... Mandsford 15:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Piedmont, South Dakota is what was meant? Mjroots (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Names that were invented for a Wikipedia article must be deleted. Redirection would benefit only one person, the article's creator. Abductive (reasoning) 02:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buttergate

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

Prod removed by author; original rationale by Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) was "Non-notable neologism, seems to have been made up by a one or a couple of people on Facebook."

For my part I also say delete per Dabomb87. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's unclear, I still say delete per my PROD rationale; Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Free Press

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable blog (yes, it says it's a distributed newspaper, but it's been a website since Dec 2008 [6]. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; it's a free, biweekly newspaper with an unveriifed but admittedly small circulation, handed out to promote a partisan viewpoint (as it freely admits on its "about us" page [7]). Its only claim to fame is that it was once noticed by the Washington Post. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's actually embarrassing that it hasn't disappeared yet. --Travis Thurston+ 02:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular ^talk 04:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boys & Girls 1+1=3

Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added some information about it, it went double platinum in Malaysia and received awards. Let me know if this is substantial enough - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Comment - So, the truth is I initially added this album simply because it contained a song (Bedroom Window) that I randomly stumbled upon a few years earlier and really liked and not because I thought it was notable; this is when I didn't understand the particulars of notability. I was aware of the accolades it received (seen in nicestupidplayground edits) but I failed to mention any of it here and the article remained that way until Koavf put it up in AfD. After some research, I believe that it is notable (and admittedly not with the best resources). I can't seem to find any "official" record of its success in sales, just several mentions of it, like Doomsdayer has said, in band biographies and news articles. I think that if there was a record of it, it would be here, but the english version of the site seems limited.

It is likely that I'm only supporting it because a. I like the song, and b. I did work in it, but I understand that that is not enough hah. On the other hand, if the consensus is tending towards deletion, I would ask for an extension until more may be found, if what is currently there is insufficient. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rd comment - I found one! check the billboard reference - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - The info added by Theornamentalist is useful but the sources are pretty much all passing mentions or basic listings without commentary (such as the AllMusic page). The only proof we have so far of double-platinum status and awards in Malaysia is also in passing in articles that are otherwise about one of the bands in the compilation. I would consider Week Keep as a true vote here but more evidence of success in Malaysia is needed. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a well-filled out article at this point. ResMar 04:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Insufficient reason by nominator and the article easily meets the general notability guidelines. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough in my opinion. Jenks24 (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland toast

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

Do I really need to explain why this unverified article, which borders on nonsense, needs to be deleted from Wikipedia? Click on the Google links to gauge the notability of this term. Drmies (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a strong sense of sentiment and nostalgia - Wikipedia is not for things made up while severely jet-lagged. (Oh, yeah: No sources provided or found.) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a canonical example of making things up one day. People decide to make up their own name for something that they happened to do one day, and then write a Wikipedia article falsely claimining to have invented it. I've bad news for the false claimants. Standing on chairs to make a toast is documented in sources as going back to at least the 18th century. The U.S. Marines perform toasts at Mess Nights standing on chairs. See ISBN 9781425984489 and ISBN 9780888790279 for more, including the Toast of the Toronto Scottish Regiment (one foot on chair, one on the table) and toasts to James II of England which also involved standing on chairs. This article is just total rubbish from top to bottom. Uncle G (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I look forward to your DYK for Toasts performed standing on chairs. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there an Americans with Disabilities Act compliant version? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added some of the information to mess night. Uncle G (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because it is complete nonesense. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an appropriate article subject. VQuakr (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per my prod rationale. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems that "a group of friends" in California like to stand on their chairs while toasting. Fascinating story, thanks for sharing it with us, buh-bye. Mandsford 17:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone wants to preserve it as an example of what not to write, esp. for something made up one day, which its a pretty ideal example.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I only see one on Google, but I do not see something not related to this article. JJ98 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V so it needs to go. However, plenty of trouts to go around for failure to assume good faith and for accusing the creator of creating a hoax. This actually might be a regional but undocumented term. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Express

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

There is some disagreement over whether this company meets Wikipedia's notability criteria or not. I removed the prod tag and sent it to AfD, because I think a discussion would be more useful in this situation. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a franchise organization that connects small and medium enterprises with light parcel and freight partners. For a commercial business to warrant an encyclopedia article, more than mere existence must be shown; they must have historical, technical, or cultural significance of the kind that leads to long term historical notability. This article makes no such case. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ukexpat-

Here is the discussion previously held with FisherQueen:

Hey there Im very confused about the deletion request for this article. I simply stumbled across this business and chose it to write an article about. I have to create a page as part of my senior project at Ohio University and this is what i chose. I made sure not to advertise and i even researched references. A similar site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unishippers doesnt even provide references and has very similar characteristics yet hasnt been deleted. Instead of deleting the article, could someone just help me understand how to make it acceptable so i dont fail this project? I would really apprecite it and am willing to make any changes necessary. Thank you, cc121507 Cc121507 (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC) We get so many people coming to Wikipedia to write about their own (non-notable) businesses that a lot of us have kind of a hair-trigger for new business articles... in this case, though, another person removed the tag because she agreed with you that the tone wasn't promotional. That's Wikipedia for you- just a big pile of people in perpetual disagreement with each other, and in the end, it all works. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Since then you have requested deletion of the article i wrote based on lack of credibility. Since then, I have added more reliable, third-party references. What else needs to be done to satisfy the requirements?

Any help is much appreciated, Cc121507 (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I reformatted this text to make it appear at the bottom rather than before the name in this discussion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes I saw your note on the talk page. If you can cite some significant coverage in reliable sources all will be well, but at the moment this looks like one of thousands of non-notable companies out there. – ukexpat (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my next question would be this. How is the site Unishippers existing without a single reference and dodging deletion. What is that page doing that mine is not? Cc121507 (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the fact that other articles exist is often dismissed as an unconvincing argument in a deletion debate, for the reasons set forth in that essay, I'm always glad to receive these tips. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what is there that I can do in order for Worldwide Express to remain? If this page is deleted i receive a failing grade on my senior project at Ohio University. I would really appreciate any pointers. Cc121507 (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above - cite some significant coverage in reliable sources that establishes notability. You and your college professor should also read our advice for school and university projects. – ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the company is not notable enough to justify a separate article; Cc121507 remind your prof of WP:SUP. Dewritech (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Smerdis. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:CORP. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider deletion as i have provided a reference showing that the organization has had a cultural impact. The company attended a fundraiser to fight cancer. thanks, Cc121507 (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that is meritorious but doesn't create the kind of notability which is required here. Dewritech (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Relisting request is denied as there is sufficient consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Spring Cafe

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

No coverage beyond local (Huntsville pop <200,000). ^Bongo_matic 13:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. WP:N and more specifically WP:CORP state that we need non-local coverage from independent sources to establish notability.Griswaldo (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject is the focus of decades of news articles and meets the explicit WP:CORP standard of "one regional, national, or international source" with regional coverage by the Alabama Department of Tourism. Opened in 1928, Big Spring Cafe is the oldest restaurant in a metro area of a half-million people and one of the oldest in the Southeastern United States. - Dravecky (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional materials from the Alabama Department of Tourism do not qualify as a reliable source of notability.Griswaldo (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the source in question and it certainly does not qualify.Griswaldo (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is your assertion that the State of Alabama is not a reliable source of information or that it is not independent of this restaurant? The brochure is not an indiscriminate directory but a carefully selected, very exclusive listing. (Only 4 Huntsville restaurants made the cut and only 1 in Birmingham, Alabama's largest city.) I contend that it certainly does qualify as a reliable, independent source for this purpose. - Dravecky (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does promotional material of this nature not constitute reliable sources, but "Chili burger & slaw dog at Big Spring Cafe, 256-539-9994" (the entire mention of the restaurant in the brochure) does not in any case constitute "significant coverage". To the contrary, it is explicitly excluded under the "Depth of coverage" section of WP:CORP. ^Bongo_matic 20:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not about simply counting sources; it's about determining historical and cultural significance of the sort that makes for long term historical notability. This article establishes that this restaurant has been in operation since 1928 and as such is a local landmark that's influenced its town's cuisine for several generations. That's the kind of significance we need to be looking for in an article about a commercial business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly describing only local "historical and cultural significance" -- "local landmark that's influenced its town's cuisine for several generations". The guideline you linked, WP:CORP asks for non-local sources precisely to establish notability outside of small localities like Huntsville. I'm not sure I understand your rationale. It appears to shoot itself in the foot.Griswaldo (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsville is not a "small locality". It is, in fact, the third-largest city in Alabama and the population of the metro area is comparable to the population of Washington, DC, or the entire state of Montana. Even so, is the size of the city a determining factor? Not to run afoul of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but would the same logic be used against Cole's Pacific Electric Buffet, the oldest restaurant in Los Angeles, which is also sourced to 'local' news sources? - Dravecky (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why we have WP:OTHERSTUFF - because while these entries seem similar in your comparison they are not. A quick google books search shows that Coles is clearly quite notable. The current state of the entry needs to be improved, but it can be improved with non-local material where the Big Spring entry cannot.Griswaldo (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant coverage in secondary WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request re-listing as opposed to closing this now in order to get more community input. There is an ongoing discussion about restaurant notability, and another recent AfD closed with no consensus. It would be good to get more comments here too.Griswaldo (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Where else could one seek input without it being considered canvassing? Would notifying the people involved in the discussions about restaurants at the relevant policy page, WP:CORP be OK? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been listed in the business-related deletion discussion for more than a week so any genuinely interested editor has had plenty of notice and time to weigh in. WP:CORP is not the only policy at work in this discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Huntsville is not a small community — it's not as if this were a newspaper from Huntsville, Ohio — and thus its major newspaper is a major regional source. State government sources are definitely reliable, and there's more to it than the menu and phone number: by including the restaurant at all, the state source is saying that this is a highly important restaurant. We have enough coverage from the Huntsville Times upon which to establish an encyclopedia article, and statewide coverage to show that it's not just locally known. Yes, restaurants aren't all notable, but if one gets this kind of coverage, there's no good reason to say that it's not worthy of an encyclopedia article for notability reasons; deleting it won't help the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is not state source calling this a "highly important restaurant". There is a tourism source that names it as a location to eat at when in the state ... for marketing purposes. The source does not discuss the importance of the restaurant at all, it advertises it when advertising the state.Griswaldo (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note that Huntsville, Alabama is not a region, it is a locality, however big or small one claims it is. WP:CORP asks for regional coverage as the bare minimum, not local coverage. The Huntsville Times has a circulation of 57,000, btw.Griswaldo (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme "Jacko" Johnstone

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

This article is about an Australian journalist that fails to meet notability as it lacks reliable sources. The subject appears to have held a variety of positions at a variety of papers but I can find no sources writing about him, and providing any sort of verification of the material. All that I can ascertain is that that he did indeed write a play called The Playmakers. Whpq (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: The article states he has a daughter named Caitlin Johnstone and the article was created by User:Caitlin Johnstone, and 3 years later edited by User:Caitoz. It's likely that the material in the article is based on personal knowledege (WP:OR), and would explain why sourcing is so difficult. It also calls into question verifiability as that is always an issue when the primary editor(s) of an article have a conflict of interest. -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the unsourced information written by the subject's daughter were removed there would simply be an unsourced stub remaining. The article fails notability criteria as there is a lack of independent coverage and the information in the article cannot be verified. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 14:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In theory he may be notable, but I couldn't find any sources after searching for about 20 minutes.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was unable to locate sufficient RS on the author himself. I did find one review [8] from a historical society about the book. Unfortunately, that neither reaches the WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR, nor is it enough to rework the article as being about the book via WP:BOOKS. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm generally ultra-inclusionist about politicians, journalists, and other public figures... But even I have my limits: Along with his gap-toothed smile and his extravagant taste in bow-ties, he is best known for his column A Place in the Sun in The Sun News-Pictorial, previously written by Keith Dunstan, Melbourne, from 1985 to 1993 which he combined a larrikin sense of humour with whimsical insights on daily life. One would hope that if this article is kept, it is rendered into less of a memorial and more of a true intellectual biography. Carrite (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular ^talk 04:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MobileQs

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

This is an article about a BlackBerry game that fails the general notability guideline as it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Both publishers are currently redlinks so there is no place to redirect this. Them From Space 11:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This game has recieved a lot of press and publicity from several authoritative mobile gameing internet sites:

~~Keep~~ This game is a top-10 mobile games on dozens of networks. Here is the game on the 4 major blackberry networks:
- http://www.handango.com/catalog/SearchResults.jsp?storeId=2218&Ntt=mobileqs
- http://appworld.blackberry.com/webstore/content/8549
- http://software.crackberry.com/product.asp?id=55193
- http://www.mobihand.com/product.asp?id=55193
- Top 10 list (currently #9): http://www.mobihand.com/platformMain.asp?platform=5&Category=8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MalibuTheCat (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous poster (accidentally) !voted twice. Them From Space 20:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it were #1 in games for the blackberry, it might be notable. But the only thing it is really is a best seller in is the very small category of trivia games for the blackberry. But there are no RS's: the postings above are blog postings, not editorial mention or reviews. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I too am not convinced by the sources given above. –MuZemike 02:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular ^talk 04:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Perriman

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

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

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

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

This article was developed through this paid-editing bid on odesk.com. It is very puffed up, and the subject doesn't meet the general notability guideline or the specific notability guideline for authors. She isn't considered by many to be authoritative or innovative in her field, she hasn't developed any significant concepts, her collective output isn't notable, and the attention devoted to is isn't significant. Her publishers, Inka Publications and the Cambridge Scholars Press, are both relatively small and nonnotable. There are also serious conflict of interest and promotional issues here. Them From Space 11:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Delete & Comment If the Cambridge Scholars Press is non-notable, then shouldn't its WP article be deleted. I don't like the idea that some people, as expressed by the listing at this paid-editing bid, view Wikipedia as a personal depository. While WP editors may suggest the creation of new articles, I doubt that WP officials preauthorized the creation of this article. Since most of the references are not internet accessible, verification is difficult. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would disagree with the comments above. Penguin books is a major international publisher which certainly gives the author legitimacy. The content was edited earlier today and now looks pretty factual. I expect that the writer did not know Wikipedia markup language such as adding a picture to Wikipedia, so I would find that asking someone to do this is a fair ask for a non-technical person. MalibuTheCat (talk · contribs)
- Comment It looks like the author has some pretty good scholarly credentials, beyond the Ph.D. & Penguin books, she is listed in the Poetry Encyclopia, won a bunch of scholarly awards, has had other works published by Johns Hopkins, is accredited by the Willa Cather & Emily Dickinson society (and has written the forward for other Dickinson books), society of American Women Writers, Journal of American History, American literature association, has spoken at schoarly conferences for these authors, and has been reviewed by other top scholars in the field. It sounds like she is one of the world's leading experts in the topic.
  - “PERRIMAN Wendy K(aren).” International Who’s Who in Poetry and Poets’ Encyclopedia (Eighth Edition, 1997) p. 280.
  - Casperson School of Graduate Prizes in English. “Awards and Fellowships.” Drew University. http://depts.drew.edu/engl/Awards%20and%20Prizes/Awards.htm. Retrieved July 2010.
  - Sarah Hare-Lidman (Winter 1995). “Women Who Write: Success Stories.” Writers’ Notes. p. 6.
  - Dr. Maryanne Garbowsky (November December 2007,Volume 19, Number 2) “Book Review.” Emily Dickinson International Society Bulletin. p. 29.
  - Book Announcement. “Recent Scholarship.” Journal of American History http://www.historycooperative.org/cgibin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/90.4/rs_16.html. Retrieved July 2010.
  - Annie Finch (The Emily Dickinson Journal Vol. 17, No. 2, Fall 2008) “My Father Dickinson: On Poetic Influence.” The Johns Hopkins University Press. http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/emily_dickinson_journal/v017/17.2.finch.html. Retrieved July 2010.
  - Society for the Study of American Women Writers (Thursday November 9, 2006). “Narratives of Healing: Nineteenth Century Constructions of Writing and Wellness” – Session One. http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/ssaww/ConferenceProgram2006.pdf Retrieved July 2010.
  - The American Literature Association (Friday May 23, 2008) “Toni Morrison and Warfare” – Session 10-E. http://www.calstatela.edu/academic/english/ala2/ala%202008%20program.doc
  - Dr. Merrill Skaggs (2009) “Foreword” to Willa Cather and the Dance: “A Most Satisfying Elegance” (NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2009). p. 11-13
  - Wendy K. Perriman (Wednesday June 2, 2010) “Willa Cather and the Dance.” Willa Cather 2010 Spring Conference. http://www.willacather.org/conferences/spring-conference . Retrieved July 2010.
  - Drew University Library (Issue 18, Fall 2005) “Cather Colloquium.” Plenary Speaker. p5. http://www.drew.edu/depts/library.aspx?id=5781. Retrieved July 2010.
  - Willa Cather Archive. “Cather Studies, Volume 6.” University of Nebraska-Lincoln http://cather.unl.edu/cs006_contributors.html. Retrieved July 2010.
  - Dr. J.W. Hall (November 2008) “Book Review” – Wendy K. Perriman’s “Dancing behind the Veil: Willa Cather’s Literary Choreography in A Lost Lady in Joseph R. Urgo and Merrill Maguire Skaggs’ Willa Cather: New facts, New Glimpses, Revisions (NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2007. http://www.fdupress.org/book_reviews_scholarly/9780838641354_JW_Hall_University_of_Mississippi_-_Choice_November_2008.html. Retrieved July 2010.
  - Wendy K. Perriman (Vol. 49.1 - Summer 2005) “!0th International Cather Seminar In Nebraska.” Willa Cather Newsletter & Review. P1 / 19. http://www.willacather.org/newsletter-a-review/issues?start=10. Retrieved July 2010. MalibuTheCat (talk · contribs)
- Comment. The comments above were added, without "keep" votes, by the IP address indicated. In a later edit, MalibuTheCat (talk · contribs) added three "keep" votes to them. I have removed the keep votes to keep the attribution of who said what more clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources are cited at all, and there does not seem to be any evidence of notability. (Incidentally, the notability of the publishers is totally irrelevant, as notability is not inherited, and nor is non-notability.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment - Advertising. Further evidence that ISBN numbers are BAR CODE NUMBERS FOR SELLING BOOKS. They need to be botted the hell into extinction on Wikipedia. Use OCLC numbers if you think WP users are too retarded to use author and title info to track down a title. Hmph! Carrite (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like the ISBN numbers have been removed. Regarding the comment, "She isn't considered by many to be authoritative or innovative in her field" - how do you make this claim? She has a Ph.D. in literary studies and has written 2 books on Cather and Dickinson. If you are saying a Ph.D. and published books do not count as knowledge on the subject, what else could possibly be needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanwide (talk • contribs) — Fanwide (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment and request It seems to me that there are far more 'Keeps' there than there have been different posters. Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Could someone please sort them out - I'm tired and in need of my tea... Peridon (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MalibuTheCat just added 3 "keeps" with this edit. The arguments that were prefaced by the "keeps" were made by 131.107.0.81. Them From Space 21:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Would you be so good as to strike through two of them - only one !vote per user is allowed. (I'm not going to try working them out...) Peridon (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've refactored in an attempt to make the attributions clearer. Along with the three from MalibuTheCat there were two different keeps from Fanwide that I've merged into a single comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her book "Willa Cather and the dance" is in around 150 libraries, according to worldcat — verifiably a real book. The others have one or two holdings at best, and I can't find any evidence that they were anything other than self-published. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of the sort of academic impact that would be needed to pass WP:PROF#C1; I can't find any citations to her works in Google scholar, for instance. And there's also no evidence (such as newspaper reviews) that her works have had any impact in popular culture of the sort that might pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As David E says, the only claim to notability is her book on Dickinson, from a very minor publisher, which is insufficient as WP:AUTHOR and totally insufficient as WP:PROF. But with respect to some comments above,the reputation of a publisher is of extremely great importance in evaluations under WP:PROF because this is a key factor in how the academic professions evaluate careers; a PhD_a book based on the PhD are minimal qualification, showing knowledge of the subject, not being an authority in it; she has never been been hired even as an assistant professor anywhere; not enough to get hired--and indeed, she apparently has never even been in a tenure track line. But ISBN numbers are the standard identifier for books, and provides the input for WP:Book sources. It's required information here for a book title, if available; the OCLC number is a useful supplement, to provide for books too old to be in the ISBN system. Though ISBNs were developed by the book trade they've been adopted as a standard by libraries also, as well as newspapers etc. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i checked the titles published, and they are from (for our purposes) vanity presses, and the trade book from penguin is not published yet. No prejudice to recreation upon publication of her novel with any notable reviews, sales, etc. I am sure she doesnt make notability as an author, i dont think she makes notability as an academic.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following sound analysis given by DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per DGG, clearly not yet notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone Seen the Bridge?

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

Non-notable song, unreliable sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 21 July 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) 11:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Live in Chicago 12.19.98 at the United Center: A song not referenced by reliable third-party sources fails WP:NSONGS and should be redirected to the first live album it appeared on. Aspects (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand: I regard a song that has been played by the band more than 400 times and released on at least 15 albums notable, but I can agree that the article needs to be expanded with more sources and up-to-date stuff. Ezhuks (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Bean

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

Delete. Notability not established, fleeting Internet "celebrity". References are limited to Facebook and Twitter, no references of any substance or reliability. WWGB (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only "references" are Twitter and Facebook? No. — Timneu22 · talk 10:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion either way, but the BBC does have an article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10787726 Arnie Side (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established through the BBC article linked above. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 11:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Lugnuts (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ella Schuler is the oldest facebook user, Ivy Bean is still the oldest person to use both facebook AND twitter, I assume shes the oldest person on twitter. Longevitydude (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or was until today. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 13:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She was the oldest person to be using both twitter and facebook. Longevitydude (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know what you said, I was just saying that you put "is still the oldest person" which is not strictly correct. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was, even though she was not the oldest facebook user, she was still the oldest twitter user and therefore the oldest person to use both websites. Longevitydude (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient coverage. Longevitydude (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugnuts's arguments. No lasting significance of this person, trivial, WP:ONEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Longevitydude. WereWolf (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Facebook/Twitter. Swedish newpaper Aftonbladet noted her death: [9], so she has at least received coverage in Great Britain (BBC link above) and Sweden, and probably more. At least merge the info about her because she is notable enough to be mentioned. Because it's hard to say where to merge the article (Facebook or Twitter) it's easier to just keep the article. (Musicians that have been active in two notable bands receive their own article.) Jiiimbooh (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - There might be more to her story than we know now, she is in fact a centenarian.-99.98.165.151 (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, please read WP:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary Longevitydude (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that she lived that longs adds to her notability not the basis of it.--99.98.165.151 (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being old and using a computer isn't notable. Lugnuts (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivia. PR stunt all round. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has been recognized as the worlds oldest twitterer, her death was reported by several national newspapers all over the world, and she has also been recognized through British media at previous points. She was also THE oldest person and Twitter, with several other notable Twitter-users, such as Stephen Fry being admirers, aswell as expressing their sadness on news of her death. If this isnt substantial enough for this article to live, than half of Wikipedia should be deleted along with, on the exact same criteria. --Lilduff90 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And just to prove my point: Norwegian news of her death, CNN, BBC, just to mention a few. Still not satisfied? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilduff90 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe her to be sufficiently well-known to warrant a Wikipedia article. --WeirdEars (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trivia or not, she got a lot of media coverage for being the world's oldest tweeter even before her death. However, there should really be better references in the article than Facebook and Twitter. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one event/not news seem appropriate. Hekerui (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is well-know. When she died she was reported dead by CNN. Also I think the wikiproject for longevity would keep her beacuse of her fame. Just because she is a Internet celebrity doesn't mean she isn't famous. Look at the other famous Internet stars have pages too. Spongie555 (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Lugnuts' reasons. Being the oldest person to use Facebook and Twitter doesn't make her notable, even though the BBC has an article on her. Sidebar: In the past we have had so-called "professional bloggers" whose only notoriety was to blog. Have all those articles been deleted? Ivy Bean, as an internet user, may fall in the same or similar category, not meaning any disrespect for the woman. Ed (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this seems to be a classic one-event case to me... I think that maybe waiting a bit before nominating would have been helpful in establishing whether or not there would be lasting notability, but I'm not particularly swayed by any of the keep arguments thus far. Canadian Paul 03:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is enough third-party coverage for notability. Her death has been documented by the Los Angeles Times website and in the far east. Philip Cross (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I will be the first to acknowledge that it's a silly thing to be notable for, but I don't think this is a case of WP:BLP1E. BLP1E says "in the context of a single event". From reading it very carefully, I think the fundamental point of BLP1E is that a single high-profile event doesn't automatically confer notability on every person who is named in relation to that event. People who only played a small role in it, and didn't get coverage that singles them out as an individual beyond that event, aren't worthy of biographical articles, (for example, Tourist guy vs. Peter Guzli) and generally we couldn't write a biographical article on them anyway given that lack of coverage. BLP1E doesn't cover people who are famous for a single achievement or distinction, if (as in this case) the achievement and coverage focuses on them as a person. I'm seeing substantial amounts of coverage about Ivy's personal life, such as this Daily Mail article. Given that and the above articles, I think this has the potential to be a great article. --TexasDex ★ 05:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. Silly thing to be famous for but it does document the nature of our time, and this is part of the purpose of an encyclopedia. prat (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, there are several media articles about her even before her death. Notablility established. Marshall Stax (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong delete per Lugnuts "Being old and using a computer isn't notable." Exactly. It is ridiculous. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia. SO we have a biography about a person who used facebook and twitter who happened to be old. If you put it in perspective it is newspaper fodder certainly not long lasting encyclopedic material...She is worthy of mentioning in in either the facebook or twitter articles as being the oldest user but a BIOGRAPHY ARTICLE on her embarrasingly non notable life before the age of 100????? "After several years in Bedford, the family returned to Bradford and Bean began working for Arthur Crossland, a local mill owner." Ooooh soooo notable...... Surely this is ONE EVENT. This is a classic case of where something should be summarized in a parent article on an event/institution, in this case website and refraining from having a biography about the person. There should really be stronger guidelines in this respect if this doesn't fail our WP:ONEEVENT guidelines. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408070963&v=wall#!/profile.php?id=1408070963&v=wall&story_fbid=143614238998990 ^ http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=67377155437&ref=search ^ "UK's oldest Tweeter Ivy Bean dies at 104", BBC News, 28 July 2010 ^ "Oldest Tweeter talks cuppas and casserole on Twitter at 104", Daily Telegraph, 15 May 2009 ^ Adam Gabbatt [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/28/ivy-bean-oldest-twitter-dies "Ivy Bean, the oldest person on Twitter, dies at 104", The Guardian, 28 July 2010 ^ Alex Millson "Stars pay tribute to world's oldest Twitter user Ivy Bean after she dies aged 104", Daily Mail, 28 July 2010 ^ http://twitter.com/IvyBean104 ^ http://twitter.com/IvyBean104/status/18588383907 ^ http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408070963&v=wall#!/profile.php?id=1408070963&v=wall&story_fbid=143614238998990 ^ Norwegian news of her death, CNN, BBC

Looks like sufficient coverage to me, and there are articles about her besides these. Longevitydude (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this isn't sufficient coverage, I don't know what is, I know she wasn't the oldest facebook user, but she was still the oldest person to be using BOTH websites, she was the oldest person to use a twitter. Longevitydude (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

heres a source

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1298433/Ivy-Bean-Stars-pay-tribute-worlds-oldest-Twitter-user.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Stars paying tribute to her, she must be notable if even famous people are noticing her. Longevitydude (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been coverage in most newspapers today, on the BBC website, and celebrities have expressed their sorrow at her death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.34.36 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOTNEWS. So because some celebrities "expressed sorrow at her death" that automatically makes hundred years of her life encyclopedic? Its a frickin event and should be mentioned in the main articles, not in a biography. A media frenzy that a very old woman uses the Inrernet is not a justification for a biography article. Do we start articles for every person who has their fifteen minutes of fame? Who many historical sources do you think we'll find about her life, extensive coverage in google books? This site is becoming more and more a news site everyday....How does this not fail WP:BLP1E, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL?? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is she was acknowledged by celebrities and politicians, she must be notable to get that kind of attention, and shes got a lot more coverage than just her local newspaper, celebrities and politicians don't give that kind of attention to just anyone, she did something notable to get that attention, she was the oldest person on twitter and the oldest person to use both websites, twitter and facebook, seriously how many people do celebrities acknowledge the way they acknowledged her, let alone as many famous people as the ones who paid her attention, she was important to a lot of people, a lot of people consider her notable and therefore she is, just because a few people don't consider it notable doesn't mean its not notable, why intrude on other people's interests just because you don't agree with them that its notable. Longevitydude (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If shes not notable, then why do so many people fight this afd, or why does she have so much coverage, or dare I ask, why do so many famous people acknowledge her? Longevitydude (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between "famous" people acknowledging that she was old and a nice person who was in the Internet community and her biographical life being remotely encyclopedic. A biographical entry should evenly cover all aspects of her life from birth to death and assert notability. You know what. Hundred years of her avserge, humble life will never be expanded and in the end it comes down to one event, one event which should be written about in the facebook/twitter articles, not seperately. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is certainly notable to discuss her in the history of the facebook/twitter articles but a biography is completely inappropriate. Can you explain to me regardless of how "famous" she is in the views of celebrities we having a biography article about her does not fail WP:BLP1E, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Where is the extensive coverage is books about her entire life? As much as you can argue that she was beloved by politicians and celebs it still comes down to one event and a news report. She is no more notable than Mavis who used the Internet in my late grandmother's nursing home at the age of 98, a media obsession/frenzy does not make her biographical life encyclopedic Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well marvis didn't have celebrities giving him attention, and he wasn't the oldest person using the internet, and he wasn't getting sufficient coverage. Longevitydude (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's highly concerning to me is that you stress so much importance on the views of "famous celebrities" as if they are somehow God given to dictate what is encyclopedic. You stress way too much importance on celebrity culture and media frenzy like so many are guilty of. It still doesn't make her suitable for an individual encyclopedia entry. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete random nobody who lacks significant coverage in any reliable sources beyond her being the "oldest person on Facebook" (so freakin what?). Fails per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and frankly just goes against general WP:COMMONSENSE. What next, the oldest person who uses Facebook, Twitter, and Wikipedia?? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we already have an article on the oldest facebook user, shouldn't the oldest twitter user also have an article, and as for wikipedia, wikipidians can use their user pages for their information. Longevitydude (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She visited former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah in Downing Street early in 2010.[6] Some time after creating her Facebook page, Bean also joined Twitter. At the time of her death, she had 4,962 friends on Facebook and more than 56,000 followers on Twitter.[7]

She also met famous people face to face, put all these things about her together and she is notable. Longevitydude (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, those things do not make her notable. Do you know how many people have thousands of friends on Facebook and followers on Twitter? Woopie do, that doesn't make them notable. Nor does meeting famous people - common, unnotable folks do it every day. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well she was the oldest person to be using BOTH, besides the famous people think shes notable and they will remember her. Longevitydude (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shes the oldest person to use both twitter AND facebook, shes the oldest twitter user, and combine that with everything else said about her and she is notable, a lot of people agree that she IS notable, not everyone has to agree for her to be notable. Longevitydude (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, so what? Being the oldest to use either or both is nothing but trivia, at best, and not anywhere near close to being a factor for notability. And a lot of people seem to agree that she is not notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well a lot of people agree that she IS notable. Longevitydude (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should be more tolerant about what other people consider notable and wikipedia is the FREE encyclopedia, yet I don't see a lot of people being free to be interested in stuff they consider notable you act like just because your not interested that no one else is allowed to be. Longevitydude (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If she hasn't had sufficient coverage, then I don't know how much IS sufficient. Longevitydude (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZf8MSdBHdQ

She is even considered one of the famous deaths, shes famous, a celebrity, and notable. Longevitydude (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She could have all of the news outlets in the world reporting her Internet story and that still wouldn't be enough as it fails WP:ONEEVENT. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage shows that its a notable event. Longevitydude (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She was a celebrity so shes notable we have well enough cyberspace available and not enough light-hearted entries, that'll make this worthwhile. The old lady was a niche-celebrity, granted, but I have seen entries in Wiki that are absolutely unworthy of any consideration and yet are unchallenged in their position. Give the lady a break, I say. Longevitydude (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC) There are articles of far less importance that are happily kept on WP. Just because x% of people have no interest in a particular subject or person doesn't mean that it should be deleted, since perhaps x+1% of WP users are interested but don't say anything. Bear in mind that this lady's notability couild be measured by a relatively high number of Facebook friends. Not a big thing as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but will respectable in that particular community. Also remember than many of her contemporary fans (of whom there are probably not many) will not be computer literate and thus may not be savvy enough to sign up for Wikipedia and argue the case for retaining the article.[reply]

Who are we to foresee who will and will not be remembered in the future? I found the link to Ivy's article from the front page, where there is a Recent Deaths link, which lists every death that WP users see fit to record. Will anyone care about the majority of the people on there in 50 years? The same argument for deleting this article could be used about the entire Recent Deaths category in some people's opinion. In addition, will someone in the US really be bothered about some 70s soccer player's bio or an Irish snooker player? Longevitydude (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People whose lives (as opposed to Internet useage) are truly notable will always be notable and will still generate interest in hundred years time. People like Julius Caesar, Henry VIII, Da Vinci, Mozart, Napolean, Churchill, Lennon. In one hundred years time, actually in hundred days time this woman will have been forgotten and the next news report of an 80 year old monkey being a Go champion will be the article of hot topic. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary She will always be notable no matter how many people remember her, there are a lot of people on wikipedia that hardly anyone pays attention to, but they still have their notability. Longevitydude (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I really wanted to !vote "delete" here, but after looking at the sources, I have to go with keep. Regarding the arguments that she has not really done anything of note - well, I learned quite a while ago not to pass judgement on what other people consider notable. As long as there is considerable coverage by mainstream respectable news-outlets, the subject is notable. We should not substitute our value judgement for that of the sources. In this case we have plenty of mainstream coverage (BBC, NPR, etc). Regarding WP:NOTNEWS argument - that argument would apply if we were dealing with one brief spike of coverage lasting a few days or a few weeks. In this case, significant coverage spreads over the period of several years, from 2008 (e.g. here[10][11][12] ) to 2009 (e.g.[13][14][15] ) to 2010, including coverage in 2010 before her death, e.g. [16][17][18]. The coverage is not only national, but also international, e.g. NRP[19], Times of India[20], Sydney Morning Herald[21] (all these are from well before her death). Given the geographical and chronological spread of coverage, this is not a WP:NOTNEWS case. Now, regarding WP:BLP1E argument. First, since she is no longer alive, the thing to cite here is WP:BIO1E rather than WP:BLP1E. Second, and more importantly, this is an example of a frequent misinterpretation of both WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. These principles do tell us to cover the even if it is notable. In the case where notability of an event is significant and the event is essentially about a single person, we still, appropriately so, have articles about the notable events in question (such as various "murder of ..." articles. In this particular case, we might move the title to something like Oldest internet celebrity, but is there really much of a point in doing that? Nsk92 (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your rational explanation, your response sums it all up. Longevitydude (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of the topic seems clear. For example, see Social Networking for the Older and Wiser or Meeting with Prime Minister. We have extended coverage of this sort over multiple years in major news media and books all over the world - an easy pass of WP:N and WP:BASIC. And how come there's a mob here? Ordinary people don't get this much attention. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is disputing that the topic isn't worhty of mentioning in an article about facebook/twitter for being the oldest recognised social networking user or an article about social networking and "extremes". What I and possibly the others are disputing is that why it is necessary to have a biography about somebody who used the Internet for two years and died when over a hundred years of their life is unencyclopedic. It still comes down to ONEEVENT and this is nothing but a news story that will die out within a few days. Do we have an article about the Rochdale bigot woman because she was the subject of a major controversy during the 2010 elections? No. We briefly mention it in a more suitable parent article as an event. This is no different. This is the event of an elderly Internet user who generated some fuss because she was so old and amazed people that she used the Internet. At best it should be summarised in a paragraph in articles about the social networking sites or social networking in general. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig seems grotesquely unnecessary but we still have to suffer it wherever you post. If you or others don't want to read the article about this notable lady then it is comparatively easy to avoid. Note that it is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper and that it is not censored. Your outrage is therefore insufficient grounds for deletion. And your reference to ONEVENT is counterfactual as there are numerous separate events and the person in question is the focus of all of them, not an incidental bystander. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from attacking me personally and explain why an encyclopedia should have an individual biography about a person who used the Internet for a small fraction of their life. That's what it comes down to. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are attacking the work of other editors, demanding that it be deleted and this is the case that requires justification. The notability of the topic has been well-established and no other valid policy-based reason has been put forward to justify such action. You seem to suggest that we should compare personal opinions of the topic. This proposal is quite contrary to core policies such as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The only opinions that matter are those of independent, reliable sources and you have not provided any evidence to suggest that your personal opinion qualifies. As for your sig, this seems contrary to the relevant guideline. Please consider changing it as it is visually quite distracting and interferes with the editing of talk pages such as this by interposing multiple lines of sig markup. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing noticeable about my conservative signature. Dr. Blofeld ^{££££££££££} 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, wikipedia articles add to nobility and make the subjects more likely to be remembered longer. Longevitydude (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is in the eye of the beholder, and a lot of people think shes notable, why can't you respect that. Longevitydude (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The media made her a "star," and the coverage lasted several years, so the claim to "one event" is invalid. Surely if we can have an article on every player who ever player professional football, baseball, and soccer we can have an article on this woman who has been covered in the press for about six years.Ryoung122 18:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dr. Blofield, your comments are seriously off. References to Mozart and Julius Caesar? Wikipedia is NOT PAPER. One does not have to be famous from birth and for their entire life to warrant an article. Grandma Moses only started painting as a very aged senior, yet achieved notability long before Wikipedia existed to judge. In this case, Ivy Bean was already noted when she was 98 and using Facebook.

Personally, I recognize this is a media-driven celebrity status, but that doesn't stop articles being created on Justin Bieber or Anna Nicole Smith. Additionally, we have people as "notable" as minor professional sports people who didn't do more than play backup in one or two games, ever. Yeah, that's notable too. Not really. So we are going to be so lax on the "youth" culture of sports, at least give people at the other end of the totem pole some respect/recognition.Ryoung122 19:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are seriously off? Really... Of course your judgement may not be biased given that you and Longevitydued are into Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People and gerontology/super old people... "Personally, I recognize this is a media-driven celebrity status". Exactly, and the world media dictates everything these days, even what is encyclopedic.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its Longevitydude, and the fact that a lot of people find it notable makes it notable, and if you don't think so then at least be kind enough to let the rest of us enjoy what were interested in, instead of acting like it's your business to tell others whats notable, we don't nominate stuff for deletion just because it doesn't interest us, we respect that there ARE people who think its notable and we let it be. Longevitydude (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article truly was notable and was not problematic, why then was this article nominated for deletion less than two hours after creation without allowing time for it to develop? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't notable then why is there so much opposition to this afd? Longevitydude (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think some people confuse an encyclopedia with the Guinness Book of records. They each have a different scope. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Records and titles ARE notable. Longevitydude (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what records. This guy is a clear wp:oneevent. An encyclopedia cannot be extended to the person who produced the longest pencil or farted louder. That's why we have clear policies and as of now the guy fails several as the nominator and Dr. Blofeld have pointed out. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woman you mean, Ivy was a lady! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse being the oldest tweeter with producing the longest pencil, or farting the loudest. Longevitydude (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shes more than oneevent as an editor pointed out earlier. Longevitydude (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this editor said this. As long as there is considerable coverage by mainstream respectable news-outlets, the subject is notable. We should not substitute our value judgement for that of the sources. In this case we have plenty of mainstream coverage (BBC, NPR, etc). Regarding WP:NOTNEWS argument - that argument would apply if we were dealing with one brief spike of coverage lasting a few days or a few weeks. In this case, significant coverage spreads over the period of several years, from 2008 (e.g. here[2][3][4] ) to 2009 (e.g.[5][6][7] ) to 2010, including coverage in 2010 before her death, e.g. [8][9][10]. The coverage is not only national, but also international, e.g. NRP[11], Times of India[12], Sydney Morning Herald[13] (all these are from well before her death). Given the geographical and chronological spread of coverage, this is not a WP:NOTNEWS case. Now, regarding WP:BLP1E argument. First, since she is no longer alive, the thing to cite here is WP:BIO1E rather than WP:BLP1E. Second, and more importantly, this is an example of a frequent misinterpretation of both WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. These principles do tell us to cover the even if it is notable. In the case where notability of an event is significant and the event is essentially about a single person, we still, appropriately so, have articles about the notable events in question (such as various "murder of ..." articles. In this particular case, we might move the title to something like Oldest internet celebrity, but is there really much of a point in doing that?

hes right, who are we to pass judgement on what others consider notable? Longevitydude (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the millionth time, respect what other people consider notable, we don't pass judgement on what you consider notable. Longevitydude (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the comment about my vote - Being old and using a computer doesn't suggest notability but being really old, using a computer and having a really long and divisive AfD at Wikipedia suggests otherwise.--99.98.165.151 (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1045158/Meet-Ivy-Bean--worlds-oldest-Facebooker-aged-102.html

heres an article that might help. Longevitydude (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She competed in the Bradford Over 75s' Olympics. Longevitydude (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is more notable... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone noted above that this article says something about our times and I think it does. When today's teens and 20-somethings are 100 (if we're lucky) and using a computer it won't be anything out of the ordinary. Therefore the fact that newspapers even write about an old person using the computer is interesting from a historical point-of-view. I hope this article stays (already voted above) partly for this reason, but I also think she has received enough coverage according to Wikipedia guidelines. Jiiimbooh (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty number of articles about her.--CnkALTDS^message 21:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A brief bit of media interest does not a notable person make. This "article" would be naught but an embarrassment to a serious encyclopedia, but hey this is Wikipedia! So carry on folks. Lustralaustral (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage has not been brief but has been sustained over several years and worldwide. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which only goes to show that the modern news media will fill their publications with all manner of shite. Does that mean Wikipedia has to mirror them? Or maybe we should aspire to do better? Lustralaustral (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All articles on wikipedia are a mirror of some sort of website or article, and lots of coverage DOES help confirm notability, and the more articles wikipedia has the more famous it will be. Longevitydude (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Though replace famous with infamous and you'd be closer to the mark. Lustralaustral (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia having more popularity would not be a bad thing, and no, deleting articles that lots of people think are notable would NOT attract people to wikipedia, it would more likely drive them away. Longevitydude (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are exactly the sort of people who should be driven away, and preferably taken outside and shot just to be sure. Lustralaustral (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information-seeking people should be "taken outside and shot"? If anyone I think you are the one that should go away. Jiiimbooh (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were not supposed to be driving people away, were supposed to be trying to make wikipedia more famous and popular, information seekers should be able to find what their looking for, but they can't do that if their being driven away by afds, deleting articles drives information seekers away and the fact that you would say something like Those are exactly the sort of people who should be driven away, and preferably taken outside and shot just to be sure. tells me a lot more about you than I wanna know. Longevitydude (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policies and guidelines cited by Lugnuts. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 03:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Jay Leno even mentioned her death in his opening monologue on July 29, 2010. She has gained fame in multiple countries. There are a number of youtube celebrities that have pages not being considered for deletion. She has gained far more fame through the news and other media outlets. EditPin122 00:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, famous person, notability well-established by multiple sources. Everyking (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I originally said I had no opinion either way, but the death of this person is in the newspapers and TV shows (news and entertainment) in many different countries. If this article is deleted then we may as well reduce the number of biographies on wikipedia by 20% or so, as there are many other people who have undisputed articles on here with nowhere near the amount of international attention. Arnie Side (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least, she is currently a record holder.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Known worldwide, and a record holder. Zerbey (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per all reasons stated above in the 'Keep' section. Connormah^talk 21:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As of July 30th, 22:44 GMT, there's 13 votes for Delete and 24 votes for Keep, and the discussion has been on for 48 hours. Should we call this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilduff90 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is about arguments, not vote counting. And we have time. Hekerui (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One event does not make notability. Earlier, Longevitydude pointed to Ella Schuler, but the latter is different in that she is a supercentenarian, so she would have gotten an article regardless of her Facebook usage. howcheng {chat} 00:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using Facebook and Twitter is not an event, it's an activity. Most famous people are only or primarily known for one activity. For example Wayne Gretzky and Peter Forsberg are primarily well-known for playing ice hockey. 1EVENT would only be applicable if only her death was reported by the media. But as has been shown before, she received international coverage before her death. The reason the media reported her death was because she was already famous. So, 1EVENT is not applicable here, as she wasn't just famous for dying (an event) but for using Facebook and Twitter (an activity). Jiiimbooh (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS applies, and WP:BLP1E (in spirit if not in letter). This is a trivial passing news story, not an encyclopaedic article; I see no evidence that the subject has achieved lasting notability. (If they're still writing about her next year, or even next week, I'll change my mind.) Robofish (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I have to object to any arguments along the lines of 'being the oldest person on Twitter is automatic evidence of notability'. If that's an acceptable argument, then does that apply to any other activity? Should we have articles on the oldest person to drive a car, to write a novel, to play baseball, to practice law, or any number of other things? And should we have an article on the new oldest person on Twitter, and the next one after they die? My answer is no; notability is the outcome of significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, and not simply being the oldest person to do something. Robofish (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys. How about we have a paragraph like this in both the Twitter and Facebook article. If you cut down the crap we are basically left with the following:

At the age of 102, Ivy Bean of Bradford, England joined Facebook in 2008, making her one of the oldest people ever on Facebook. An inspiration to other residents, she quickly became more widely known, and several fan pages were made in her honour. She visited Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah in Downing Street early in 2010. Some time after creating her Facebook page, Bean also joined Twitter, when she passed the maximum number of friends allowed by Facebook. She became the oldest person to ever use the Twitter website. At the time of her death, she had 4,962 friends on Facebook and more than 56,000 followers on Twitter. Her death was widely reported in the media and she received tributes from several notable media personalities.

Why is it not appropriate to redirect to either article and have a summary of it there? PLease examine this article closely, the info about her "working for Arthur Crossland, a local mill owner" and "talking about her care home and favourite meal" is embarrsingly unencyclopedic. If you stick to what is relevant here then the best thing would be to summarise her existence in either of the articles. Can anybody explain why acknowledging her and her status in the media in either articles without having an actual biography on her wouldn't be a better idea? As it is there is no mention of her on either article page which is wrong. The information about her being the oldest should be there as it is only notable because of the sites. She'd have been a nobody if it wasn't for those sites. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 19:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed an offensive comment from user 94.14.187.180 (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC) , but it was a vote for delete. Arnie Side (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added summary paragraphs to the bottom of each article although some spam filter on facebook page is currently preventing me from fixing a ref problem. if you read these summaries and now look at this article am I the only one who thinks having a biogrpahy about her is redundant? I've stated what she was famous for and her status in both communities and the media. Isn't this enough? Just remember that we are supposed to be an encyclopedia and should only focus on what is relevant. Details about her working for a mill and talking about her carehome are not encyclopedic material. She was famous for one thing, using those websites. I concur that she has had enough coverage to make it relevant to add a section in both Twitter and Facebook as being the oldest user and that she was renowned for that so why can't what is important here be written in either article and this directed? The article as it is reminds me of a memorial and that people want to keep this to fondly remember somebody being so old and using a computer. "She had worked for Arthur for about 18 years when sadly, he passed away and she decided it was time to retire". Is it for an encyclopedia to get all emotional and say "sadly, he passed away". C'mon folks see this for what it is. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 19:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A problem is which article the redirect should point to. If we redirect it to Facebook, readers won't notice if the text about her is updated in the Twitter article. If this is closed as a merge-and-redirect probably only one of the articles, we call this Article 1, should have the full text about her and the other article, Article 2, should have a link to the relevant section of Article 1. Jiiimbooh (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "oldest survivors" from various wars/events become notable for no other reason than that their longevity and the subsequent media interest makes them so. This woman was no different to that, she made the news in the UK. --Zagrebo (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep per reasons above. --T1980 (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Glossing over the relatively minor technicality that she is dead ("minor technicality" as BLP policy does generally apply to the recently deceased), there is no basis for arguing WP:BLP1E here, and I will make my point using every part of it. Firstly, she is notable for two things, being the oldest person to join Facebook, and being the oldest person to join Twitter. The fact that the former did not remain the case is irrelevant per WP:NTEMP. I accept that some might consider this to be a technicality, hence my decision to continue. Secondly, nobody can dispute that throughout her last few years (not just after her death) she received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject. By definition, that means that she was not a low-profile individual. Thirdly, let's take the following section:

Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate.

I doubt anyone is going to argue that merging the jist of the story into the Twitter and Facebook articles will help prevent undue weight? There is no question that Ivy Bean's role in these events was substantial. There is a legitimate debate as to whether these events are significant. While not on its own a strong enough justification to keep, the indication from the numbers in this !vote is that a majority of editors consider the events to be notable. Fourthly:

The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.

Going back to question two, it is undeniable that the coverage of Bean, and the fact that she was the oldest to do these things, has been given persistent coverage in reliable sources. Some might wish that she hadn't, but alas, she has.

In summary, I see no policy-based opposition. I have therefore !voted to keep on the grounds that Ivy Bean passes the WP:GNG, which for the purposes of AfD is usually considered to be a de-facto policy. --W F C-- 09:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zatikon

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

Seems to be an advertisement for the game; article was written by the game's creator. Does not assert notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be accorded with WP:NOTMANUAL too. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 13:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no significant, reliable coverage found. WP:COI issue as well. --Teancum (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Cozza

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

Out of the entire article, only one sentence attempts to make a claim of importance: Her work has been featured in two journal articles including Art Education, 2010 and on the cover and accompanying article of the Journal of LGBT Youth in 2007. Whether or not this artist is notable depends entirely on the weight of those things being important. Other problems: no substantial coverage that I can find, article relies on one unknown source and has no citations. The few ghits that I find are all directories. — Timneu22 · talk 10:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two citations listed for Helen Cozza, 2010 and 2007. Regarding the two citations: Both journals, Art Education and the Journal of LGBT Youth, are journals with both national and international audiences. Art Education has an audience of 20,000. There are very few Lesbian artists identified on Wikipedia and it is imperative these artists are included in this venue. Cozza is a noted Lesbian artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annhardy (talk • contribs) 17:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC) <----Annhardy (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)>[reply]

If she is a noted artist, then there should be coverage of her in newspapers, books etc. where she has been noted. However, this material does not appear to exist. Two citations alone do not make someone noted. Ty 17:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. And note that the belief that "it is imperative these artists are included in this venue" is not relevant if the artists does not meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Wikipedia requirement for articles is stated at WP:N, namely coverage in multiple sources that meet WP:RS. Only two sources have been provided to date. There are only 87 Google hits[22] with nothing of sufficient substance. Ty 17:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to make local dishes healthier

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

Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Quantpole (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Can't we just have a CSD for this? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I double checked but couldn't see one that applied, unfortunately. Quantpole (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes but still delete anyway for the fact that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an encyclopaedia article, and provides no useful content for one. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There should be a speedy for "How to" type articles as none of these are ever salvageable. Them From Space 12:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a how-to guide, and that's one of those things we don't do here. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How-to guide and dubious original research. How is adding less spice supposed to make anything "healthier"? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am guessing they meant "less salt" to make the soup healthier. I see little opportunity for this being developed into an encyclopedic article. VQuakr (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR. I'm not even sure all these things are true; over-fried chicken causes cancer? Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Snow contains zero calories and no cholesterol. Carrite (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and i did stop to consider if there is any possibility of an article. maybe, but not using this content or title. probably could have been speedy. Stone soup, anyone?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a manual. And i think WP:SNOW can be applied. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete to make Wikipedia healthier. It's unlikely that this could ever become a valid article. Reach Out to the Truth 18:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Mickle (golfer)

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

Unable to find any 3rd party sources to verify notability as a leading golf coach. _wjemather ^bigissue 10:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. _wjemather ^bigissue 10:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The "Advanced Fellow of the PGA" award is really a classification / grading for golf instructors. See [23]. So it would seem that he is considered quite an able golf instructor, and I'm sure he'd be able to improve my game, but that doesn't establish notabilty. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hellcode Research

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

Not notable group or organisation Off2riorob (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This claims to be an international non-profit underground organization of information security hobbyists. Key members include murderkey aka the dude (Founder), L4M3R, cannabis, and BOB. My unscientific impression is that this is a small group of cracker or phreaker kids putting on airs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prosig

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

Contested prod. Advertising (majority of main editor's contributions consist of placing external links to the company), editor conflict of interest (self admitted on Talk:Prosig), no notability per WP:COMPANY. Han-Kwang (t) 08:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is yet another seller of "solutions", a company specializing in hardware and software solutions for noise and vibration measurement. No showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance of the sort that leads to long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no valid reason given for deletion. If therre's conflict over sources, ask for assistance at WP:RSN DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Signal Corporation

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

Reason JustInn014 (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I have tried to get the article on track, none of my sources (malignant liars) were accurate. The article is a total mess, and I'd think it'd be best off to just delete this page. Also, please browse over any article written by "Evan7788" or "Evan7878". I just happen to find most of his articles are the ones least accurate.

So let's get this straight. You have sources from which an article can be written. You even wrote User:JustInn014/Biersach and Niedermeyer Co. from those sources (which certainly agrees with some of the sources that I've found). But you simply know The Truth™ to be otherwise, and want Wikipedia to support this, entirely counter to the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy? Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in that there's no reason offered for deletion. Simply looking at the contracts that the company has worldwide to build emergency warning systems (using sirens) for municipalities worldwide [24], it's clear that the company is notable. Frustration is a reason to stop worrying about it, not a reason to erase it. None of us are "keepers of the flame" when it comes to an article, nor is anyone going to be held personally responsible for what other editors to with it. Mandsford 18:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Uncle G, I do have enough sources for that article you linked, and this ASC article. The problem is, there's no way I can think of to fix up the article without just starting over again. It'd also be better for it to only focus on the ASC name, and not the other two companies which have that article I wrote. On the article you linked, Information is mostly from the former head of ACA, whom I've talk to personally. http://www.shorewood58.com/bios/BiersachJames.pdf About ASC, I have talked to two people who work there, and have enough knowledge to rewrite said article as most of the information on it just doesn't add up with the truth. To add to that, some of the other editors that I know of really got their information not from the people who worked there, but rather a bunch of infantile enthusiasts who were more than likely lying, and unlike me, don't bother trying to explain their sources. At all. It doesn't help there's too much content on the current article to handle for a simple rewrite. The WikiBots will flag me if I delete it all, and start from anew.

At Mandsford, I only wanted to upkeep the siren articles, as not many other people bothered ensuring the articles didn't turn into a mess, instead, vouching to complain about it long before I just did (gilramirez12, etc.). I see now the company is more notable than trivial, as opposed to what I'd thought initially. My only gripe with Evan7788/Evan7878 was that most of the articles he wrote turned out to be the least accurate and hard to rewrite, and I have caught him going around spewing nonsense information. Here is his very own website. http://sirapointinc.yolasite.com/history-of-tornado-sirens.php --JustInn014 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disruptive nomination over disagreements on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sikdar Aminul Haq

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

Recreated from previous AfD (Sikder Aminul Haque), but this mentions an award and is better referenced than the previous version. Ged UK 21:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 21:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 21:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This article needs more coverage and references on his works. IJA (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the Bangla Academy Award could be verified then this would be a no-brainer per WP:ANYBIO, but I have been unable to confirm it. Searching in English is very difficult because each of the elements of the subject's name could have several spelling variants, but I've found some sources that include the subject in lists of prominent poets: [25][26][27][28]. The authors and publishers of those sources consider him to be notable, and our practice is to follow what external sources say. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Phil Bridger and ANYBIO. He seems to one of the top Bangla poets of the 20th century. This Gbook search shows he did win the Bangla Academy Award in 1994.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thau claw

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

Prod-contested. Here's the rationale by the original tagger:

Subject seems non-notable and the article appears to be an advertisement for a recently-invented product. A web search for the phrase /"thau claw" -site:firefighterhandtools.com -wikipedia -"firefighter himself, creator matt"/ (to exclude some of the WP article mirrors) returns only 814 matches. Also, the article was created and almost all content added by "4alarmmedia", a user with no other recorded contributions. A web search reveals a .com site with the same name, which contains (almost nothing other than) the phrase "Web Design & Graphic Arts tailored for the Public Safety Sector". elektrik SHOOS 06:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Written like an ad. Quack quack. Carrite (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking here at the commercial page selling the tool, this product seems to be a brand name variant of the common name tool called McLeod (tool). This fact and the lack of other sources indicating notability make me think this is a non-notable instance of a general category of tool. Blue Rasberry 05:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The addition of references has ensured that the consensus is to keep -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racetrack Babies

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

Vanity page about an unsigned band that has never charted; article created by a member of the band. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. Most bands link to their Facespace and Mybook entries. This lot cannot even manage that. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, fails WP:BAND. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 20:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the light of new references, changed to keep.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 12:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references added by CactusWriter demonstrate notability per list item 1 of WP:BAND. Favonian (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; I checked out all those sources and they don't seem to be reliable. A few of them are reviews that come from indie-music.com, which appears to be a site full of user-submitted reviews. The rest of the sources basically say the albums are being recorded and not much else. The whole situation kind of reminds me of this. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are unreliable? B.T. is the national daily tabloid for Berlingske Tidende, Politiken is a national daily newspaper, SoundVenue is a monthly newstand magazine (think Rolling Stone of Denmark), GAFFA is a Scandinavian music magazine published since 1983, and the Indie-Music.com cite simply references the online magazine staff's pick for "Best of..." The notability of this band may still be questionable, but the reliability of the sources is not. And as far as any similarity to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2 Much (from way back in 2007), I don't see it -- the history of that article shows it had no references other than MySpace. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, per WP:IAR, no need to keep this hoax around for a week. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oral sex causes hormone deficiency in men and women

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

The very title of the page makes it rest on a medical claim, and a questionable one. It's a claim that would be a questionable basis for its own article even if sourced, but given the higher scrutiny called for for medical-related articles and the problems with spreading bad medical information, this article should not be allowed to stay without being properly sourced. Current version of article ends with phrase "Please note, this is from personal research and cannot be found word for word. This is 100% authentic and original." - an admission that this is WP:OR. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. But I'm curious as to why there isn't an AfD template on the article (and it wasn't removed; it was never even added). Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing templates my fault; I was using Twinkle to setup the AfD, and Twinkle failed in some odd way, leaving bits of the process undone... and while doing various things to try to set up the proper stuff, I got called away for the night. Thanks to WHKitty for the fix. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. I just added the AfD template. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the so called references used in the article are to sites selling pharmaceuticals, themselves without references. Arnie Side (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR and Essay concerns. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unwikified spam essay that exemplifies exactly the sort of crackpot "original research" (using the R-word loosely) that gets the automatic gong. Should have been speedied out of here... Carrite (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tempted to speedy it as patent nonsense, but since an AfD is already open... MastCell ^Talk 19:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands Warwick Road bus Corridor

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

Contested prod. Yet another bus route article that does not provide, and does not appear to have, any of the significant coverage in independent reliable sources required to show how WP:GNG is met. Additionally, outside Wikipedia and mirrors, there is no coverage of Warwick Road bus Corridor making this naming 'work around' a case of OR Nuttah (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In Birmingham we have tried to move individual route articles into corridor articles to avoid lots of "little" crappy articles. Not sure what this guy is going on about with OR, but it includes bus routes which operate down the Warwick Road, no OR there at all, well no more OR than an article on xxxxx in xxxxx. User seems to do nothing but attempt to get articles deleted, possible bad faith nom? Jeni ^(talk) 07:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, you could make a far better case than impugning the nominator (whose search for sources based upon the bad name that you chose for the article is entirely reasonable) by pointing out that your choice of name was wrong, and not represented in sources, and that the correct name, as amply documented in the West Midlands Local Transport Plan 2000 (an official public document required by the Transport Act 2000) is West Midlands Local Transport Corridor F, covering buses, cycle routes, cars, and pedestrians. Uncle G (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Errr, I haven't actually ever edited this article other than to remove the PROD, how can my choice of name be wrong? Please do expand on your reasoning as it's baffling me a little bit there, if I'm honest! Jeni ^(talk) 13:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The world knows and sees who you are and what you do. ☺
      I suggest a quick visit to User talk:Dudleybus, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wouldn't quite say the whole world! My moves around that time were cleaning up the diabolical naming system that was implemented in the West Midlands where we had such titles as National Express West Midlands routes 405 & 405E and Diamond Bus route 401E. If the Bristol Road article were to be titled in that way we'd have National Express West Midlands routes 61, 63, X62, X64, First Midland Red routes 143 and 144 and former Diamond Bus route 64 - So much more logical to say "buses which run along the Bristol Road" aka West Midlands Bristol Road bus corridor. Jeni ^(talk) 15:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whilst renaming to West Midlands Local Transport Corridor F may make sense, we still have the problem that only a handful of primary sources cover it, and only one (listed here) has any significant detail. What detail there is shows that is is not purely concerned with buses and covers a much wider area than the Warwick Road. This grouping together of bus services is OR, there is no discussion in independent reliable sources (or primary sources) of anything remotely similar to the articles subject. Also, the prime concern remains, the article has nothing indicating how WP:GNG is met and nothing seems available. Nuttah (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTEI am proposing to move it to my userspace to improve the article to wiki standards. Please avoid deleting it. [[User:Dudleybus]] [[User talk:Dudleybus]] (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userify in view of the last comment. My view is that articles on bus routes have little merit, but I susopect that I am now in a minority. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to have any significant notability. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Count Bass D

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

This rap guy is not famous. Miami33139 (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not dependent on fame (WP:IDONTKNOWIT). Subject meets general notability guidelines through coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, including Metro Spirit [29], Flak Magazine [30], Nashville Scene [31], Allmusic [32], CMJ [33], Vibe [34], Billboard [35], and Spin [36]. dissolve ^talk 06:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage above is more than adequate to establish notability.--Michig (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed, but someone should add text from those sources to the article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSIC, as demonstrated above. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley, Squirrely and Melvin: LIVE

AfDs for this article:

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

This may be a long nomination, but I need to address everything that came up in the last AfD which closed as "no consensus" (inexplicably to me). Also, please excuse any implications that various virtual bands consisting of cartoon characters are actual recording artists in themselves.

This article about an album has been on Wikipedia for years, but ever since the very first edit, the article has claimed that the album was a collaboration between Shirley & Squirrely and The Chipmunks. For background, The Chipmunks are by far the most popular music group consisting of anthropomorphic rodents. The Nutty Squirrels were a similar kind of group, but with squirrels, and more jazz-oriented; due to a legal dispute, the Nutty Squirrels became known in the 1970s as Shirley & Squirrely. But in 1981, when this album Shirley, Squirrely and Melvin: LIVE was released -- and at all times since then -- the Chipmunks have been much better known than Shirley & Squirrely or the Nutty Squirrels.

The alleged collaboration, in this case, consisted of outtakes from the Chipmunks' 1980 and 1981 albums being combined with unfinished vocal tracks from the previous Shirley & Squirrely album. The problem is that no valid sources have been provided to establish that the Chipmunks were meant to be a collaborating artist on this album, that outtakes from the Chipmunks sessions were used on this album, or that Ross Bagdasarian, Jr. (then the vocalist for the Chipmunks) had anything to do with this album. And the lack of mention of the Chipmunks on the album cover (as seen in the article) suggests that the "collaboration" claim is overblown at best.

Taking the sources in order, we have the following:

The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll (1983 edition). I went to the library to look this up. The encyclopedia is organized by artist, and it devotes about half a page to the Chipmunks, but that entry does not refer to Shirley & Squirrely or this album. Nor do the Nutty Squirrels or Shirley & Squirrely have entries of their own. The article's claim that this book "explained its role in Chipmunk Punks aftermath and first revealed Ross Bagdasarian Jr. as the true identity behind the voice of Melvin Squirrel" is untrue.
George Gimarc's Post Punk Diary: 1980-1982. This book has a paragraph about the Chipmunk Punk album (from which outtakes were supposedly used to create this album), but it doesn't mention this album or Shirley & Squirrely; you can see for yourself here. This article's claim that the book "revealed real names of participants of this album at conclusion of entry on Chipmunk Punk" is untrue.
"Annoying Music, In Honor of the King". This is a segment from National Public Radio's Weekend Edition. The actual audio segment from the show does not mention Shirley & Squirrely or this album; however, the web site has a picture of the album cover and a bonus MP3 of Shirley & Squirrely's version of "Blue Suede Shoes." Admittedly, this does establish that not everything in this article is a lie.
"Johnson Leaves Pickwick to Start Nashville." This is an article from Billboard magazine. The only paragraph that has any bearing on this article says, "Should Johnson acquire Excelsior, his label roster would include David Houston, Donna Hazard, Mundo Earwood, the Concrete Cowboy Band and the novelty act of Shirley, Squirrely and Melvin. Also now on Excelsior are 'a number of existing masters of significant value,' says Johnson, along with the label's platinum best-seller, 'Chipmunk Punk.'" This article does not mention the album under discussion here, nor does it make any connection between the two acts besides them being on the same record label.

Also, the article claims that one of the album tracks, "Love Lives On," "has since become a cult favorite on many Los Angeles-area R&B radio stations." It also claims (via a piped link) that The Ramones provided instrumentation for this album under the name "The Amazing Rodent Rhythm Machine." Both of these claims have had "citation needed" tags attached to them for almost a year, but no attempt has been made to source them. I also asked the editor who added the invalid references about the Gimarc reference specifically, but no answer was forthcoming.

Given that this article's notability seems to have been based since the very start on false claims, and last year when it came up for AfD, several mostly irrelevant sources were added which didn't back up those claims, I believe the best solution is to delete this article. If evidence of notability turns up later, the article can be re-created with accurate information. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUM. elektrik SHOOS 05:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Ramos García

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

Article is about a reserve goalkeeper on Real Madrid's "B" team. He has been with the "B" team's squad only since 2008 and has never played in the top two divisions of Spanish football (which are fully-pro). I can't find any evidence he has even played for the "B" team. Also, a google news search yielded zero results and it appears the article wouldn't pass WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jogurney (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced BLP which potentially fails WP:ATHLETE. elektrik SHOOS 05:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOM, Only sports journalism of general nature, not played at notable level. Interesting rationale for PROD contest --ClubOranje^T 08:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agreed fails WP:ATHLETE. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Koopa Troopa (Mario enemy)

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

This is a consensus AfD. If the article passes it is moved to Koopa Troopa which is edit protected. Marcus Qwertyus 01:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant to List of Mario series characters#Koopa Troopa and the redirect Koopa Troopa . Article presents no compelling citations for merger ("Archive [nintendo.com], in search of Koopa Troopa resemblance" Wuh?) Marasmusine (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty much what Marasmusine said; Koopa Troopa has more detailed and verifiable information. —Ost (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one day, it will have its own article... but not today. FMasic (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Airlines Flight 45

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

Poorly sourced article on an event that doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Quite a minor incident and if it happened yesterday rather than 65 years ago, it would probably have found itself at AfD much sooner. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The link to this discussion from the article is a redlink. Mjroots (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Now a bluelink. YSSYguy (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a mid-air collision between a civil airliner and a military aircraft should pass the threshold for notability easily. Article needs expansion, but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sufficiently notble. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, but requires expansion. It was incidents such as this that lead to the development of the modern ATC system, for good or ill. - Ahunt (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Expanded with additional details and two more sources. Mark Sublette (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mid-air collisions are notable because of their rarity, have not waded through WP:AIRCRASH to check (seem to remember seeing it) but that's my take on this article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- William 11:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eastern Airlines. Mid-airs are actually not all that rare, even now; and a mid-air is not mentioned as a criterion for notability in WP:AIRCRASH. For that matter the accident doesn't really tick any notability boxes in the guidelines. Without knowing for sure, I would think that post-war mid-airs such as the one over the Grand Canyon would have been more of an impetus to change the ATC system rather than one of many wartime mid-airs - I doubt that it is possible to know one way or the other as to whether this accident led to changes in the ATC system. As an aside, if the consensus is to keep, the article is quite poorly-written and will need some editing to correct this. YSSYguy (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Danville

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

Crystalballery. No refs. Marcus Qwertyus 01:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually put a PROD on the article but you then edited immediately after I did. Oh well.
Delete' per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:IINFO. elektrik SHOOS 01:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and/or WP:TOOSOON. --Kudpung (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~WP:TOOSOON is an essay, not policy, and really shouldn't be cited in Afd as a reason. (The other one's valid, though.) Just so you know. elektrik SHOOS 01:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)~~Nevermind. elektrik SHOOS 06:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Langston Bonasera (talk • contribs) 02:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's not enough references. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until Season 7 starts and she makes her first appearance this article will not be complete, it will be pointless deleting it as in September it will just be created again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Langston Bonasera (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That argument doesn't make any sense. See WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. elektrik SHOOS 23:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, Also, all the information comes from blog pages. It has been stated repeatedly in the CSI talk pages that blog entries are NOT valid third party citations, and continuing to use them does not mean they will be accepted as valid. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tweencore

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

Does not satisfy WP:NALBUMS because it has not gained coverage beyond blogs, download sites, and other self-generated media. See also WP:PROMO. ----DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find coverage of this in reliable sources. Cliff smith ^talk 02:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely promotional, especially as the download is free and thus there is no way to track notability beyond downloads from the server. Nate • (chatter) 07:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the bias/promotional qualities of the article (such as the download link, etc).
Keep The idea of the article was to create a sample listing of each track, as there is no other listing on any other website, which I am in the process of doing. On the Wikipedia:NALBUMS#Albums.2C_singles_and_songs its reads: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." If a seperate page of Tweencore is inappropriate, a possible alternative of deletion would be a sample listing on the artist's page, as the Sickboy Wiki page is has next to nothing in terms of content, with the exception of a Discography. A sample list would prove to be relevant information. Editor5678 (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're full-on admitting that there isn't a listing of this information on any other website? Delete then. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said there was no Sample Listing on any other website. Editor5678 (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And a sample listing is...? Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - A list of all samples (sound clips) used throughout the entire album. As it is in the mashup genre it often uses large sections of other songs (samples) as well as films clips. The idea was to create a list of all songs and films it took portions from to incorporate into each track. An Example of a Sample List/Listing Editor5678 (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nnamdi Oduamadi

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

It just a crystal ball that the player will made his professional debut for Milan soon. He is not yet notable and may recreate few months later. Matthew_hk t c 00:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unreferenced BLP, and for not satisfying notability requirements per WP:ATHLETE. elektrik SHOOS 05:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N. -- Luxic (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG, having never played for Milan and not having significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thodoris Moschonas

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

Has yet to make his professional debut. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Marcus Qwertyus 00:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is an international footballer and i have included source from the Greek Football Federation(Epo) Ican include more greek sources that state the date he signed his contract and more if you'd like. Axaxouxas (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the teams N.Ionia and Elpidoforos where he has played are semi-professional. I have sources for that and game sheets for that as well. I can put tens of them if you want.Axaxouxas (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be helpful. Marcus Qwertyus 00:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know nothing of Greek football so I'll leave this to the experts. Marcus Qwertyus 01:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just added some match reports and a news report about the signing of his professional contract. Hope that's enough cause if it's not please delete the article. Till today I was just a reader of wikipedia and I have seen hundreds of articles about established footballers that are wrong and not considered for deletion. Why are you so strict about an article on a youngster? Axaxouxas (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal, it's just business :). Marcus Qwertyus 01:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know. is it OK now?Axaxouxas (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I know nothing of Greek football. Give it a week and we'll see. Marcus Qwertyus 01:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jogurney (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no evidence that Moschonas has ever played in a fully-pro league or at a senior international level. A google news search for Θεόδωρος Μοσχονάς only yielded very routine mentions of his signing a contract with AEK or going on loan to semi-pro clubs. Article doesn't appear to pass WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that guy is an international, contracted at a top Greek club that plays in Europe, respresented Greece at u-19 level and has to be deleted. Fair enough. What about this guy? No professional appearances, no international, contracted at the fifth(!!!) division of England but no problem as it seems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Blackman

What about this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Bouzanis He didn't make any professional appearances till this year but had a wikipedia entry since 2007!!!! Bonus: He was Moschonas' substitute at Greece U-19...

I really can't unterstand the criteria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axaxouxas (talk • contribs) 06:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

No professional appearances: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corry_Evans No professional appearances: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_King_%28footballer%29 No professional appearances: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauri_Dalla_Valle Axaxouxas (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid keep argument--ClubOranje^T 08:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corry Evans played for Northern Ireland at the senior level. Joshua King played for Manchester United in the League Cup. So, both meet the football criteria for inclusion. Neither is comparable to Moschonas. Patken4 (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Evans has four full international caps. King and Blackman have both made one professional appearance and the article states this. Bouzanis and Dalla Valle both passed AfDs on the basis that they passed the general notability guideline, which takes precedence over failing WP:NSPORT -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria for footballers, coverage is all match reports and general sports journalism as expected of any footballer nearing the verge of possible professionalism. Age group representation is not considered inherently notable, hasn't played professionally, fails WP:GNG. In short, done nothing encyclopaedically notable.--ClubOranje^T 08:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that was a stupid argument about the other players. Since you the experts agree that it has to be deleted, you must be right. And now a noob question please, when he does make a professional appearance someone will have to write an article all over again or the things I have written will be saved somewhere? Sorry for your time but having read so much crap overtime in wikipedia I thought you were very strict on me for some reason. Now i realize this is not the case.Axaxouxas (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be saved as a userspace draft for the time being. Let me know if you need help. Marcus Qwertyus 18:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively it can be restored to its current state at that time by any WP:ADMINISTRATOR if you simply ask, even after deletion--ClubOranje^T 20:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aviastar-TU Flight 1906

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

Not a notable aviation accident. No fatalities, a small number of serious injuries, no sustained media coverage. Not of historic significance to warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The link to this discussion from the article is a redlink. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Now a blue link. YSSYguy (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very notable accident. It is the first hull-loss of a Tu-204, and the first hull-loss for Aviastar. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Tupolev Tu-204 article per WP:AIRCRASH guidelines; as Mjroots notes, the accident meets two criteria (plus one more criterion he hasn't mentioned), but they are all in the same sub-section of the guidelines, so not notable enough for a stand-alone article IMO. The crash article is excessively detailed, so not all of the info would need to be merged. YSSYguy (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One man's excessive detail is another's comprehensive coverage. Mjroots (talk)
Merge to the Tupolev Tu-204 article per WP:AIRCRASH guidelines. Hard landing, one crew member injured enough to go to hospital. Per Wikipedia is not a directory, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and in particular WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most hull loss accidents have a page, and lets not forget that this took place in a major metro area so there is plenty of coverage if not in english. 66.220.101.210 (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is extremely interesting about this accident is that the huge medium range plane landed in forest without the fatalities. This happens very rarely in aviation and probably the only such case in the whole history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.245.200.50 (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A hull loss of a large airliner, which appears to have resulted in the operator being banned from carrying passengers. There appears to be enough sources here for a viable article.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mjroots and Nigel Ish. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 836

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

Not a notable incident- runway overshoots with a few minor injuries are surprisingly common and this has attracted no sustained media coverage. Fails WP:NOTNEWS in that it contains very little but a blow-by-blow account of what is quite a minor incident. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~The link to this discussion from the article is a redlink.~~ Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC) - now Fixed Mjroots (talk)[reply]

Keep - lack of deaths does not equate to a lack of notability. The airliner was written off, which makes this a major accident. Investigation and the publishing of a report takes time and can be up to two years. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mjroots. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 12:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is almost a carbon copy crash as American Airlines Flight 331 which has a decent page. Also this has a good amount of cites already. 66.220.101.210 (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Merpati Nusantara article. There is nothing in the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines to suggest that an accident resulting in a write-off is a criterion for having a WP article; this article concerns one of three dozen aircraft written-off while in service with Merpati, and one of dozens more to involve Indonesian airlines. The existence of an article concerning "almost a carbon copy crash" is irrelevant to this discussion. YSSYguy (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this meets WP:NOTNEWS -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Romanian Air Force Antonov An-2 crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. A tragic accident, but not one with any lasting notability. Little to no ongoing coverage. A mere few weeks later and it seems to have been forgotten by the media. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the An-2 is not a small aircraft, ~~having a wingspan larger than the Douglas DC-3~~. Twelve dead is a significant number which adds weight to the notablilty. The accident happened in Romania, which means that coverage in en-sources is likely to be sparse and it won't be very widely reported in Romania either. This does not detract from the notability of the event though. Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The accident resulted in 12 fatalities, 2 people injured and a loss of the aircraft. Hard to see why this accident isn't a notable event. C1010 (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - notability and media coverage really exist - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This crash actually got a paragraph in at least one Australian capital-city newspaper, however as HJ Mitchell points out it falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS. It does not meet the criteria set out for military aircraft crashes in WP:AIRCRASH either. The An-2 seats 12 (i.e. similar seating capacity to a King Air 200) versus a DC-3's 32 and does not have a larger wingspan than a DC-3, unless you add the spans of the two wings together (which you wouldn't do as a method of comparing aircraft types). YSSYguy (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck my incorrect comment re wingspan. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or redirect to an article on the airplane model, where this crash is already included.. Single engine biplane crash with 12 fatalities. If 12 people are killed in a highway smashup, in a disease outbreak or in a tenement fire, or in the sinking of a small boat in wartime, it would not seem to require enshrinement forever in encyclopedias. Per Wikipedia is not a directory, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and in particular WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No lasting notability, we're not wikinews. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Edison's good comment on the matter. Ryan Norton 11:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard WP:NOTNEWS case. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There has been insufficient discussion to come to a consensus to delete this article, but a third relist is prohibited by WP:RELIST. There is therefore no prejudice against immediate renomination. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ewing, III

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

WP:NN photographer / newspaper worker. Appears that the only available references are his obit, which fails WP:RS and WP:BIO Toddst1 (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was written three years ago before everthing had to have imbedded references. The subject is from a prominent newspaper publishing family, not just "a newspaper worker." Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was not just newspaper obits for the sources, but a news article in both the Monroe and Shreveport newspapers on the death of this Ewing publishing family member. Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. ~~The article is a BLP.~~ --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a BLP? He's dead. elektrik SHOOS 05:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for that. Missed that "obit" was short for obituary. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - His father was a publisher and editor of a significant newspaper and definitely over the bar. I get the sense that this is son-of-the-father sort of material. Carrite (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ There are no official notability guidelines that state obituaries can't be a ref. Bejinhan Talk 02:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you buy that an obit is a reliable source (dare you to find a non-obit one), how does the subject of the article satisfy WP:ANYBIO which requires either

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

2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field?

Neither of which is asserted or demonstrated in the article, so he fails WP:BIO. Toddst1 (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial AFD point for deletion was that it "Appears that the only available references are his obit", the impression you're giving me and maybe the others too are that an obit is not a reliable source. Get that corrected.

Anyhow, I've strike out my keep per your points raised above regarding WP:ANYBIO. Bejinhan talks 04:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? My original afd comment [37] clearly stated he failed BIO. Regarding RS: most obits are written by the survivors. Any amateur genealogist knows they are filled with fabrications and embellishments. Toddst1 (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best a person of minor local interest, but certainly not WP "notable". Lustralaustral (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Filth

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

Delete - non-notable band. No reliable sources attest to notability; fails WP:GNG. The only criteria it might meet at WP:BAND is 10, based on the music supposedly recorded for the film Trigger. That guideline suggests that if this is the only claim to notability then the article should probably be redirected. Except that the film has no article so there's no redirect target. Article also reads like a review or promotional piece, implicating WP:OR and WP:SPAM. PROD removed without explanation. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am one of the primary authors of the entry and I added more information to come into compliance with #8 (one member was the member of two other notable bands). I also tried to rewrite it so that it was more informational rather than promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maijamaija (talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maija, I'm assuming you're Maija Martin? If you've not read WP:COI it would be a good idea. When you say #8 do you mean WP:BAND #8, "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award"? Because I'm not seeing a reference for it. Notability isn't inherited so the notability of an individual band member doesn't transfer to the band. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sorry, I meant #6 - Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. I think we meet the second part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maijamaija (talk • contribs) 14:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#6 would support an article for the member who has been in two notable bands, not articles for each of the member's subsequent bands. Jane Foo is in notable bands The Fooians and The Booians so Jane is notable, but that doesn't make Jane's next band The Dooians notable just because she's a member. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to pass WP:BAND. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BAND. Even if it did meet #10, the article for the movie doesn't exist and even if it did, based on Google searches I've conducted it would be unlikely to pass a notability/verifiability check either. elektrik SHOOS 05:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this article does not meet the requirements for inclusion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daptiv

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

Article has been deleted once through proposed deletion, and was restored. Advertisement for a non-notable business, yet another SaaS-based Project Portfolio Management solution provider. References provided are only superficially impressive: yes, the New York Times apparently printed a story about their name change (from "eProject" to the current title — smart move!), and were mentioned once in the Wall Street Journal. Those are the only non-routine references; the rest are "magic quadrants" and other usual suspects. Even the cream of the references don't establish historical, technical, or cultural significance or long term historical notability. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete These kinds of throwaway mentions do not establish notability. Miami33139 (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This software is one of the leading 2nd tier project management software tools. It is comparable with tools such as Microsoft Project Server. The list of clients [38] alone is WP:N. The company gets as much press as any mid-size software company eg [39]. in June 2008 Gartner put the company in the leaders quadrant [40]. This is also WP:N. The company has 100,000 users and employs about 100 people, one of the larger project management software providers. The Gartner rating is more than sufficient reason to keep. I am concerned that the Talk page suggests a systematic pattern to list many of the companies that appear on the Comparison_of_project_management_software page for WP:AfD. AWHS (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Gartner refs for 2009 and 2010. AWHS (talk)

Leading 2nd tier? I played chess once with Anatoly Karpov in an exhibition match; I came in second, myself.

While I should hope that Gartner is a reliable source, it's not very useful for notability. Gartner's a consulting business producing investment reports for IT businesses. Their coverage is necessarily deeper than an encyclopedia's; they're demand driven by the needs of their customers, and as such coverage in Gartner does not really mean that an editor has found a business it covers significant enough to receive independent reporting. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advert. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As there is currently no firm information for this tour, the consensus is to delete. If/when such information is available, it can always be recreated -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aphrodite Tour – Les Follies

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

This article should be deleted because it has no sources, the tour dates & when the tour will take place are yet to be confirmed. It is too early for it to have a page since the tour will start in 2011. The name of the tour has also not been confirmed. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 20:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Hastert

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AFD closed as no consensus, back when the primary was still running and this entry was billing him as the "front runner". Now that he's lost the primary, the lack of notabilty should be more clear. Hairhorn (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Dennis Hastert. 174.30.234.23 (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops that was me, forgot to sign in. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited, he failed to get nominated by his party, and does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Politicians are inherently public figures. Nothing gained from the deletion, serviceable information would be lost. Carrite (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All people who have ever run for public office are inherently notable? I'm not sure anyone buys that, and the notability criteria for politicians say pretty explicity otherwise. Hairhorn (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:POLITICIAN. elektrik SHOOS 19:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unelected nobody. Lustralaustral (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nosound. JohnCD (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giancarlo Erra

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

Non-notable musician as far as I can find. Article says it's just local shows. Article doesn't make any claim to notability. There are 2 or 3 top page google results for his name, but the rest aren't about him.

His band, Nosound may be barely notable (no sourcing on that page either) but I don't think he qualifies for his own page. Looking for input.mboverload @ 04:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it ironic that your sig says "voting is evil" but you're saying "per nom" which is not that far from WP:JUSTAVOTE.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not redirect to Nosound? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nosound Giancarlo Erra seems a reasonable search term, but I don't think the information here is sufficient to warrant an individual article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Bourdeau

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

Been about 4 years unsourced, deprodded here, I cannot found reliable sources on this guy (somewhat common name) and honestly, I'm not sure if being on a couple of recordings with people (all unsourced so I'm not sure that should be staying per BLP) is enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few mentions of him at Google News, but they are mostly "upcoming concert" calendar notices or passing mentions (e.g., the soprano being reviewed was accompanied by Marc Bourdeau). Some of the references are in French but don't appear to be any more substantial. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avetis Berberyan

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

Would be a BLPprod issue but deprodded because of citations to YouTube[41]. Last, if we do not have a license with Armendiapedia this is a copyright violation. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article has no significance. Elm478 (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using Three Words

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

A band that has received some local success in Canberra. Not independently sourced. Nothing satisfying wp:music, battle of the bands is local, no evidence awards are major (finalist or top ten only), rotation not national, only one ep release, notability not inherited from supporting acts, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Paragraphs 4-7 may be copyvio from unearthed page. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They've had some limited success, but there isn't the coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous!

AfDs for this article:

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

Supposedly notable for a soundtrack for an MTV series The Chest Nuts (a short article in The Advertiser, 10 May 2008 says they were signed to record a soundtrack for an MTV series, not naming it). This would make a redirect to the series (if an article existed) appropriate, but not their own article without something more. Other achievements are appearing on MTV, maybe having a demo played on radio (unsourced) and some supposed "bad boy antics on the catwalk" (although the article cited credits models for that behaviour and does not mention the band). Not enough. Of cited sources take away references that don't mention them we are left with a dead link, youtube, myspace, facebook, an mtv video ~~and an mtv page about an mtv show~~. I couldn't find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - there's this writeup. But looking at the other sourcing, they don't really have that much significant coverage. More like a band that hasn't quite arrived yet. -- Whpq (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I am ignoring the opinion of blocked sockpuppet User:Lustralaustral. Courcelles (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Baptiste

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

PROD removed without reason by author. Reason: "After removing the copyright violation, I cannot find any coverage in third party reliable sources to satisfy the notability requirements." Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Active politicians are inherently public figures and the provision of a neutral venue for biographical information constitutes one of Wikipedia's great public services. Carrite (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An as yet unelected nobody. Lustralaustral (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aureobel

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

Record label with no indication or evidence of notability. No independent sources found. Deskford (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dave Matthews Band. JohnCD (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Idea of You

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

Non-notable song, unreliable sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dave Matthews Band: A song that has never been recorded and is not referenced by reliable third-party sources is a song that fails WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dave Matthews Band for the same reason as Aspects mentions -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kakinada. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circar Public School

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

Removed Prod, might be notable but the internet isn't the right place to find it. WP:V is even debatable as I can't find an RS I trust, but pictures and the like make it likely it exists. Hopeful more eyes can fix it, if not suggest it be deleted. Hobit (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A7 speedy I removed (doesn't apply to schools), then I prodded, Delete if it can't be verified; could be a hoax or some advert from some company of some kind. Ryan Norton 06:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The directory listing provided as a ref says "L.K.G to 7th class." Does the higher level correspond to "high school" in the US? If so there might be a basis for keeping it. If it is equivalent to a grade school or junior high, the results of previous AFDs for school articles point toward deletion. Edison (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Primary_education#India -> It's a grade school. Ryan Norton 18:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I've added the one fact worth preserving, that this school is run by the Sri Raghupathi Venkata Ratnam Naidu Trust, to the Kakinada article. This article can be redirected there per our usual practice for primary schools. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kakinada. I concur with Phil Bridger. Ryan Norton 21:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kakinada. --Kudpung (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Kakinada. TerriersFan (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with the merge and redirect. Nice job, I actually looked for that group here and must of mistyped or something. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No point in redirecting imo. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EPL Talk

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination from malformed AfD. Atmoz (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article was deleted before in the past, but has been rewritten. Just looks like an advertisement for a website. Bobbymozza (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it is still not notable and fails wp:web.

Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 01:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G4. – Pee Jay 07:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all deliberate speed. No article. I note that someone has removed the entry from the list of AfD's. I restored it but I don't know how long it was out. This is not malformation but vandalism. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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