Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 3

< 2 July	4 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. JForget 01:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Cohen[edit]

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

Notable? Both "Geoff Cohen"+Solars Computing and "Geoff Cohen"+GreenNet give minimal results on google... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in any reliables sources. Linked in is not a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Almost no sources available. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:24, 9 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. JForget 01:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2/3 Ai no Kyōkaisen[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion, this article does not show why the subject meets either the main notability guidelines or the book notability guidelines. My search before deleting, including the CSE search shows nothing of interest, I think. Malkinann (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Malkinann (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails the WP:NOTE and WP:BK inclusion guidelines and shows no relevant hits for reliable sources under its romaji or kanji titles. There is no author's article to redirect this to. —Farix (t | c) 15:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:BK and the GNG. No evidence notability found. No licensor outside Japan. Both the light novel serial chapters and the manga chapters never made it into bound volume and thus evidence that the series ever existed is scarce. I found only a goodies --KrebMarkt 17:36, 5 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 arguments for deletion - MINUS the nom JForget 01:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Me I'm Famous[edit]

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

I don't understand on what basis this album passed WP:NALBUMS. It has not recieved independent coverage and has virtually no sources. The only context/information it provides is an indescriminate list of track listings which could be found from a retailer. There is no encyclopedic information here and if anything it could be a copyright violation of the only source Davidguetta.com Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a check of Hung Medien shows these albums appeared on Belgian, Austrian and Swiss albums charts [1][2][3][4][5]. And these albums respectively peaked at #4, #4, #31 and #1 on the French compilations chart, as shown on Infodisc database (see "David GUETTA") [6]. --Europe22 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment perhaps if those are added to the article it might help its situation though still i dont see why such information couldn't simply be placed on guetta's discography. A page to provide a track listing and chart positions is not required or notable. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The series comes from Guetta's parties/club nights of the same name and these should also be covered here. See, for example, [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].--Michig (talk) 07:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it can definitely be improved but these albums have charted and were put together by a notable artist. At least they're all on one page rather than an individual page for each album. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:25, 9 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. JForget 01:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff 'Phi' Nguyen[edit]

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

Non-notable dancer that is part of a notable act, but without any individual coverage. Was completely spammy, now just has likes and idols and such, similar to myspce and autobio cruft. All the sources I found just mention him as part of the group, there is nothing to show that he is notable beyond being in the group. Terrillja _talk 22:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete puff piece for nn dancer. Cannot find anything that would allow him to pass notability as an artiste. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lot of spammy sources but nothing reliable. Article also says "This guy is fun to be with". Christopher Connor (talk) 19:28, 9 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, nomination withdrawn and no delete !votes. Non-admin closure Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogic card[edit]

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

~~No references, no assertion of notability –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Can someone close this as keep? Nineteen Nightmares has improved this beyond all recognition, I am sorry that I could not find sources myself. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A relatively common piece of equipment for people working in telecommunications and computer networking. Agree the article is insufficient as it stands. I will make some improvements to the tone and references right now. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Kia[edit]

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

Unable to locate any reliable third-party sources independent of the subject sufficient to establish WP:N. Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO J04n(talk page) 20:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any RS to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can only find spammy refs. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:32, 9 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. JForget 01:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hardie Commercials Ltd[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:CORP, article created with WP:COI issues (see Talk:Thomas Hardie Commercials Ltd); creator's account now blocked for promotional name. No third party citations in the article that mention the company. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Possible candidate for speedy deletion under criterion G5. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Empty Buffer (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how G5 would apply - that's for articles created in violation of a ban or block, not a blanket ban of the work of editors who were later banned. This entry was in fact deleted under G5 just a week ago, as the creation of a block evading sock (that's who removed the PROD), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RealDanMan14/Archive. I suppose User:TrucksPromotionUK could be yet another sock of the same user, but that would mean he's put far more effort into faking an identity than before, normally he doesn't expend any effort at all. Hairhorn (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see a great deal of evidence of "faking an identity", and this user has re-created virtually word for word the same article as was deleted, which would be a little surprising for a new editor. It seems to me quite likely that this is another sockpuppet, or if not then a meat puppet, which is effectively the same. However, I don't see this as very important: we may as well let it run the full AfD course. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by Empty Buffer, the article fails to show notability of the subject, either by meeting any specific criteria in WP:CORP or by meeting WP:GNG. While I agree that there's a serious COI issue, since it seems the original editor was solicited to create this page by the subject's parent company, I don't think it meets G11, G5, or any other speedy deletion criteria based on evidence I've seen so far. —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence at all of notability. The only "reference" to an independent source is totally spurious, and does not even mention Thomas Hardie Commercials. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable. Dewritech (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can only find spammy 'business listings'. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:42, 9 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. JForget 01:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Brumberg[edit]

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

He's not notable. Being a candidate for political office does not establish notability. Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is someone that people have wanted to read about, and is more notable than other candidates for office that do have wikipedia pages. Disclosure, I have volunteered on his campaign 216.165.30.218 (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC) — 216.165.30.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, fails WP:POLITICIAN. He has never held office, and at this point he doesn't even have the Republican nomination; there are two viable candidates, one of whom will be chosen in the primary on September 14. Even if he wins the nomination in September, he will need substantial independent coverage to get his own article. I suppose instead of a delete, his name could be redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2010. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: My comments below are responding to a comment which was later deleted by its author. --MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, but thanks for pointing out that Dino LaVerghetta has a Wikipedia page. He is not notable either, and I will nominate him for deletion as well. In fact LaVerghetta's article falsely claims that he is "the Republican candidate", which I will change. Those two are the only ones mentioned in the article [14] cited at Brumberg's page; who is the third? --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated LaVerghetta for deletion. If the "other candidate" you referred to is Reshma Saujani, I checked her out and she appears to be notable, due to multiple articles about her in the New York Times, New York Post, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICAN. May be eligible for creation later (CRYSTAL). Christopher Connor (talk) 19:45, 9 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. As a classic BLP1E and magnet for potential BLPVIOs the delete arguments are based on policy while the keep side also strong is based on guidelines. Policy always trumps guidelines - especially avoiding harm. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kyron Horman[edit]

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

Not notable person per Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Notability of perpetrators and victims. Kyron Herman has not achieved any notability outside of being a victim of a crime. (In addition, the article formerly served as vehicle for noxious implications against the victim's mother. These have been removed but one has to question the whole point of this article existing.) Herostratus (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Disappearance of Kyron Horman (or the like) - the case has been covered by CNN, People, Good Morning America, and way too much in The Oregonian, and that's just those I know of. The above cited notability guideline relates to if their should be an article about the victim only, and not whether there should be an article covering the crime. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Aboutmovies, there appears to be sufficient notability for the crime itself to pass WP:N -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't match the criterion for inclusion. Dawnseeker2000 02:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This has been a continued media presence in the state of Oregon for at least a month, maybe two now, with almost daily updates on the evening news. It's been on the cover of People magazine. Seems notable enough. -- Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Delete. As much as I hate to say it, this isn't entirely notable enough for inclusion. It is famous now, but will it be in the future? I could say the same for pretty much any kidnapping/murder case. I say that for the moment (especially since there is an extreme lack of information on the page) we should delete the page & just list it on the page List of kidnappings, if that. It is a tragedy that this happened, but unlike cases such as the Natalee Holloway (extradition issues) or murder cases such as the Jasmine Fiore case (first reality show murder), there is nothing to really make this case stand out against other kidnapping/(possible) murder cases out there. At best I think that we should watch the page to see if anything noteworthy happens. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete per Herostratus. Subject is not notable. WP is not a newspaper and should not have an article for every crime victim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Herostratus and Ssilvers. In the United States every three days a child under the age of 13 is murdered by a stranger. Being a crime victim does not make you notable, particularly one that happens so often. Wikipedia is not a primary news source. See the above delete comments. Nick Beeson (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep Meets WP:GNG, not a single event, lots of reliable sources for verifiability. Indeed, being a missing child or murdered does not make you notable, but thousands of Google News hits does.

@Nwbeeson, We judge notability via significant coverage, not depending on whether it is 'unique' or not.

@Tokyogirl79, This story is evolving over a long period, and there are lots of reliable sources; it is becoming increasingly complex, and not just one event; e.g. [redacted], and extended discussions re. the affects on the police budgets; see Google News.

@Dawnseeker2000 Re. Doesn't match the criterion for inclusion - please could you note which policies you are referring to? It certainly meets the general notability guidelines.

Chzz ► 13:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had to redact part of Chzz's post for BLP reasons. This does highlight one of the points made in in the nom. Although it doesn't really bear on whether the the person is notable or the article should exist, its likely to be a BLP maintenance problem. Is it worth it? Herostratus (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The redacted statement was "allegation re. the step-mother paying to have her husband killed". References to support this claim include;

Kyron Horman's Stepmom Accused of Attempted Murder-for-Hire Plot, Says Report, Caroline Black, CBS News, July 6
Landscaper tells detectives Terri Moulton Horman offered him money to kill her husband, Maxine Bernstein, The Oregonian, July 4 Chzz ► 12:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete C'mon this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA not a missing persons hotline. Fails WP:Bio. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Disappearance of Kyron Horman per Aboutmovies. The article as it stands doesn't give you much of an idea how big this has gotten; it's getting coast-to-coast coverage, and keeps developing. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: There are 800,000 missing people in the US only per Missing_person#U.S._statistics. Although it may sound regrettable, Wikipedia's mission is different. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 13:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Anyone who objects to this doesn't care about the news. The story has been front page news, on CNN's HLN every day, and on AOL's Welcome Screen for several weeks. Whether the story is worthy of national news is beside the point. There isn't the slightest doubt that it is notable.Aardvarkzz (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- This is ALL OVER mainstream news, and has been a constant presence for a while now. This is more than notable, and definitely qualifies in Wiki's standards. It just has to be rewritten, and needs more sources.Blindeffigy (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the same reasons as Dr Blofield and Herostratus. Tomas Jennings (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC) — Tomas Jennings (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vibrations of Doom[edit]

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

Article is about an obscure music website that does not fulfill notability guidelines. Appears to have been written by the website author himself. Laval (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. I can't tell if it's a conflict of interest, but aside from a large amount of weasel words, the only Ghits I can find are to an unrelated album called Vibrations of Doom. Plus, the official website is down (and the creator made the page in February 2008 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since). Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claims are unverifiable as there are no sources and cannot find any. As above, seems to refer to a 1984 album. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:50, 9 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. JForget 01:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EyPi RecordZ[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:Company, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, apparent WP:Conflict of interest. Prod contested by creator User:EyPi, who has since been blocked for the promotional username. Empty Buffer (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems like a vanity article to me. ArcAngel (talk) ) 18:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence anywhere of notability. 79.123.75.242 (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom does not meet either WP:ORG or WP:CORP Codf1977 (talk) 18:12, 4 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. JForget 01:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Pierchalski[edit]

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

Previously prodded. No hard-set opinion, but is this person notable? Is this page self-promotion? bd2412 T 17:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. He is CEO of a non-notable company, BPU Investment Management, and he serves on some local community boards. So do I, but I'm not notable.--MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very few sources. Does not meet threshold. Christopher Connor (talk)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. No reason was given for the deletion nomination. Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Bordon[edit]

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

You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been found. --Jaellee (talk) 17:05, 3 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 arguments for deletion MINUS the nom JForget 01:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SO.F.T. - Sorgenti di Firenze Trekking[edit]

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

This topic does not appear to be especially notable, and the article does not indicate why it is notable, and (similarly) no references are provided. The first google result for this topic is this page. Not sure if this is WP:MADEUP but seems to fail WP:N for sure. — Timneu22 · talk 15:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not WP:MADEUP, but an interesting tourist trail in Tuscany, the content is verifiable e. g. with this source. Btw, Wikipedia is often the first google hit for many topics, it is nothing unusual. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't see indication that it is important; only that it exists. — Timneu22 · talk 15:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good article about this tourist trail could be enriching for this project and interesting for our readers. This web doesn't look like a reliable site, but it calls the "Florence springs trekking" one of the most important Italian trails. The trail is mentioned in several tourist guides at G-Books (Lonely Planet - Italy, Tuscany & Umbria). Source in English: [15]. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it survives, needs renaming: (a) presumably should be SOFT or S.O.F.T., not a mixture, and (b) should have the name or the abbrev but not both. Probably best rename to "Sorgente...", with redirects/dab entries from SOFT and variants. PamD (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - another source here. Leave it to develop a while - page only created 6 days ago. PamD (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some better categorization will make this article helpful to tourists. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:15, 9 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. JForget 01:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadians go to Ireland[edit]

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

Likely hoax. No evidence that this book series has ever been written or published, let alone meet the requirements of WP:BOOKS. See this facebook group for the reaction of his friends to the 'series'. The-Pope (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — unreferenced, fails WP:GNG, and probable hoax. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 15:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. It looks like the book was supposed to come out but was never even finished. I also added the author's article to the nomination. (By the way, both of these articles were the creator's only contributions, and s/he hasn't edited in over a year.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 4 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. JForget 00:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Leslie[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to establish WP:N. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Apparently there was a discussion for deletion in 2004 which can be seen at Talk:DJ Leslie, this must have been fore the current AfD process was in place. J04n(talk page) 13:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a few mentions of a DJ Leslie from Seattle, who I assume is a different person. Either way, I didn't find enough to establish notability for any DJ Leslie.--Michig (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article subject does not fulfill notability guidelines and is a basic vanity blurb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laval (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's too bad that the editor who wrote that DJ Leslie has been "in the Ottawa Sun, the Ottawa XPress, IndustrialnatioN, Apocalypse Magazine, and several documentaries" did not provide proper citations. My searching turned up a 1996 article in the Ottawa Citizen (I've now added it) which, despite her name not being in the title, is pretty much entirely about her. It confirms that at the time she was "an eight-year veteran of the underground scene" and in my mind it's not implausible that those other publications had some coverage of her; it may be more difficult to find the coverage if it was from 15 years ago or so. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:15, 3 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 arguments for deletion other than nominator; no consensus to redirect, please continue the discussion on the article's talk page.. Courcelles (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Index of psychology articles[edit]

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

Index of psychology articles is a monster catchall article attempting to list all psychology articles but there is already 68 separate lists of psychology articles given at Lists of psychology topics. These individual lists are much more manageable. To compound the issue, Index of psychology articles contains a huge amount of garbage: articles on physiology philosophy pharmacology statistics etc, duplication, many dubious redlinks, unhelpful redirects and links to DAB pages. I actually made a big effort to clean up this article see User:Penbat/Index of psychology articles but have now realised the article is pointless and unviable.--Penbat (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — to Lists of psychology topics. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 15:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem! Remember that this encyclopaedia comes with a table of contents and an index, which you can find hyperlinked to in the navigation linkbar on every page. This part of the index is linked from Portal:Contents/Index, and is a mere three hyperlinks from the main page: Main Page→Portal:Contents→Portal:Contents/Lists of topics→this page. Uncle G (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of the Wikipedia index navigation system. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps all Wikipedia indices should be moved to Wikipedia namespace? 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a template to attach to the top and bottom of index pages to tell people it is a wikipedia indix? 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Redirect as per Gosox would resolve navigation issues to the article. Lists of psychology topics would serve as a much better index. As i explained, Index of psychology articles is unmanageable, and full of junk anyway. --Penbat (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Gosox5555's suggestion. I agree that something needs to be done to get this out of article space. The suggested option seems most helpful to the users. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of psychology topics - per nominator. Maashatra11 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is part of the Portal:Contents/Index navigation system.
(See Index of mathematics articles for a particularly large example, that is automatically maintained by bot. Possibly all indexes will/should end up using this bot-maintenance system? Join Wikipedia:WikiProject Index to help us discuss the group as a whole.) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Particulary large"? Are you sure? Your example is a very good example to what should be done in this context, because "Index of mathematics articles" redirects to List of mathematics articles (which actually lists no individual entries at all and is split alphabetically). Maashatra11 (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that example is so large that it was split into subpages! (And there are many pages currently named "List of ..." that would be more accurately named "Index of ...". We're working on it... :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lists of psychology topics Lova Falk talk 07:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Quiddity. And follow the List of mathematics articles example in alphabetizing. Cleanup will be done by appropriate interested parties, not the ones who try to delete. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of psychology topics. Redundant because that is what categories are for. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:03, 11 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. JForget 00:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Punetc[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, no significant coverage by reliable sources. creator appears to be connected with the film. Quasihuman (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NF. Aside from the COI, the official website suggests the film isn't even finished yet. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All factors and searches considered, this article is simply WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and blatant advertising. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:08, 9 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. Consensus seems to hold that this individual has received sufficient coverage to be notable in his own right. ~ mazca ^talk 10:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JME Adenuga[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Only references are to a blog site and a Youtube video. Searches do not provide useful results. The band/label (Boy Better Know) that this artist fronts does not appear notable in its own right and has been separately nominated for deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JME (rapper)

Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. VQuakr (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Put the article back into the article incubator, again. TDW ✉ 10:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Incubation would imply that this article might be improved by more work. If I had felt that was the case, I wouldn't have nominated for deletion in the first place. The problem isn't that the article is poor, but that the subject is non-notable. If there is a chance that he might become notable in the future, than an article can be created about him then. If Trap The Drum Wonder (talk · contribs) feels that his work on this article might be lost, he is free to create a user space draft in anticipation of any future notability of JME. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to meet requirements of general notability guideline. Coverage exists, but is not cited in article. More notable as musician than as member of group. snigbrook (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If coverage exists, can you please provide links, preferably as references in the article? I have not been able to find significant reliable coverage, which is why I nominated in the first place. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Some coverage does exist, and I've added a few sources just now. JME is cited (by more than one British newspaper) as a prime example of an artist in the grime music scene. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If and when this article is changed to satisfactory standards, I would like to propose that the page be moved to Jamie Adenuga. The artist's stagename is 'JME' and his real name is 'Jamie Adenuga' - not the acronym followed by his surname. TDW ✉ 21:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:COMMONNAME I'd say it should be at JME (rapper) or JME (musician) because the sources I found refer to him simply as JME. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you insist. JME (rapper) will go in sync with Wiley (rapper). TDW ✉ 00:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 11:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the nomination, I'd suggest that this article's fate is clearly intertwined with the related AfD for Boy Better Know, which I've also just relisted. Further comments to evaluate whether the sourcing improvements made are sufficient would be useful here. ~ mazca ^talk 11:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Notability has been established since nomination. (Accepting sources in good faith.) Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 16:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — This is a ridiculous nom in my opinion. JME is an extremely notable figure - a "CEO", if you will - within the Grime scene. Plenty of RS sources: [16] [17] [18] [19] Crashandspin (talk) 13:18, 4 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. –MuZemike 00:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional cat-like aliens[edit]

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

This list fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO, because there's no clear definition of what a "cat-like alien" is, and thus the list doesn't have clear inclusion criteria. It could also be argued that this is an unencyclopaedic cross-categorization, as it cross-categorizes "fictional aliens" with the "cat-like". Felinoid aliens in fiction is not an encyclopaedic topic. Claritas § 11:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:OR. Whether an alien is cat-like seems to simply be a matter of opinion. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discussion page has quite a few posts which clearly indicates that people find the list useful. Whether or not an alien is cat-like is not so hard to determine. We can leave it at "I know it when I see it." HebrewHammerTime (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But where are the guidelines that determine what a cat-like alien is? As for the talk page, well, the face that people find the list useful isn't a good "keep" rationale (yes, it was back in 2008, but consensus can change). Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guidelines that determine what a cat-like alien is are reliable sources which indicate that the aliens are cat-like. This could be either the fiction in question, in which the aliens are described as being cat-like, or reviews or other independent commentary which describes them as such. But the article is a reasonable spinoff of a list of aliens. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And these reliable sources are where? Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore, how can you ensure that the definition of "cat-like" is consistent across the independent commentary, if it does exist ? Claritas § 08:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strictly speaking citing that a species or character is cat-like is hardly challenging, in fact one of the magazines I recently read had an Avatar feature with a side-panel showing three other sci-fi movies/shows' cat-beings (one of which was an old Star Trek cartoon, which was news to me). Despite that, I can't support retention because in a great deal of these cases the presence of cat-beings is trivial to the work as a whole. Someone another 23:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see any reliable sources that have commented on the collective body of "cat-like aliens" within fiction. Drawing up a list like this from different sources which each independently refer to a creature as a "cat-like alien" would be original research. Them From Space 08:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree entirely with Erpert and Claritas. This is listcruft that fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO. It's also original research. Reyk _YO! 03:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:OR and there is no criteria for what "cat-like" might be. Tavix | Talk 00:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the problem is not one of definition ("cat-like" can be defined as feline), but that this is not an inherently notable category, and that there is no way to find sufficient reliable sources for the topic. Most of the list is red-linked and probably red shirted too. I am a big booster of pop culture lists, but this is too random even for me. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 8 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. With the sourcing improvements made, it seems apparent that sufficient coverage is available to demonstrate notability ~ mazca ^talk 10:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Better Know[edit]

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

Non-notable band and self-named label. Article has been previously deleted per the prior AFD, and apparently recreated. Article cites a reference to http://www.chartstats.com, but this is not the official UK Single chart. That site (http://www.theofficialcharts.com) has no record of this artist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see anything that grants this group notability. (It should be noted that they do exist - I subscribe to the UK Charts Plus newsletter and they're listed in there. Although they haven't made higher than No79 and doing a song with someone that's notable (Wiley) doesn't grant them notable under Wp:NOTINHERITED). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, no evidence of notability. DiiCinta (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. VQuakr (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not much coverage in reliable sources, but probably enough. Meets criteria 6 and possibly 7 of WP:MUSIC. If only one member was notable it would probably be appropriate to merge and redirect, but it isn't possible to redirect to three articles. snigbrook (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There's an entire article about them in New Nation (which I just added), and multiple other publications cite them as a major influence in the grime music scene (The Independent, The Observer, the Evening Standard). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 11:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted because it's clear some sourcing improvements have been made since most of the delete arguments were made. A few people evaluating the improvements would help us form a consensus one way or another. ~ mazca ^talk 11:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage for notability. Wiley and Skepta are also independently notable.--Michig (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — somewhat weakly. It now clearly passes WP:GNG. We should look to create a consensus as to what is required to make a label notable. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 16:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BAND #2 and #4. The article still needs cleanup and fewer primary sources. VQuakr (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VQuakr. Reliable sources all over the place. Crashandspin (talk) 13:23, 4 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. JForget 00:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Blitz (BUAFL)[edit]

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

Whilst the article appears long and relatively well written, the article suffers from a couple of fatal problems.

Firstly the subject appears to be non-notable. Google returns only sites related to the team and its rivals. An archives search of Google news returns only one article specifically about the the team. The article is a short run-down of the teams entire season, carried in the local rag (circulation 40,000). The only other news references are 5+ year old match reports carried in the local papers of rival teams, chiefly Cardiff Cobras (South Wales Echo) and Birmingham Lions (Birmingham Post and Birmingham Mail).

This lack of notability isn't really surprising as sports teams at British Universities aren't generally notable in ANY sport. Never mind what is a niche interest sport in the UK. In most cases UK university sports teams are unheard of within their own institution never mind in the wider world.

The article is also completely unreferenced. Given the lack of reliable or independent sources there is little prospect of being able to reference it. At that point no matter, how well written it appears and whilst I'm sure it is accurate, the whole lot could just have been made-up on the spot. Pit-yacker (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Given available sources (and taking into consideration the Herald source that Pit-yacker provides, most of which is to do with the local BAFL club), I do not believe that it is possible to write a policy-compliant article on this subject, which is part of the point of having notability guidelines. As such, this does not appear to be one of the very few notable British university sports teams. Pfainuk talk 11:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I've said many times before, it is a very rare British Uni sports team that is notable ~~outside~~ within their campus, and this is not one of them - and a Google search doesn't reveal much (after stripping out references to the very notable Plymouth Blitz). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, no reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:23, 3 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 Ume Aoki. JForget 00:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tetsunagi Kooni[edit]

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

Contested PROD by an Ip who left just "AfD it" as its edit summary, Contested REDIRECT by the same Ip who called it vandalism. I'm taking over this case.
Not enough evidence of notability found. Fail both General Notability Guideline and the Specific Guideline for books. No licensor outside Japan found. No article in the Ja wiki and Anime News Network user editable encyclopedia. For a series serialized since 2006 to see no tankobon format release is a strong concern. Scanlation is erratic and trying to catch up. In summary below the reasons that lead me to ask for Delete:

Not enough evidence of notability found. Search returned illegal scanlitaions related websites & blogs
No licensor outside Japan
No ja wiki article, No ANN entry
No know tankobon format release
A erratic scanlation trying to catch up KrebMarkt 08:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article creator & the Ip who contested both the PROD & REDIRECT were duly notified --KrebMarkt 09:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --KrebMarkt 09:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ume Aoki. I see no problem with this redirect - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Ume Aoki and trout 159.182.1.4 (talk), or even an extended block, for disruptive behavior. The IP editor has been informed several times to provide third-party sources instead of mass deprodding/mass restoring articles with no third-party source and insisting on AfD for obvious mergers/redirects, but has so far refused to cooperate or even discuss the matter. —Farix (t | c) 17:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ume Aoki. Edward321 (talk) 21:10, 4 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was deleted (CSD G7) by Athaenara. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 03:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan nuclear program[edit]

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

Short article centered around speculations. One source is totally fringy, the other does back any claim that such a programme exists. Soman (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources as far as I can see, and we shouldn't have articles on things which most likely don't exist, unless the rumour concerning them is in itself notable. Claritas § 09:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! Where and how did either of you look for sources? I performed a Google News search for the obvious keywords and came up with plenty of reliable sources, documenting what does and doesn't exist and people's analyses and reactions, such as this one, this one, and this one, within a few seconds. Did either of you actually look anywhere at all? Because the sheer ease of finding sources when one actually does makes these look like zero-effort rationales, that are no help to Wikipedia whatsoever.
The Daily Telegraph, the New York Times, the Associated Press, and Bloomberg are not "fringy", by the way. Uncle G (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename - none of the above sources indicate that a nuclear program actually exists - just that Chavez wants to have one. I don't think that it's appropriate to have an article called "Venezuelan nuclear program" when we have no reliable sources that say that such a program exists. Perhaps the article could be renamed "Venezuelan nuclear controversy" or something like that. Agree with nominator that article is based on speculation & would need cleanup if decision is keep or move. Quasihuman (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the expansion made after the AfD nomination, a passage like this was added: "Venezuela and Iran have set up direct flights between Caracas and Tehran, with only one stop-over: Damascus. This is unusual because tourism is extremely small and commercial ties are not large. Passenger and cargo records are reportedly not maintained, and visas are not required on these flights", a passage that is solely insinuation. --Soman (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - There are no reliable sources, merely speculative articles, with headings of the "Chavez wants to build . . ." type, none of which confirms that anything actually exists. There's possibly enough media speculation to justify Quasihuman's suggestion of renaming, but the article would need to be cleaned up, removing such POV comments as "a strange location for a dairy". Jimmy Pitt (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 3 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. JForget 00:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur (2011)[edit]

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

Filming has not started. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM ttonyb (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFF and the author is a notorious serial sockpuppet whose trivial and often nonsensical edits consume inordinate editor time in cleanup. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AlexLevyOne. JohnInDC (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF: no verification that principal photography has begun. Cliff smith ^talk 16:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for recreation as simply Too Soon for this article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Textbook case of WP:NFF. — C M B J 04:05, 9 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 speedy redirect to List of philosophical theories per author (and nominator)'s own request. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of belief systems[edit]

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

This list was started by me, and it no longer serves the organizational structure of things. There is now a list of philosophical theories. This is a redundancy. Greg Bard (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to List of philosophical theories - simply serves as a broader version of that list. Claritas § 10:29, 3 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 speedy delete. A7- no notability at all. Courcelles (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Team Falcon[edit]

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

Non-notable club lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 05:00, 3 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. JForget 00:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lokesh Chandra Chakraborty[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography of an unnotable academic/college principal Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even allowing for the difficulty of finding sources about someone from his generation, he does not seem to have been notable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing that looks plausibly like a claim of notability in the article, that he wrote many textbooks, fails verifiability: I can't find any record of these books that he supposedly authored. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 7 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 Speedy Delete. Alexf^(talk) 18:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thapovanam sidhasramam[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:OR and is completely unsourced. Eeekster (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Agree with nominator, entirely OR. Also may meet criteria A1 for speedy deletion - No context; or criteria G1 - patent nonsense. After reading the entire article, I am none the wiser on what it is about. Quasihuman (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR gibberish--Sodabottle (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio / spam. See Thapovanam Sidhasramam, Thapovanam Kerala Trivandrum which was speedy deleted as spam, and this is where this was copied from. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 5 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. JForget 00:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saturday Night Live international broadcasters[edit]

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

Blatantly fails WP:DIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not an Electronic program guide. Per MoS style guideline, avoid statements that will date quickly. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Closer broadcasters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International broadcasters for 24 (TV series), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Smallville broadcasters and home video releases, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of broadcasting data for Rome (TV series), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International broadcasts of Criminal Minds, etc. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article outside of project scope. — C M B J 04:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:49, 9 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 speedy close. I've restored the redirect to the city, we clearly don't need to run through this. If someone wants to merge the content to a different article, it's in the history. J Milburn (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheren[edit]

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

Non-notable character with no third party sources. Plus, it is somewhat WP:CRYSTAL _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This character in no way meets WP:NOTE. The only source on the character is Pokémon Sunday, which is a primary source affiliated with the producer of the product. The article itself makes its own argument for deletion: "Nothing is known about her except that she is important to the plot". かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An important character in a notable game. If we can't list her here, we should at least put her on the list of characters. --75.149.70.22 (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost nothing is known about her. There would be nothing to list but a name. Not even Bulbapedia has an article for her, because it is too soon. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question does this character already appear in one of the "List of Pokemon..." articles? Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because like I said above, nothing is known about her. There was a small video showing her START a battle with the player, but that is it. screen _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V - the reference isn't even a reference. Marasmusine (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or include her in list of Pokémon characters. --12.50.206.130 (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 12.50.206.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep because Pokemon Black/White is notable. --208.105.158.60 (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 208.105.158.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Comment - Notability is not inherited. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All we know about the character is the name. It is ridiculous to suggest that this alone is enough to warrant an article. I'd have a hard time supporting even a merge to List of Pokémon characters on this basis. Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, with no prejudice against an entry in List of Pokemon characters if she becomes a more important character. Claritas § 20:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ – No reliable secondary sources that shows that this is even remotely notable, even by the most laxed standards. –MuZemike 23:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to redirect to Keren, Eritrea as a plausible search term for that African town (which I never would have guessed in a million years). –MuZemike 16:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:GNG as an independent entity. Ironholds (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable character. Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 23:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of Pokémon characters. --138.110.206.99 (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 138.110.206.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete as non-notable character and allow it to redirect back to Keren, Eritrea. Salavat (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Keren, Eritrea and fully protect the redirect ~~indefinitely~~. There is definitely not enough reliable independent coverage of the character to justify a stand-alone article for said character at this time. Since this page used to be a valid, reasonable redirect to Keren, Eritrea, it would be better to restore the original redirect and fully protect it to prevent further edit warring rather than simply hit the delete button. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whoever accused me and the other IPs of being sockpuppets of the article creator should try a geolocate. Also, why wouldn't it make sense to merge this article into list of Pokémon characters? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All I meant is that is looks very suspect for three IPs who have never edited before to make their first edits at a small AfD, and also know the correct formatting to use for everything. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:57, 5 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) 00:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WebStarts[edit]

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

Borderline speedy (created by single purpose account); no reliable third-party sources to establish WP:CORP or WP:WEB notability (the blurb on KillerStartups appears to be a press release written by the company). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Well, I do agree from your perspective I look like an SPA account. I am not though, I am a web designer by profession and have used WebStarts several times. I thought that it was interesting that WebStarts (A prominent company in the industry with over 800,000 hosted sites) does not have a Wikipedia Article, so I created one. Although I am new to Wikipedia, I do know a reliable source when I see one.

1). Webstarts is clearly a valid competitor to companies such as Wix.com, Weebly, Webs.com (formerly FreeWebs), Yola, etc...

2). The KillerStartups review, was not a press release by Webstarts, but in fact a review by KillerStartups Employed Writer 'Fredi'^[1]

3). The AppAppeal review is undoubtedly written by AppAppeal (not a press release) AppAppeal states written by "AppAppeal Editor"^[2]

^ http://www.killerstartups.com/Site-Reviews/webstarts-com-free-website-builder
^ http://www.appappeal.com/app/webstarts/

Connorrhule (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The KillerStartups entry is a trivial mention of the software, and does not cut it as a reference, I'm afraid. The AppAppeal review is more thorough but I doubt that "AppAppeal" is a reliable source - if it does qualify as a reliable source it would possibly be sufficient to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 18:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest of keeps. Since competitors are mentioned, and wiki-linked, I'm not sensing a spam campaign. It could use some better sources establishing notability (I couldn't find any mentions in our library business databases). --Quartermaster (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is lacking in cited sources. Out of curiosity, at what point does a second-party source become "reputable"? I know that AppAppeal is definitely a go-to place for Web Applications and a highly trafficked site. Whether or not it conforms to Wikipedias "Reputable" source list or not I don't know. I consider the biggest sources such as news companies to be the most biased and unreliable personally... And I do not know how it works on Wikipedia, but shouldn't there be a reason other than not 100% reliable sources? Such as: the company doesn't really exist, cause if you do a little research into Webstarts you will find that it isn't something I am making up.

Just to clarify, if a source isn't considered "reputable" by Wikipedia, then the company doesn't exist according to them? I am not trying to be a pain, just curious about all of the little intricacies... If anyone else knows any "reliable" sources for Webstarts please post. Connorrhule (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable and verifiable sourcing is a problematic area. You can start down the path of trying to unravel Wikipedia's byzantine group logic by checking out WP:Sources. It's easier to say what IS a verifiable source (e.g., New York Times) than what is not. Check out the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for some of the fun and games. I agree with you that there are topics (such as this one) that may be perfectly reasonable for a Wikipedia entry, but they don't rise to the level of being on the cover of Time Magazine. I get fierce headaches over this whole area. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Source to WebStarts Page. 100Best-Web-Hosting^[1] Connorrhule (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main review at AppAppeal is a bit gushing and sounds press release based to me. (Some of the user appended comments are far less enthusiastic...) We do look for news coverage - but not the sort based on press releases. Peridon (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Even if it sounds slightly "press-realease-ish" it doesn't mean that it is. AppAppeal is an unbiased news targeted for new internet apps (notice if it were a press release, there wouldn't be criticism as well). As for the comments, that is irrelevant, some good some bad... It doesn't get any more subjective then a comment. Connorrhule (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Question How does the deletion process on Wikipedia work? Who actually makes the final decision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connorrhule (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This promotionally is all about the features and advantages of using this run of the mill web hosting business. The references provided are all trade sites for the web hosting industry, and none of the coverage establishes that this one among the hundreds of similar businesses has any historic, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So much for a community... Everybody just shuts everything down. How about you do a little bit of research, you will find that the company is definitely valid and does have technical significance. If you knew anything or have ever used Webstarts you would know it is not run of the mill, and that the technology is great. There are few competitors that are in the same sect of web hosting (listed above). Also, do you really think I am spamming? Seriously?

I'm done with this topic, I have put way to much energy into it. This is absurd. Connorrhule (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have just done a bit of research (six pages of ghits) while taking a break. Found only one review that didn't look PR based, and that was brief. The rest appeared to be PR based stuff, or user editable places (like here - Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia...), including the usual Facebook and similar, or blogs and forums. You've put work into the article. Fair enough. We put work into Wikipedia, too. I'm not accusing anyone of spamming. Just pointing out that I haven't found sources that fit the standards so far. Not every company gets an article. (Some don't want articles when they've got them. They find out that anyone can edit and stuff they don't like - and which is well sourced - gets put in.) It's not up to us to find the sources. If the article goes, keep a copy and try again when you've got the needed sources to show that an article is merited. Peridon (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a community. Just like a monastery is, for example. You try joining a monastery and then asking if you can bring your girlfriend in... Peridon (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you for what you have done and your time. I will keep a copy if it does get deleted, and in the future post sources if I come across some. Connorrhule (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valid Sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connorrhule (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since the article hasn't improved from its somewhat promotional tone ('you will'...) and still isn't supplied with what I consider adequate references, I'm going for delete. I expect we'll see it back - hopefully properly referenced and encyclopaedic. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not established. I did a search for independent news about this company and came up empty. Seaphoto^Talk 02:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough to establish notability, then add on the above issues... that's enough for deletion. Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find independent reliable sources sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 12:52, 3 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. Looks like a mass afd for the rest is next Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 11: To Be a King[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. Neelix (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Could the nominator please explain why the book fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Eleven books in the series have their own articles - they're linked at Guardians_of_Ga'hoole#Main_Books - and I don't see why this one should be any different. I'm not arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just opining that they should either all go or all stay. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Neelix, instead of AfDin all the books in the series one by one (i believe books 12 and 14 were AfDed, while 13 and 15 were prodded), why not create for all the eleven together and see if we can achieve consensus to merge everything back into the series article. AfDing one by one is a duplication of effort.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only other Guardians of Ga'Hoole book article deletion discussion I have taken part in was for Book 12. I normally try to give each article its own discussion because, even among articles that are very similar, levels of notability often vary. Do you believe all the books to be insufficiently notable to justify separate articles? If so, feel free to create an AfD that includes all the individual book articles. Neelix (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge the whole series into one article. There may be a case for merging them to be made, but deleting just one of the series of 11 is just plain silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - It is not silly to delete an article about one in a series. Think of the Smallville episodes; some of the episodes are notable and others are not. If a mass deletion discussion took place, either articles on notable subjects would have been deleted or articles on non-notable subjects would never have been properly addressed. The same may very well be the case with the Guardians of Ga'Hoole books; I believe that they deserve individual discussions. Neelix (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NB and WP:GNG. We can pretty quickly nominate the rest for deletion under similar grounds if this closes as a delete. Claritas § 11:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this fails WP:GNG in general and WP:NB in particular. Reyk _YO! 02:16, 8 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 Princess (Princess album). feel free to merge anything not already in the article Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In The Heat Of A Passionate Moment[edit]

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

Fails WP:SONG. This song has not reached #1, has not won awards, and has not even been the subject of any reviews or articles by reliable external sources. LK (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC) LK (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Desiree Heslop. It was a minor hit of sorts in at least 2 countries, but all the worthwhile content in the article can be covered in the artist's article.--Michig (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Princess (Princess album). Minor chart hits like this are not particularly notable and this one received little to no coverage otherwise. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete. nothing worth merging that is not presently in the main article. Tomas Jennings (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC) — Tomas Jennings (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kutmusic[edit]

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

This article was deleted in 2009 (see User_talk:Djbatman#Proposed deletion of Kutmusic, and so far in 2010, I have yet to find any significant coverage of this label. There are no reliable sources listed, and the third reference listed doesn't mention the label whatsoever. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another record label with no coverage to of it's own indicate notability. Codf1977 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No/few reliable sources. Possible conflict of interest. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:12, 9 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doodle god[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No Google news hits. Also appears to be conflict of interest and self-promotional, as indicated here: [20]. JNW (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[21], [22], [23] are all reviews and the first two certainly seem reliable and independent (the third I'm less sure of). keep as it meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tagged a couple of statements in the article as needing verifiable sourcing. If those are forthcoming, I'll probably go for keep. On a personal note, I do not play computer games (except FreeCell...) but I did enjoy the 'quotes' on the screenshots in the review I looked at. (No, I'm not basing any decision on that.) Peridon (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia does not offer free advertising space. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Rock, Paper, Shotgun, Australian Gamer, AppAdvice, GameZebo, Gamers With Casts. Two of these at least are reliable to the best of my knowledge. SharkD Talk 02:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per the sources found by Hobit and SharkD. –MuZemike 23:41, 4 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. effectively a prod Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spa & Golf Resort Sveti Martin[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Appears to be a promotional article (although not explicitly so). Quasihuman (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:56, 3 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. effectively a prod Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rasul Miyan[edit]

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

online source is not evidence of significant coverage and doesn't give evidence of notability per WP:MUSICIAN, cited book doesn't seem to exist Hekerui (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V--Sodabottle (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:55, 3 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. JForget 00:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Peruvanthanam[edit]

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

I tried but failed to find enough reliable sources for this person. I tried to improve it somewhat weeks ago, moving the article to the correct title, adding notability and an india-bio-stub. All sources I could find were about him giving a statement about something, not about him. it's a weak delete for me, but feel free to improve, find more sources and tag it for rescue. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. no significant coverage on him personally.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:51, 3 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. no consensus after three weeks of discussion JForget 00:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sepideh Jodeyri[edit]

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

This person fails WP:BIO and no reliable source in English and Persian has pointed her notability. The sources of the article are two generalist newspaper which is not at all enough for notability. There are tens of literary magazines in Iran and I didn't find good things about her on this online database.Farhikht (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of significant coverage. Claritas § 16:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sepideh Jodeyri seems to be an important exponent of Iranian literature - poet, translator, organizer (additionally, some of the sources suggest her participation in the local feminist movement). I found coverage in multiple languages: Persian, [24], English, Dutch. The translation of the titles of refs in the Iranian article looks reliable. I admit, this is just my conjecture that's based on my instinct rather than careful analysis. However, that's all I can do, this article needs an attention of people familiar with the Iranian cultural scene and language. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This source is about the Khorshid Prize and not about the poet. As I know, self published work is not reliable as a means to establish notability and accroding to this, her work has to be the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.Farhikht (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interview with the poet, am I right? Is she an organizer of the Khorshid Prize? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In fact, she is the founder of the prize.Farhikht (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, here is an interesting Swedish article about the prize. Publishing and promotion of woman's poetry in Iran seems to be quite complicated. Farhikht, please, could you look carefully at the Google Search result for the Persian version of her name? Some of the listed pages link to the reliable news servers. Google translator is weak and I can't read the script. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it. Most of them are blogs, and some are little things (and not reviews) about her books. This link didn't work. In Iran we have many literary magazines and I think that a wikipedia article about a poet need this kind of source.Farhikht (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort, Farhikht. I'm still inclined to keep the article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck to you.Farhikht (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 07:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 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. JForget 00:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan McMahon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Unreffed bio for a non-notable criminal. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A minor criminal by Wikipedia's notability standards, fails WP:PERP by miles. How this article got through an AfD and then survived another 4 years is pretty baffling, let's not make the mistake now. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I created the original article. Given the amount of news coverage at the time, I'm disappointed that this article is all that we have to show for it. I suggest that this man's case could be of relevance as a legal precedent in respect of drug induced psychosis, but I offer no !vote. I invite others to look through the online newspaper reports that were cited in the first AfD before !voting. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact recent sources are so difficult to find demonstrates the lack of notability and makes it almost impossible to begin improvements. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Alistair on this. I like to merge/redirect when possible, but I don't see enough for even that. With all due respect to the creator of the article, I think this serves as an example of why more attention should be given to WP:BREAKING. On the other hand, no harm has been done to Wikipedia in giving it a chance to grow. Location (talk) 15:16, 9 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Haskell[edit]

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

I could not find reliable sources to indicate notability. —mono 00:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically spam for his weekly newsletter and his financial advice. Hard to search Google for him, because most hits are for a much more notable engineering professor of the same name. Amazon search turns up an author of computer books, who may or may not be the same person as the engineering professor but is certainly not this guy. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been reading Richard Haskell’s economic commentary since 2007. I find him notable and widely published and known for his market and economic analysis. I think he has a PhD in economics. He appears numerous times on the first several pages of Google, Yahoo and Bing searches. NOTE: This comment was posted by User|Ewright06; it constitutes the first and only post he/she has ever made on Wikipedia.

Comment Things like having a PhD and getting Google hits are all very well but they do not make him notable as Wikipedia defines it; see WP:N. (And as I noted above, most of the Google hits I got were for a different Richard Haskell.) If you want to prove he is notable you need to show us information ABOUT him published by independent reliable sources (not including his own press releases, his own web page, facebook, etc.). --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep....I believe that Rick Haskell is noteworthy because his views about economic issues presented on the Signature Update e-newsletter is widely respected and have been widely cited by others. Signature Update is read by 27,000 readers each month and is passed along to many other readers...I think that Rick Haskell will become more prominent academically as he continues work on his Doctoral degree.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoyoteRic (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC) NOTE: This is the first and only post CoyoteRic has ever made on Wikipedia. [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, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage I can find. (Above accounts have only made one edit as one can see.) Christopher Connor (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The SPA's are trying to make him sound notable, but he fails WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:32, 10 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. Insufficient reliable secondary sources to confirm general notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toran training camp[edit]

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

Fails WP:N WP:GNG as one mentioning by one sources does not add up to "Significant coverage". The little information in the article are already present in the article Hassan Zumiri. IQinn (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- I am very concerned that the nominator has not seen fit to disclose the full situation WRT to this article and the other {{afd}} they recently initiated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pul Sayad Compound, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kut Bakram training camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talukan training camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kun Saiaf training camp. Our nominator is well aware that I drafted a proposal, over three months ago -- Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?. I started most of these articles in 2006 and 2007, thinking more references would emerge. I acknowledged in my proposal, three months ago, that, for most of the articles, insufficient references had emerged. I suggested merging, back then. I offered background on these articles, back when our nominator nominated the Al Fand training camp for deletion in early June [25] -- background which our nominator has chosen not to share here. In another similar {{afd}} our nominator made in mid June I responded to the suggestion that all the information present in that article was present in the article on the captive alleged to have trained at the camp, and thus that article could safely be deleted, undermined the value of the wikipedia for readers who are trying to study the phenomenon of the training camps. Fully one third of the Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified based, in part, on the allegation that they received military training at one of these camps. This is an important phenomenon, in and of itself. If this camp, and many of the other camps, don't have enough information to support a separate article, they should not be deleted, they should be redirected and merged into an article on the camps. I can't explain why our nominator didn't choose to inform readers of this {{afd}} of the previous proposals. Geo Swan (talk) 18:22, 2 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, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the absolutely wrong bad faith accusation and ad hominum part of the uncivil comment against "our nominator" by user Geo Swan i would like to recommend user Geo Swan to read WP:Civil at least five times.

Coming to the content issue:

Comment - This particular camp here is not notable. It is mentioned nowhere not even in the US military source that User Geo Swan has provided elsewhere. [26] (The graph that he has placed in his comment here is taken from this report.)

This source list all notable and even the less notable training camps. That Toran training camp is not mentioned in this paper is evidence that it is not notable. I favor delete over merge until their is at least one secondary source that says something about the camp or a secondary source that mention the camp in relation of the role it has played in the detention of Guantanamo detainees. Non of these sources exist. IQinn (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the article creator hasn't found additional references in the three years since creation, it is time to stop waiting. I'm sympathetic to merging, if anyone wants to do it, but if the article creator isn't going to do it, I'm not asking the closing sysop to do it. An alternative would be to userfy (with "no-index") if someone offers to take them on to merge at a more leisurely pace. One reference is not sufficient for notability.--SPhilbrick T 17:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per Geo.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per Geo. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 22:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this isn't got independant sourcing then there is nothing verifiable to merge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:13, 11 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) 09:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Ellerbeck[edit]

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

Prodded a second time as NN, but was already deleted by PROD once. Sending to AfD to ascertain notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No independent reliable sources provided. Nothing at all found at Google News, and no reliable sourcing found on Google. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 7 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) 00:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Hell (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. If there's nothing been said about it outside a tracklisting, it probably doesn't need an article. ~ mazca ^talk 12:53, 3 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HR-XML & HR-XML Consortium Inc.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

AfD statistics)

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

A library of XML schemas and the organisation that develops them. No evidence of notability offered. HR-XML had a previous discussion three years ago with a "no consensus" result and there has been no improvement to the article since then. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. More back office minutiæ from the IT department: a library of XML schemas developed by the HR-XML Consortium, Inc. to support a variety of business processes related to human resource management... No showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Romuald Restout] Comment on the request for deletion for HR-XML I respectfully disagree with the comment that HR-XML has no technical significance. HR-XML standards are widely used in the HR software field and in adjacent industries. Numerous organizations both for-profit and non-profit (including governmental organizations in Europe) have implemented those standards or are using it in some sort —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrestout (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep HR-XML Consortium article. Agree with above comment, HR-XML standards are widely used in the industry and amongst very notable organizations. Initial references have been added to the article, more to come. --Kmcdowell12 (talk) 20:00, 2 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, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Between them they manage one piece of (potentially) independent coverage. Searching doesn't find anything more. Falls a long way short of meeting WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 19:21, 10 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Tockwogh[edit]

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

I declined the speedy on this, partly because of recent discussions suggesting we should be very cautious about speedy deleting articles that have been around a long time and had multiple editors, and partly because it does have some claim of significance. However, I don't believe this claim (centred around a successful revival of a camper using an automatic defibrillator after a lightning strike) is enough to meet the relevant notability guidelines. Peter 13:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I agree, it does not show notability in its current state, and that the defibrillator story does not show it. However, I found some articles from The Sunday Morning Star and The Baltimore Sun that may be enough for WP:GNG: here, here, and here Strikehold (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It got the coverage because of the freak human interest nature of the defibrillator story. I don't think that Post story is enough indication that the camp is notable. Shadowjams (talk) 01:48, 1 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, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the defibrillator story is interesting, the local press coverage is nice, but I'm not seeing enough to convince me WP:GNG is met. Nuttah (talk) 19:24, 10 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve G. Jones[edit]

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

The subject is a hypnotherapist/hypnotist. The initial writing had to be trimmed down a lot to remove excess promotional wording and still relies heavily on self-claims and self-publication.

The article was originally written for pay. Credit to the author who did completely right and was open about it. Articles are not judged by their origins so this is not by itself a concern, but having done some cleanup, I find I still want a second opinion on notability.

The books don't seem to provide much basis for notability (and appear to be largely self published).
Having notable clients wouldn't make a professional notable - 1/ notability is not inherited, 2/ if it was enough to make a difference the way we would know would be due to third party coverage of the subject due to the client list, not just the client list itself, and 3/ many therapists have a handful of "known" clients, a number of notable clients does not make the therapist notable.
The media mentions and appearances might indicate notability but might not, the coverage appears to be slim but genuine. Claims of recognition could be genuine or promotion. There has been enough of a promotional approach in this article (mostly removed now) to suggest it needs critical scrutiny whether the media appearances show this to be a person who has "gained enduring notability" (WP:NOT), or there are "non-trivial works of their own that focus upon [the subject]" (WP:N). See also WP:N#Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity.
Much of the web presence appears to be the result of heavy self-promotion.

The community is asked for a consensus whether this is this a genuinely notable subject or not, so that it can go forward as a legitimate article if kept, and the author's time saved (with a clear reason for the decision) if not kept.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it's not the worst I've seen, but I would like to see some better sourcing and verification. Interviews and the like are OK for BLPs, but they should be in better periodicals or news shows, that is, those that have journalistic standards and editorial control. Appearing in a local paper or on a single TV show does not make one notable. This is another marginal case, but one that appears to be the side of non-notability. I'd change my mind if it were improved. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay everyone, I respect your input. My schedule demands right now do not warrant time for me to make an improvement here. Will you please refrain from permanent deletion until I have and opportunity to review all comments and move forward from there? Thank you! Cre8tivedge 18:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cre8tivedge (talk • contribs)

Discussions like this may or may not result in deletion - it's a completely open process and probably as many articles are kept as not. The discussion is pretty autonomous and routine. If kept it's easy. If deleted, a copy could easily be placed in your user space to work on at leisure, and you'll have a very good idea what hurdles others perceived when you return to it. (And can either agree with them or try to ascertain for yourself whether better evidence would refute them). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 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) 00:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual novel[edit]

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

The term "virtual novel" has certainly been used before on the web to refer to web fiction, but I have looked for reliable sources to support this original research about the unfinished nature of the work, Gibson's coinage, etc., and I failed. The article creator removed the prod, but didn't provide any sources.

I've just moved Webserial to the more inclusive title of Web fiction, so removing this unverifiable content does not deprive readers of an article on the area. The article creator asserted on my talk page that "a Virtual Novel is just a novel published on the WWW not on paper" (which is not what the article says), so this other article should be adequate for our readers. "Virtual x" is a bit of a dated way of referring to online content that was used in the mid-90s, much like "Cyber-" (see e.g. [27]); the same thing referred to by another name should not have a separate article written about it.

The term has also been applied to an unwritten or unfinished novel,[28] and to a pseudo-historical novel,[29] so perhaps we could replace this article with a disambig page to Unfinished work, Counterfactual history, and Web fiction? Fences&Windows 14:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 14:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 14:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly this is a notable topic, but this article is too weakly sourced to warrant keeping in its present form. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To few sources Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:15, 3 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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nazoo Anaa[edit]

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

Nazoo Anaa is only notable as the mother of Mir Wais Hotak. There is no justification for a separate article. At best, if there is a citation, the Mir Wais Hotak article might mention that she wrote poetry. --Bejnar (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 18:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I re-wrote the article and added references. Her name is also spelled Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and possibly other ways, she is a notable woman in the history of Afghanistan, there are even schools and other institutions named after her in Afghanistan. Her name means "loving grandma".--Khostafg (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While some of the sources on the article aren't necessarily "secondary, independent', I believe some are, others are (e.g., [30]) which seem to me to reach WP:N and WP:V. Note that this reference is focused on the person's writings, or so it appears from the limited context provided by Google Books. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:26, 9 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pul Sayad Compound[edit]

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

Fails WP:N WP:GNG as one mentioning by one sources does not add up to "Significant coverage". The little information in the article are already present in the article Mohammed Yacoub. IQinn (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- I am very concerned that the nominator has not seen fit to disclose the full situation WRT to this article and the other {{afd}} they recently initiated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toran training camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kut Bakram training camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talukan training camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kun Saiaf training camp. Our nominator is well aware that I drafted a proposal, over three months ago -- Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?. I started most of these articles in 2006 and 2007, thinking more references would emerge. I acknowledged in my proposal, three months ago, that, for most of the articles, insufficient references had emerged. I suggested merging, back then. I offered background on these articles, back when our nominator nominated the Al Fand training camp for deletion in early June [31] -- background which our nominator has chosen not to share here. In another similar {{afd}} our nominator made in mid June I responded to the suggestion that all the information present in that article was present in the article on the captive alleged to have trained at the camp, and thus that article could safely be deleted, undermined the value of the wikipedia for readers who are trying to study the phenomenon of the training camps. Fully one third of the Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified based, in part, on the allegation that they received military training at one of these camps. This is an important phenomenon, in and of itself. If this camp, and many of the other camps, don't have enough information to support a separate article, they should not be deleted, they should be redirected and merged into an article on the camps. I can't explain why our nominator didn't choose to inform readers of this {{afd}} of the previous proposals. Geo Swan (talk) 18:32, 2 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) 23:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the article creator hasn't found additional references in the three years since creation, it is time to stop waiting. I'm sympathetic to merging, if anyone wants to do it, but if the article creator isn't going to do it, I'm not asking the closing sysop to do it. An alternative would be to userfy (with "no-index") if someone offers to take them on to merge at a more leisurely pace. One reference is not sufficient for notability.--SPhilbrick T 17:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per Geo.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator, and because there's absolutely nothing verifiable to merge. I don't consider one American government source which may well be biased or inaccurate, considering the state of affairs in Afghanistan to be a) an indication of notability and b) sufficiently reliable to infer that the camp exists. If the camp's existence is uncertain, we really shouldn't have any content which suggests it does. Claritas § 21:44, 9 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 Apple Inc.. –MuZemike 00:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spruce Technologies[edit]

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

I couldn't find significant coverage in/by reliable sources to indicate notability, all I found was [32], which is really more about the fact that Apple was buying a company. —mono 23:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 23:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Apple Inc.. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 1 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) 23:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I concur to the above. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 04:43, 7 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. The AFD is malformed as there has been no AFD tag on the article throughout. The article now has several sources so the complaint of the nomination has been voided. And no-one seems to care enough to establish a consensus to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daiva Dasakam[edit]

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

Not notable Hindu poetry. No reliable sources to support inclusion as a separate article. Wikid ^as© 13:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 17:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 18:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 2 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.

^ http://www.100best-web-hosting.com/review/webstarts.html

[1] ttp://www.killerstartups.com/Site-Reviews/webstarts-com-free-website-builder

[2] ttp://www.appappeal.com/app/webstarts/

[3] ttp://www.100best-web-hosting.com/review/webstarts.html

[1]

[2]

[1]