Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 4

< 3 July	5 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 Speedy delete, author request (G7). Hut 8.5 19:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TESDA Programming NC IV in Nueva Ecija[edit]

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

non notable training organization. only source is a blog. Claims to be newly registered. Declined db-a7. noq (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, blanked by creator. Hairhorn (talk) 16:46, 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. Courcelles (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiggy The Talking Cat[edit]

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

This is an expansion of the section in Talking animal. It was listed for speedy both as non notable, and a duplicate adding no content. It clearly does add content, but whether or not it is notable as a separate article is unclear to me. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete talking animal cruft. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is adequately covered in Talking animal. No justification for a separate article.--SPhilbrick T 18:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources for this (Google provided links to blogs, forums and video sites, Google News has nothing)and the Grimsby Telegraph url in the article is broken so I can't check it. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep i see a few good sources there already. independent coverage in print. Aisha9152 (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being on that many television shows, and winning an award from one even, makes this cat notable. The YouTube video has 10 million hits. I'm going to look around for some sites to add links to, confirming these shows did in fact feature this cat. Dream Focus 03:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That video does look a bit fake. Could all the post about it on the internet where people claim to have seen it on a show somewhere, be fake? Or a lot of shows just don't list their human guest even, having really really crappy websites. I see someone already tagged it with a Rescue request, so hopefully someone will find some proper sources confirming this isn't a hoax. Dream Focus 03:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with Sphilbrick. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:07, 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) 01:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Collection[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album; I could find nothing about this on Google except for a Wikipedia mirror and a number of references to the Looney Tunes DVDs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about this particular collection of Johnny Cash tunes in reliable sources. As a side note, the 17 song track listing is a rather strange juxtaposition with the infromation tnat the box set holds 517 tunes. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 6 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 01:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Zion College of Engineering[edit]

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

Non-notable institution that has no third-party references or citations (all the links are to the school's websites, etc.) -- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 21:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Here is a listing for the college in Kerala govt website. But that addresses only the third party source of the nom. The notability remains to be proved. I vote keep because usually high schools and colleges are kept. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Degree-granting institutions are usually kept; plus there are some mentions at Google News, see [1]. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 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 Moot. This is redundant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman 3 (2012). Fences&Windows 13:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Batman film (2012)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films.-5- (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Does anyone know what the hell's happening with this article? It's been moved into and back out of the incubator, has had its name changed more times than I've had hot dinners and was recently nominated under Batman 3 (2012). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I would also like to know. NativeForeigner (talk · contribs) closed the original AfD and sent the article to the incubator as per the consensus of the discussion. Sometime after, there was this discussion at NativeForeigner's talk page. As you'll see, I posted a query there a few hours ago asking basically the same thing. Cliff smith ^talk 22:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Batman in film#Third film (2012), which has more information than this brief article. There's no need for a separate article on this future film yet. Yes, it is virtually certain to be filmed and released on schedule, but we can't be absolutely sure it will be; and in any case when you look past the rumours, there's not enough to say about it to justify a separate article. Robofish (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of AFD'd material 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 09:17, 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) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Mara Safari Lodge[edit]

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

No evidence of coverage from reliable sources. Most of the article (including all sources cited) only refers to the Masai Mara and not to the hotel/lodge. snigbrook (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable, reads like a booklet of a travel agency. Dewritech (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete terribly written. Not even up to travel booklet standards. Too many peacock phrases, too few relevant references.--SPhilbrick T 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable and/or no sources to support. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 19:37, 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 withdrawn by nominator. —Soap— 20:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Time Dance[edit]

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

In my opinion, the article should be redirected to Big Time Rush or List of Big Rush episodes, because the article doesn't shows notability of the TV show episode. Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 20:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I withdraw this, other articles of the series seem to have their own articles too. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 20:24, 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 redirect to List of BattleTech locations. Redirected since this was unsourced but you can mewrge anything worthwhile Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Periphery (BattleTech)[edit]

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

The article was listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Periphery (BattleTech), closed as delete and instead a 2nd procedural relisting was started (admins can verify the deleted edit here) but never done. Even ignoring all that, since the last deletion discussion, the article has only expanded in its lack of out-of-universe information and real-world notability. Note that all the other articles listed at that AFD were redirects here. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:BKD - no significant coverage in reliable sources. I'd like it to be G4ed, but it's probably not similar enough to the original. Claritas § 20:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the BattleTech location articles together into a List of BattleTech locations article. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems reasonable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge after a good pruning. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize and merge to main series article. Can't WP:verifynotability in the real-world. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:01, 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awam (film)[edit]

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

I cannot see how this is encyclopedic content. There are no reliable sources, and it doesn't seem to meet the basic criteria in WP:NF. Maashatra11 (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a fairly famous bollywood film starring Rajesh Khanna. Easy to find refs on Google Books. I'm not sure what criteria is not being achieved. Shii (tock) 05:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wp:NF says : "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This guideline includes published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism excluding the following: Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film. Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database."
I think that "listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide" matches the type of reference you gave ([2] and [3].) There doesn't seem to be significant coverage for this film anywhere. I won't object if you'll find a significant source in Hindi for example. Maashatra11 (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Unfortunately I am in New England and have no access to a Hindi library. :) Shii (tock) 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I withold judgement.... and time to await input from Wikipedians that have access to Indian sources about an Indian film. Considering the director and cast, I am hoping this may not be too difficult. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any film starring Rajesh Khanna & Smita Patil and directed by B. R. Chopra would have got enough coverage in Hindi and English media in India. This film was somewhat notable because it was the last film for Patil (she died during filming). But this was in 1987 and Indian newspapers went online only in 2000. It will be difficult to find sources online. Here is a BR Chopra interview from a 1987 issue of cineblitz that talks about the film. And for more recent sources, I found a trivial reference in this obit of B.R. Chopra. And it has some analysis here in a scholarly work.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be kept as then only in future genrations would get to know there wasa movie by this name and that plot,starcast was so and so. In india , IT development happened only in 2000.Mosat are still not aware of how wikipedia should be updated. Online there are only refernces available which show the existance of the movie.BR Chopra movie it is that too starring Superstar Rajesh Khanna - in the book collections it was given 2.5 stars and as the film didnt exceed the expectations of producers in box office collection book only its wriiten that it couldnt exceed BR Chopras expectations.Reality is know to Indian film viewers.Awam is a political satire. Plot is Amar (Rajesh Khanna),a captain and the son of a freedom fighter is employed as the P.A. of Jagrattan (Om Shivpuri), the minister of Defence Purchases on the recommendation of Mohanlal (Shafi Inamdar), his father's friend.Amar meanwhile also falls in love with Sushma,daughter of Mohanlal.On meeting Colonel Zaidi (Nana Patekar) Amar learns that he was purposedly shifted to DELHI so that he can unviel a mystery. In a few days Jagrattan gets killed but he does give a clue to Amar before his death. Thereafter the story is all about how Amar gets the culprit exposed. Most of the movies of Ashok kumar,Pran etc from the decade 1930-1960--for them refernce from online isnt available so what can be done?Shrik88music (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Shrik[reply]
Keep as per Sodabottle. KuwarOnline ^Talk 17:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that Sodabottle has weighed in. His argument toward a reasonable presumption of the existance of hardcopy pre-internet sources is sensible... and his observation that the event ocurred in 1987 and Indian newspapers did not begin going online until 2000 is convincing. A notability in India, even pre-internet, is fine for en.Wikipedia... and the article remainng and being improved as possible through regular editing serves the betterment of the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:28, 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.

Marsha L. Berzon[edit]

The result was Speedy Keep - this is a legitimate redirect. Please see WP:REDIRECT. This is not the appropriate venue to discuss deleting the redirect. If there is an issue with the redirect, take this to WP:Redirects for discussion. (non-admin closure) Claritas § 20:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an empty page used only for redirecting to Judge Marsha S. Berzon. Note that if page is deleted, there are links in other articles that need to be corrected so they point to Marsha S. Berzon. There may be a better way to accomplish all this, but, if so, I don't know what it is. Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal (politician)[edit]

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

This article has gaping holes everywhere. Even the name of the person in question is incomplete. Every piece of information in the article has question marks, literally, in place of the pertinent pieces of information. I tried searching for this name in google and I can't find any information about this supposed person that would allow for correction of these problems, so I don't know how this article can be fixed. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 18:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too little information even for a stub. If someone can find out who this person is, they can re-create, nothing substantive is lost by deleting.--SPhilbrick T 18:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Given the sparse information, there is no way for us to establish who this person is and meet verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soundholic[edit]

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

Non notable record company - fails WP:CORP. Only G and Gnews hits do not contain significant coverage of the company, only mentions. ONLY claim to notability is one of inheritance through bands that have released songs via them. Codf1977 (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 22:55, 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) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Socialist American Labor Party[edit]

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

non-notable party, weblink points nowhere Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than a passing mention as a hate group, there's nothing about them. According to their blog, you may need a proxy to access their website because "Some internet providers sensor [sic] us." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable fascist party, fails WP:GNG. Claritas § 18:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the link, so it now points to their website. They claim they aren't a hate group, but have a Nazi symbol in their official logo. Odd. Anyway, only one news mention found so far. Dream Focus 19:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because the Southern Poverty Law Center is the organization that keeps track of notable hate groups, and they list them as being active in a dozen states. [4] They don't mention you unless you are a significant hate group. Dream Focus 20:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability as a hate group or as political party. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- only sources other than the group's own website are literally just name drops. Reyk _YO! 07:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable hate group doesn't deserve the attention. SnottyWong ^chatter 14:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Southern Poverty Law Centre citation isn't enough coverage to support an article. Fails WP:GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Retaining and expanding this article can help readers and editors of Wikipedia in disambiguating (in dating and nomenclature): the name itself (quite apart from the group it refers to) parallels yet stands distinct from the likes of the National Socialist Labor Party of Germany in America (1930s - Gurock, Jeffrey S. (1998). America, American Jews, and the Holocaust, Volume 4. American Jewish history. Vol. 7. Taylor & Francis. p. 48-49 of 486. ISBN 9780415919319. Retrieved 2010-07-06. The Nazi movement came to America early in the development of German National Socialism, operating originally as the teutonia Club, organized in 1925, and then under the bolder name of the National Socialist Labor Party of Germany in America.), the National Socialist Labor Party (fl. ca 1916 - Smull, John Augustus; Herman P. Miller, W. Harry Baker (1917). Smull's legislative hand book and manual of the State of Pennsylvania. The State. p. 605. Retrieved 2010-07-06. The Industrialist Party did not adopt a State Platform, but endorsed the Platform of the National Socialist Labor Party of 1916.), the National Socialist German Labor Party (1920-1945), the Socialist Labor Party of America (1877- ), etc. We could merge with (say) Neo-Nazism, but that might obscure any disambiguation. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming there's a connection (between basic beliefs and a similar name, I'm not seeing any hint of one) and I don't think we have the adequate sources to make the connection. Do you know if the National Socialist Labor Party of 1916 is related to this National Socialist American Labor Party? None of those sources you have listed discussed this group even remotely, so are you essentially suggesting retain the article in the hope that there are sources describing a connection between the one here and the ones we have sources for? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are inadequate sources to write an article. While the SPLC lists them as a hate group they do not provide any information about them. TFD (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial mention by SPLC. Not enough to WP:verifynotability. Can't create an article for every entry in some database since WP:NOTDIR. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^talk 22:21, 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 redirect to Irish Army Armoured Fighting Vehicles#Dodge Armoured Car and delete, Consensus is there are not the extensive sources needed to keep this and the keep arguments are generally not policy grounded so this is delete but sensible search term so redirected as well Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge Armoured Car[edit]

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

Unsourced and no content other than an infobox. Google search does not show much coverage other than to confirm something called a dodge armoured car existed. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the thing existed - built by Thompson's of Carlow; but aside from that (sourced to a blog Im afraid) I can find nothing. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - refs in Irish Order of Battle 1923-2004, and In time of war:Ireland, Ulster, and the price of neutrality, 1939-45. There is more related to the history of Thompson & Thompson in Carlow -- but it isn't reliable per encyclopedia standards. I think more might well be found not on line but havent access at present. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The order of battle ref has a few passing lines - not enough to make an article from - what have you found in In time of war:Ireland, Ulster, and the price of neutrality, 1939-45? I cannot find anything online from this publication. Can you say what in this publication established WP:notability? noq (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems easy to find a source such as |Irish Army Orders of Battle 1923-2004. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That source makes a couple of references to armoured cars based on Dodge trucks but I would suggest not enough to establish notability. Is there enough information available to make a reasonable standalone article? noq (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its an important article on an almost forgotten about Irish armoured car. MFIreland (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is it important? noq (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its important because its almost forgotten. A lot of people know about the other Irish armoured cars of the world war 2 era ie: the Fords and Landsverk but very few know about the Dodge. Info is hard to find and pictures is even harder to find. The photo on the article page is the only one I could find and its not a great picture. All other Irish armoured cars have a Wikipedia page like the Rolls-Royce, Peerless, Leyland, Landsverk, Fords, Panhard etc so why not the Dodge. MFIreland (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although a search online and through my armour sources shows up several Dodge-variant vehicles, this is not specifically mentioned in any reliable sources that I can find. I have no doubt that the creator of the article believes that it was important, but it doesn't appear to be notable. Might I suggest creating a parent article (Irish armoured cars?) and adding all of the armoured cars in there? That, for example, is what I eventually hope to do for the various ad-hoc vehicles used by the British Home Guard during the Second World War. Skinny87 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with MFIreland's sentiments above~~; just cannot find enough on the subject - an omnibus Irish armoured cars article might be best.~~ Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A project has started on a combined article, see:Irish Army Armoured Fighting Vehicles. MFIreland (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Irish Army Armoured Fighting Vehicles#Dodge Armoured Car. Not independently notable, but a plausible search term nonetheless. The content is already there. Alzarian16 (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inj3ct0r[edit]

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

Contested prod. Doubtful claim to notability; hacking Facebook isn't notable in itself unless it was written about in reliable sources, and I can't find that it was. (The sources provided on the site don't meet WP:RS.) The other content of the article reads like a bit of a vanity piece. bonadea contributions talk 17:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although the fact that Facebook's server was hacked would be good to have in ces. the Facebook article, I can't verify it using reliable sources, and this group fails WP:GNG as there's is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 18:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Haven't heard of them, nothing on news websites mentions the group... Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:09, 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 keep. The first of the nominator's concerns (obituary) has been fixed through the normal editing process. As for the second, (notability) there is a consensus that the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obong Ikpe Umoh Imeh[edit]

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

Obituary rather than an article. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No longer an obituary. Member of parliament. --69.226.110.182 (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep per [5], he exists, he was a chief, and he was important in his home state. Reasonable expectation of offline sources. cab (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that lists him among those "honoured post-humorously for their exemplary lives and achievements". Qwfp (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing opinion to Keep. Meets WP:POLITICIAN per source provided by Qwfp, which I somehow didn't find. Good work! cab (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians criterion 1. As evidence, see item 5(iv) (p. 539) of the 19 April 2005 Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (pdf), which records the reading by the Speaker of a letter “acquainting the House of the death of His Highness (Obong) Rt Hon. Ikpe Umoh Imeh, a former Deputy Speaker of the Eastern House of Assembly and Member of the House of Representatives of the First Republic”. The article should, however, be moved to Ikpe Umoh Imeh, removing the honorific ‘Ubong’ in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Qwfp (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meeting notability as a politician. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per recent improvements showing that he verifiably meets WP:POLITICIAN. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:00, 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 keep. Judging by the nominator's recent edits, I'm not sure s/he quite understands what warrants an AfD, so I'll leave a message on his/her talk page. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 04:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Castillo (artist)[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, claims, but no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unwarranted deletion. Clearly notable. Stop wasting everybody's time and do something yourself to help the BLPs. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable artist who exhibited at documenta in 1968: [6]. The documenta archives also contain several artefacts on him: [7]. The En Wikipedia links to a De article which has far more information and should possibly be translated (subject to sourcing). AllyD (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC) So too does the Spanish article (now linked). AllyD (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:27, 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 speedy keep per my reasoning here. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 04:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Ribera[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Award-winning actress that has been in many important Spanish theater productions as well as on television.[8] Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand and source Clearly notable. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think something better than a post by a journalism student on a forum is needed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:08, 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 speedy keep per my reasoning here. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 04:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adolfo Domínguez[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His company has 300 stores worldwide, including Belgium, France, United States, Portugal, and Spain.[9] Read the in-depth profile. Really? Not notable? You haven't done any research for any of these cookie-cutter nominations. Suggest speedy closure of all. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, needs sourcing and expansion Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both the above. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:28, 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 speedy keep per my reasoning here (boy, Jezhotwells is really working me overtime). Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 04:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ólafur Haukur Símonarson[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, claims, but no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep

   * Nomination for the Nordic Councils Literature Prize, 1975.
   * The Reykjavík Educational Councils Prize for children books, 1983.
   * Honorary award from the Writer's Fund of Iceland, 1992.
   * The DV Theatreprize for the best Play, 1993.
   * The Icelandic National Broadcasting Service Writer's Prize, 1993.
   * Nomination for the Nordic Playwright's Prize, 1994.
   * The Les Boréales du Normandie Literature Prize for the Best Nordic Crime Novel, 1997

Notability not asserted. What?? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I did not say "Notability not asserted". I said that no evidence of notability had been provided. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is in clear need of sourcing and expansion, but a quick Google Books search shows that Simonarson has receive plenty of coverage in works on Icelandic literature, meeting WP:BIO and WP:N. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:23, 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) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Luis Gonzalez[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, claims, but no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 16:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 16:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Further extensive searches of the Spanish lanuguage press find an athlete and a Dominican author, but nothing on this subject. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom It would seem to be a hoax. The Dominican author of same name is notable, perhaps an article should be written about him instead over this one? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan James Cramer[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search turns up facebook and wiki mirrors. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though the original prod rationale wasn't valid, I can't find anything on this person, his plays, his novel or his radio show. There is a "painter and sculptor" called Jonathan Cramer who gets a little more coverage for dating a famous actress, but I don't think it's the same person. Hut 8.5 11:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -No hits in google books. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:20, 6 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 withdrawn by nominator. —Soap— 20:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goran Stefanovski[edit]

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

~~Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn, sources found. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 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 nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 04:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coleen Sexton[edit]

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

~~Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)~~ Withdraw, one source found and added. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Agyarko Collins[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a stopped clock is right twice a day. you hit on a non-notable one! good work! google search turns up basically nothing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A valid deletion finally! It wold be a good idea to go through Ghanaian biograhies on here. I've noticed we tend to attract a load of self-promotional people on here from Ghana who have access to the Internet. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources -> no notability. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 21:17, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn and no other user supports deletion. Hut 8.5 10:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Berman[edit]

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

~~Pro removed by User:Calliopejen1, article is unsourced, authobographical and appears to not meet notability guidelines –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)~~ Withdraw, all i found on a first search was the NYT artcile which is about flat hunting. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Nominator didn't even bother to look for sources like NYT to prove notability. Just a waste of time. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She does appear to be notable, but the article is a blatant autobiography. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:53, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Hague[edit]

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

Very junior officer (Lieutenant Junior Grade) with no particular reason given as to notability. Once being the most senior female USCG officer serving in the Iraqi theatre is not really enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources that are in the article are the only ones I can find. All three of them mention her but none of them are about her. One she is the spokesman for her cutter, one she gets a passing mention about being the most senior USCG officer in the persian gulf and the third confirms she went to high school. None of this is enough to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 16:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Notability not established. ttonyb (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability hasn't been established, and seems unlikely to do so given lack of reliable sources. Skinny87 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no notability established per WP:MILPEOPLE. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the fact that the subject is/was the highest ranking female Coast Guard officer deployed to the Iraqi theatre is incidental and probably the result of the nature of the Coast Guard's deployment to Iraq rather than anything that the subject has done. Her rank of LTJG is not very high (it is an O-2 equivalent rank), and her position as an executive officer on a ship would not satisfy the elements in WP:MILPEOPLE. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 6 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. has clearly improved but is still borderline but consensus is to keep Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Post[edit]

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

Delete. This article relies entirely upon a single source, an interview which appeared in Dragon Magazine back in 1999. Interviews aren't generally great examples of "third party coverage" in my book, and I'm not seeing any serious notability here either. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dragon magazine has been held as a reliable reference in numerous discussion within the RPG field, and this user's recent string of anti-RPG AfDs is troubling. Hooper (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is insufficient in this context, hence the nomination. Your responses to the AFDs I've seen lately, mostly unfounded in any kind of editorial policy, is much more troubling. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dragon magazine is indeed a reliable source, and it is my belief that there are others out there. BOZ (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, paucity of sources establishes that this one fails WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the record: Interviews have always (since 2001) been accepted as precisely the sort of third-party coverage required for BLPs, as long as the interview is subject to journalistic questioning and editorial review. Unless there is a drastic change of policy, interviews in reliable periodicals are valid sources. Whether this person is notable is entirely another issue, of which it is not clear to me. It's a marginal case in my mind. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article hangs its notability on a single interview in Dragon (magazine). To establish notability, I'd expect more coverage. As far as I can find, there is none. Additionally, Dragon magazine as a source is problematic, as it was published by TSR/WotC, and its contents were heavily skewed towards its own products. In other words, I am not convinced that its editorial policy is independent. As such, an interview of an illustrator employed by TSR appearing in Dragon Magazine with no other coverage falls well short of notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak~~ keep [10] is a group interview and personally I think interviews with a single person (as the Dragon one) are a top notch source as they tend to provide bibliographic information. Hobit (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved to keep given discussion below. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- the entire article hinges upon that one source which, as Whpq points out, had an incentive to puff up the subject's importance. Reyk _YO! 03:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG as the topic has not "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sources is plural in WP:GNG and its subsection defines sources as "for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." I emphasized "mulitiple sources" as for an article that was created in 2006, most editors would expect more reliably sourced citations to establish or assert notability. There is no assertion of notability; no citations to establish it, and, I looked and could find no sources. This article previously had a notability tag on it and did not receive its one source until March 9, 2010. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I notice the nominator removed a considerable amount of content from the article, and then nominated it as insufficient. I'm not going to edit war and return it , but the fullest version is [11]; it was removed as poorly sourced, but it was the illustrator talking about his own work, which is appropriate material if not done in excess. Removing material can sometimes be done fairly to improve an article, and then one gives up the effort and nominates it, so I do not want to fail to AGF for something I may in some circumstances have done myself. As for the notability, the GNG is just a guide -- it works adequately in some fields, leads to absurd over-inclusion of material in others, and for yet other areas does not take into consideration that notable people, judged by the obvious importance of their work, may still not have the required sort of sources. This is an intersection of the area of creative professionals in computer related subjects--which appears to be have very poor conventional documentation in general with the field of commercial art, which seems unusually hard to source also. Making allowances, he seems to be notable in a common-sense way, which is sufficient to overcome the artificiality of the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per BOZ and DGG. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to DGG's general comments, but don't see the application in this case. Here, we have a single source that is neither independent (he works for TSR), obviously reliable (I'm not saying it isn't, just that it hasn't been demonstrated to be and given its commercial nature is dubious), or significant (interviews are frequently found to be insufficient coverage "of"). I agree with DGG that commonsense exceptions need to be made, but I don't see how this qualifies. Delete. ^Bongo_matic 03:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject was nominated for a Chesley Award; I've added a reference just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: Two nominations (I added another citation). I'd therefore recommend against deletion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I like to assume good faith, but in line with DGG's comments, this nom appears not to be made in good faith. There are several external links that can be used as references. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. If we got rid of all BLPs that relied heavily on interviews, then we should all go home and shut down this website. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per WP:ANYBIO and Paul Erik' work. Very nicely done. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scroller - Electric Bike[edit]

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

Non-notable electric bike. A grand total of 35 Yahoo hits, virtually no non-trivial coverage. Blueboy 96 15:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass Wikipedia:Notability. Of the sources cited in the article, [12] does not mention the subject, [13] is a reprint of a blog by a local paper (hence not reliable), [14] is a directory listing of a business and [15] is not third-party. I can't find anything more impressive myself, and almost all mentions of this product are from places selling it. Hut 8.5 18:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 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 01:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: God Among Slaves, an album from the band was also deleted as a result of this AFD per A9. JForget 01:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noctem[edit]

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

Non-notable band, unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources, only press releases and social media sites. TN X Man 15:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:MUSIC criteria. ttonyb (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable band. No sources. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:39, 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. JForget 00:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loyola Public School[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Advert. No reliable sources; even if some can be found, it would need to be entirely rewritten. Chzz ► 13:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have fixed the tone, but couldn't find any source of information. Insufficient information out there to even know what grade levels are taught. The only link provided is the school's website, which brings up a "malware" warning so I didn't go there. There are at least three other schools in India with the same name, so if kept, it should be moved to Loyola Public School (Guntur). --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No source available. Google also tells me that "This site may harm your computer." Christopher Connor (talk) 20:30, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derick goff[edit]

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

Self-promotional article by self-published (Publish America) author. No independent evidence of notability apart from their own promotional pronouncements elsewhere on the Web. Article previously speedy deleted with BLP problems under several aliases. The editor is on their third account, all blocked. Acroterion _(talk) 13:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. I was trying to help him with references; I didn't realize he'd tried three times before with different accounts. Pianotech (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at all wrong with helping out a new editor with references; quite the opposite. Acroterion _(talk) 15:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's too bad that an article's talk page also goes away when the article is deleted, since it sometimes contains helpful information should the editor want to try resubmitting an article. Pianotech (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - restored. I'd speedy-deleted the article and reconsidered, forgot to restore the talk page. Acroterion _(talk) 15:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no independent coverage about this author. I cleaned the markup on the references provided in the article, however none of them is a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of the refs are free press release things, but I'm not sure about this one. It's different than the others, but the style in which it's written and some of the spelling make me pause. Pianotech (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - It's not a reliable sources. Check the site's home page which declares "Sign up and Submit your Article" and has a button below it labelled "Submit free press release : see your news here immediately."
  - Not an RS, and apart from that, the use of apostrophes and general orthography matches Goff/Rawr's writing style. Acroterion _(talk) 22:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, ok. Didn't see that. The weird spelling and writing style did catch my eye, but I didn't see that that was another press release site.Pianotech (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, most of the "sources" appended to the article share the same writing style, and all are derived from post-your-own-press sites. Acroterion _(talk) 01:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"""Keep""" i think if he can manage to get noticed by that website pianotech, and an article about himself on a major internet news site, then he's probably worthy of being on wikipedia. I've found other article's on the internet by that same reporter Ellie Nash. P.S The author's penname is Daric Rawr, probably the reason information is unfindable about the youth. He's got 11,000+ Result's, more than enough noteriaty. Wimsickle (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2010 — Wimsickle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Reply counting google hits doesn't establish notability, nor do press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, because this article was created, and of the news things across the internet, your trying to say that Daric created all of this? How is that remotely possible? Wimsickle (talk) 22:00 6 July, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.112.42 (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, many references appear faked, like the made up press releases. Hairhorn (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... frankly I think this should be speedied as an obvious hoax. Hairhorn (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax? Could very well be. Pianotech (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an outright hoax. His book does exist for sale. But I'd say there is a tremendous amount of exaggeration in the article -- Whpq (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After speedy-deleting twice, I decided that it would be more expedient to have the backing of an AfD discussion so this can be G4'd in the future. Acroterion _(talk) 13:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably best. I've always understood, however, that an AFD could reach a consensus to speedy delete, and still stand as a legitimate AFD; "speedy delete" is a pretty common vote in discussions. But the AFD/G4 guidelines are not all that clear about this kind of case, at least as I remember them. Hairhorn (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, and a speedy AfD is regarded as sufficient for a G4 deletion in my experience. Given the use of multiple accounts, fabrication of references, and full-time issuance of bogus press releases to any website that will accept a user contribution, I decided to have the discussion here to draw a clear line about using Wikipedia for promotion in such circumstances. Acroterion _(talk) 15:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable self-published work "referenced" by press releases. Considering the re-creation, recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 00:00, 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 delete. JForget 00:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Targeting[edit]

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

Advert; article would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become neutral; the references used are press-release etc; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources per WP:GNG. Contested proposed deletion. Chzz ► 13:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as irredeemable spam. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: blatant spam and patent nonsense: This worldwide team of acclaimed psychologists, statisticians, mathematicians, designers and researchers, is the discoverer of the notable Psychological and Sociological breakthrough called "Visual Targeting," which has shown that "Individuals’ exposure to media matching their unconscious ‘visual desires’ triggers something akin to love at first sight and stirs a ‘buying instinct’ within them." - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable organisation. Hints of COI. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:00, 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 redirect to Geeveston, Tasmania. JForget 00:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart School, Geeveston[edit]

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

A Primary school, so without inherent notability; meets no other notability criteria. Shirt58 (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect core facts to Geeveston, Tasmania per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect sounds like a sensible approach--SPhilbrick T 19:38, 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 redirect to Bellerive, Tasmania. merge anything you want to the main article JForget 00:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Christi School (Hobart)[edit]

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

A Primary school, so without inherent notability; meets no other notability criteria. Shirt58 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Bellerive, Tasmania per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 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 00:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schlabbaduerst Rekkords[edit]

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

Non notable record company - fails WP:CORP ONLY claim to any form of notability is one of inheritance through founding bands. Codf1977 (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:N, there's no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dewritech (talk) 11:53, 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 no consensus. The clearly policy based argument is to delete due to issues with GNG & OR but I'm going to go with an apparant improvement and give this some space for further work Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Riverdale (Archie Comics)[edit]

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

Per WP:BKD and WP:MOSFICT, there should not be articles about fictional elements unless they meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). I can't find significant coverage of this fictional town in reliable independent sources, despite the notability of the comics it has appeared in. Claritas § 12:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator is spot-on. The article itself is all original research. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If this were just any fictional setting, I'd agree with the nom. However, this is a very central element to the Archie series. I agree, though--this article needs work. Blueboy 96 15:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but per WP:MOSFICT and WP:BKD, significant coverage in reliable independent sources is needed, which I'm just not seeing through my favourite search engine. Claritas § 18:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of WP:BKD has been widely judged to lack consensus. Any particular reason you keep restating it essentially unchanged? Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be respected as reflecting global consensus, and the fact that you and ten editors at WP:Deletion Review disagree with a literal interpretation of the policy does not mean that it "lacks consensus". If there really is a consensus against it, bring it up at the village pump or at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books). Claritas § 22:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BKD expressly discusses fictional elements from single books: this is confirmed by its wording, explanation, and all of the examples given. It has no application to fictional elements that are from multiple works of fiction, as is the case here. This makes sense because the issues of how best to summarize the content and at what level of detail are completely different. postdlf (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since Riverdale High School has already been redirected/merged here. Consider renaming to List of Archie Comics locations per similar precedents. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~It was actually deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverdale High School (comics), and the redirect was an independent editorial decision. Claritas § 22:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry, no. The consensus on that was an overwhelming support for a redirect, which is not the same as a deletion (i.e., the history survives). The only editorial decision was as to the redirect target, since various suggestions had been made as to where it should be redirected. Mandsford 15:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're entirely right, I'm confusing this with another AFD debate. Claritas § 18:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (due to updates) found sources and added them. You kind of have to dig. But I was able to WP:verifynotability by verifying about how the location was inspired and how it reminded U.S. soldiers of home during WW2. This was a quick search and I'm convinced there is much more out there. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is " Charles Phillips, John L. Goldwater. Archie: his first 50 years." an independent source ? Can you provide the extracts cited in some form ? I trust that it really is significant coverage, but I'd like to be certain (before changing my !vote). Claritas § 22:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extensive use of Archie images, it was probably licensed/authorized, but it nevertheless appears to be a true secondary source—about the comics rather than just more comics itself. Its author is not one of the comics' creators, and its publisher is not Archie Comics. postdlf (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wondered if you'd put this up for deletion. I was wondering if you had a criteria based on NOTE, or just wanted to willy nilly delete archie related articles. I think I have my answer. I don't want to do the work, but I can assure you this is notable.[16][17] A lot of those will not be independant, or non-trivial, but out of the 2000+ Gnews and 2000+ Gbooks hits. There are entire independant books on the Archie series. I'm not sure why, but independant books on comics almost never have more than a snippet view in Gbooks. It would be similar to deleting Gotham City (ie. deleting something that has tons RSs because they aren't in the article). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reliable independent sources which provide significant coverage. Fictional elements aren't deemed notable by the amount of in-universe coverage they have received in non-indepnedent sources, but by significant real-world coverage, which just isn't there. Also, read WP:GHITS. Claritas § 18:07, 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. JForget 00:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loughborough Aces[edit]

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

Although the article is long and detailed, the subject appears to be non-notable. Having a trawl for mentions on Google, I get little beyond sites related to the team and its rivals. Doing a google news archives search returns equally little. I managed to find odd match reports carried in the local newspapers of rival teams (although nothing sustained or regular). Besides that I managed to find 3 references in two local papers to a couple of events last summer. The first was an event and match (with non student side Tamworth Phoenix) against the Australian American Football team carried in the Loughborough Echo (circ 18,000, owner Trinity Mirror) and Leicester Mercury (circ 70,000, owner DMGT). The different owners are perhaps significant, because the two articles are strikingly similar. There is a distinct whiff of recycled press release. The second in the Loughborough Echo is a match against Tamworth Phoenix [18].

The lack of notability isn't really surprising as University sports teams in the UK are not usually notable in ANY sport. In the majority of cases teams endeavours and even existence is unknown of even on their institutions campus, never mind in the wider world. American Football itself is of niche interest in the UK. Perhaps the lack of seriousness applied to British University sport can be illustrated from the following passage in the article "Although the Aces had a depleted squad due to certain members of the team choosing a holiday over the chance to play for the National Championship"

The other problem is that the article is unreferenced. The paucity of reliable and independent sources means that it is unlikely the vast majority of the article could ever be referenced. Although, it probably is accurate, large sections could have been made up.

Whilst probably not issues for deletion on there own it is worth note that at least "A Brief History of the Aces" appears to be a copy and paste of the teams website. Furthermore, although the article is long, I would not describe it as exceptionally well written. The article's main body basically takes the form of a year by year chronological list, with a number of notable gaps. There also seems to be a fair bit of unencyclopaedic language such as "winningest", "staggering" and "bested". ) Pit-yacker (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per lack of actual references and lack of available references that demonstrate that this team passes WP:GNG. Length does not equal notability. Pfainuk talk 12:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable British Uni sports team (as per many others) and I am unable to find anything that contradicts that. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources cited.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the substantial sources to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 20:38, 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. JForget 00:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USER[edit]

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

Non-notable, all references are first-party. Does not justify inclusion nor satisfy WP:GNG –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 10:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non notable artist. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when deleted, it should redirect to the dab page. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears non-notable. Bring forward disamb page to this article. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:44, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pliny Wood[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Does not meet criteria of WP:MILPEOPLE. NtheP (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a classic example of why WP Notability Doctrine is stuffed. This article appears to have VERACITY, VERIFIABILITY, and the be written from a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. The subject is perhaps arcane, of interest to a handful of Civil War buffs. But what is the harm of keeping this biography in the Wikipedia database? It is not selling anything, promoting anything, or in anyway hampering anyone's Wikipedia user experience. Why trash a perfectly good historical bio on the grounds of "no indication of notability"? Carrite (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NtheP sums up my argument as well: No reliable sources indicate even the smallest amount of notability in any area, either under GNG or the more specific MILPEOPLE. Without any rudeness, Wood was just a casualty of the American Civil War and nothing more notable than that I'm afraid. Skinny87 (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no notability established, completely undistinguished military career. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very junior officer. Not especially notable. Appears to be of more genealogical interest than anything else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All references are from databases. Google returns only more of the same. The article gives no assertion of being anything more than a genealogical entry. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:35, 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 delete. JForget 00:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andree Ochoa[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:N, as all sources are primary sources, either associated with the subject, or press releases. PROD was disputed. Fbifriday (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not established in the article. The current sources are either primary sources or do not mention him. I can not find any sources that do mention him to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 09:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 15:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources discuss him, most are spammy. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:25, 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. JForget 00:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organically Derived Communism[edit]

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

Neologism that doesn't exist outside this article. See for example Google: [19] OpenFuture (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per above. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not much else to say, there is no indication in any google search that this term is used outside of this article, no news, web, scholar or book hits out side of wikipedia or a single blog that mnentions this article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 06:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - what else describes the emergence of a communist state based on abundant energy rather than one having been forced on the people by a physical revolutionary force or other? There is ample debate for centuries about the role of energy and scarcity-of-energy in a communist state. See http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Economics Section: Economics and other disciplines: Last two paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.164.34.109 (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC) — 74.164.34.109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The link you provided does not use the term Organically Derived Communism anywhere. To have an article we need to show that the term is used in reliable sources. I have looked and can not find the term anywhere. If others have not used the term we can't use it. Wikipedia only summarizes what reliable sources say about a subject. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are several other names for the same thing. You are not the first one to have these impossible fantasies about unlimited resources. See for example The Venus Project. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No reliable sources exist which discuss the concept, nor are any examples provided in the article. Accordingly, the article seems to be about a new concept, or at least a newly-coined term for one. Either way, it doesn't deserve an article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, no article. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 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 aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Blonde with Bare Breasts[edit]

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

Recent movie with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even in the Netherlands alone it is daily shown in several movie theaters as feature film. See also Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL--Patrick (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:N, there is no indication of notability. (Article contains only a plot section as content). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... it need expansion and sourcing if possible. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a French film with European release in France and the Netherlands, and apparently no English release (yet), we need to check non-English sources toward notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
French: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Delete without prejudice toward recreation when/if the film gets more coverage. New film. French and Dutch release. Non-English sources wil be required. I improved the article some,[20] expanding it... cleaning up style and format... adding some sources toward its production... but it's just not enough at the moment. As its author feels it is or will be getting coverage in the Netherlands, I encourage it be returned to him with our thanks, and be userfied to User:Patrick/workspace/The Blonde with Bare Breasts for continued improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no requirement that citations be in English. It is sufficiently cited in French. Shii (tock) 05:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully, and stated the need for sources, even non-English ones, in my comment above.... and note, I am the person who added the French and Italian sources to the article in my expansion and cleanup. ~~If someone comes up with more than I could find, I'd be exceedingly happy to reconsider.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now, as it has crept over to notable. I found a decent Dutch review of the film and added it with a couple more sources. I feel now that there is more available for further improvement. Will just take some digging. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Variety review has been added now as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Schmidt - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable and good C article.--_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 15:13, 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 delete. After actually taking a second look, I realized this was a G5 page creation and has now been trashed. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Huynh[edit]

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

Facebook is NOT a reliable, third-party source suitable for a BLP article. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 05:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jeff beat me to it. The "source" if we can call it that isn't even accessible to non-friends anyway. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:49, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Keaton[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

The sister and younger brother of Buster Keaton do not have any major acting credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on both accounts. An extra in a few movies does not an actress make, no sources, and as notability is not inherited...--Fbifriday (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very tough to make a flat declaration here in 2010 that roles in pre-intenet 1930's and 50's films are significant to those films or not, as there is a cinematic history to consider and notability in the 30's is still notability per WP:NTEMP. Naturally, Harry being related to Buster will be part of many of these 133 news articles of Harry from the 30s until the present,[21] and in these 101 books.[22] And another consideration is that while Louise is in fewer news articles,[23], she is in more books.[24]. Personally, I believe that in these cases, sources allow a presumption of notability per WP:GNG and the articles (and project) will benefit from them being expanded and properly sourced... specially as these are not WP:BLP1E nor a violation or WP:NOT. Barring that, a merge to Buster's article should at the least be itself considered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... okay... I'll get to it and report back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both and redirect to Buster Keaton#Family, as both Harry and Louise have plenty of available sources (and yes, many are in context to familial relationship to Buster). Considering that both Harry[25][26] and Louise[27][28] are part of citable cinematic history, and this extensive sourcing seems to meet WP:GNG, it would be a shame to let this information vanish from Wikipedia simply because these two had a much more notable brother. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
More: Some of the earliest news articles do not so much deal with Harry's film work, but conentrate rather on a bit of a scandal, where Harry had even while acting, for several years used the fame of the Keaton family name to support running an acting school/casting agency during the early 1920s. The acting school was determined to be a fraud, and Harry was convicted accordningly.[29][30] The conviction was appealed in 1930.[31] I could learn the results of the new trial, but do not wish to pay the $50 to find out.[32] Buster must have been mortified. Harry did briefly join Buster in Florida in 1933, where Buster was about to shoot The Fisherman.[33] Harry was described as Buster's personal assistant.[34] Harry returned to California in 1934 and had parts in various films before and after WWII.[35] Quite an intriguing bit of history. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the instructions at WP:ENT allow a "presumption" that then encourages editors to look for sources that meet the GNG and so might allow an individual to be determined notable. Though Harry's career pales when compared to that of his brother, his starring in film roles from 1919 encouraged me to look. I found enough coverage so as to make me feel that both Harry[36][37] and Louise[38][39] merit inclusion in Wikipedia in some fashion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:51, 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 speedy keep. Nominator has now changed his/her !vote to "merge", but since more people are leaning toward "keep", we'll go with that and then decide if we need to merge any of the info to Lower Saxony at a later time. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister of Lower Saxony[edit]

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

Virtually no information on the office, duplication of article on Politics in Lower Saxony. Only purpose to establish use of Prime Minister in this context Dodo19 (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep Perhaps as a list?--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list is already incorporated in articles Lower Saxony and Politics of Lower Saxony with a redirect: List of Ministers-President of Lower Saxony --Dodo19 (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amend to Merge How about a merge with the Lower Saxony article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemesouviens32 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. --Dodo19 (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A valid article in its own right, would bloat the main Lower Saxony article. Needs fleshing out and expansion. Obviously the sources are there in German to do so. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Head of state --Quelle Jessen (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Head of government post in a major first-level division of a country. Blueboy 96 15:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Very poor nomination for deletion on this topic, regardless of the quality or lack thereof of the article in question. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable article subject. Whatever problems are there in the article can be improved by editing and adding references. --Soman (talk) 17:02, 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 speedy merge to Radio-frequency identification. For the record, you don't have to start an AfD in order to merge an article. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read-on-metal[edit]

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

Expression does not seem to exist. Consider moving content to RFID. Schuhpuppe (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any verifiable content to RFID. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 22 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, 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:46, 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 no consensus. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At That Point[edit]

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

It is no longer notable. It heavily relies on Rap-Up as the main source and has no confirmed release date. Though it has singles only 1 charted. Additionally all of the singles were merged into the album as they also lacked notability. It is a breach of WP:CRYSTAL as it still has no confirmed track listing or cover art. It should be deleted and relevant information can be salvaged and placed at Teairra Marí. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Teairra Marí as suggested by the nominator. Rap-Up is the only source I can find saying that the album will be released at all (in August, according to them), but a Google News search reveals some unreliable blogs saying that the album has been shelved indefinitely. Either way, since there is info available about this currently nonexistent album, it can be added to the artist's article. This exact same thing has happened before: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deltron Event II (2nd nomination). --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:34, 23 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, 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is just beacuase of the reasons given. Unreliable blogs are just that, Rap-Up however (which is a magazine too), is notable.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 11:55, 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. No objection to redirecting to an appropriate target. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Burley[edit]

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

This individual's claim to notability is that he partially backed the record company that discovered Loretta Lynn, no independent sources are listed. It isn't a good sign when the first result from a google search for Norm Burley is about a rugby player, the results that are actually related are trivial mentions. Coverage issues aside, this seems to run afoul of WP:BLP1E. 2 says you, says two 15:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, and I was aware of that when I created the page (somewhat hastily) by putting "definitely a stub" on that edit's description. I also know that in creating the page I didn't do enough to establish notability, but I'm working on that, as you can see. However, here's why I think the page ought to remain on WP as a standalone article (rather than a redirect to Zero Records or some similar page): When I created this article, it already had 4 articles linking to it through "dead links" - Don Grashey, Zero Records, Loretta Lynn and Oliver Lynn. This seems to indicate two notable events: 1)Co-founding and financial backing of Zero Records with Don Grashey and 2)Discovery and support for the career of Loretta Lynn. Grashey's page and Zero Records mention little of Loretta Lynn - focusing instead on the record company, which supported many additional artists. Oliver and Loretta Lynn's pages mention Zero Records in a very different light, focusing primarily on Burley's work as a part of Zero Records to help jumpstart Loretta's career. I added a quote to the Norm Burley page from a cited work that emphasizes his significance in Lynn's career.

Rather than say "he partially backed the record company that discovered Loretta Lynn", I would suggest that, more accurately, "he discovered and recruited Loretta Lynn and partially backed Zero Records". As referenced in several published works (see third bullet, below), he was almost singularly responsible for discovering and jump-starting her remarkable career - he provided financial support, made the first printings of her album that garnered her first airplay (a process that is prominent in Coal Miner's Daughter, an Oscar-winning film).
I know very little about the Don Grashey side of things - I am mostly familiar with Loretta Lynn's story, but was interested in learning more about Norm Burley and Zero Records. It appears that Loretta Lynn herself may not have been the only reason Burley was involved with Grashey or Zero Records, as indicated by the Zero Records page.
One of the points in WP:BLP1E is that inclusion of individuals significant for only one event can overemphasize the importance of an event. As stated earlier, I believe that Burley was significant for two events, but even just focusing on the Loretta Lynn side of the situation, I think it's unlikely that overemphasizing the importance will be a problem. The most common biographical work on Loretta Lynn is the movie Coal Miner's Daughter, which won an Oscar and is played frequently on television stations. Printed works have stated that the movie underemphasized Burley's significance ^[1]. So this article may actually help emphasize significance of the event in a more appropriate way. He has been mentioned in several printed works, including Country Music Culture: from Hard Times to Heaven by Curtis Ellison^[2], Coal Miner's Daughter (book) by Loretta Lynn and Vecsey (1977), and 2002's Still Woman Enough, yet receives little recognition in more pedestrian discussions of Lynn's career. Davemcarlson (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 2 says you, says two 11:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Loretta Lynn#1960 – 1966: Early country success. WP:BIO1E applies as all he is known for is seeing her perform and funding the release of her first single on a one-shot record label. That's it. He's not notable as all the coverage that exists is passing mentions in the context of Lynn's career. Fences&Windows 23:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Loretta Lynn. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:49, 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 no consensus. One strong keep rationale + 3 "per nom" deletes = no consensus with leave to renominate in a few weeks to produce better discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISLA Bank[edit]

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

No indication of notability. No independent sources. Google searches find more results for a holiday cottage in Scotland. Restricting the search to the Philippines just shows directory listings and nothing to establish WP:notability noq (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Holiday cottage in Scotland sounds interesting DRosin (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to Keep - Although the evidence isn't quite so strong as I'd like. The notability criteria should be out of WP:COMPANY and not just the general vague notability preference here. A Google test may not necessarily be the best possible source of information in this case, and I'm unfortunately not familiar with sources in the Philippines to provide a more useful source of information to help out in this case. With the only current "source" of information being the official website, I find that to be dubious, but I'm quite certain that there are some additional sources of information for this institution that could be found to meet the raw sourcing requirements. The real hook, something that makes this more than just another bank, is something that would be useful for the article. In this sense, notability is the issue and if something more about the bank being "established from a rich Filipino heritage" could be defined or expanded... what heritage they are really talking about in the article could make this something useful. At the moment, it reads like an advertisement and not something encyclopedic. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Speedy deletion tag was removed first by the article's author, and then after it was restored, by an editor with no other edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 20:53, 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, JForget 15:03, 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 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 No Consensus It certainly appears that this article meets the Set Index Criteria. That it duplicates to some extent a DAB page should not concern us. A strengthened lead would improve this list signficantly. Mike Cline (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of synagogues named Temple Israel[edit]

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

I've been having a lengthy discussion with another editor about this article, who says it is a "Set Index Article" (WP:SIA). I have argued that it should be deleted because:

It is not a Set Index Article because there is no "specific type" of synagogue that is a "Temple Israel" synagogue.
The shared name is a trivial coincidence, rather than a fundamental characteristic.
It violates WP:NOTDIR.
Wikipedia is better (and more typically) served by the disambiguation page Temple Israel.

The other editor has argued that this is indeed a Set Index Article, and should, in fact, replace the current disambiguation page at Temple Israel. I'm happy to work on improving this article (and future similar ones), but not if AfD determines that they don't belong on Wikipedia to begin with. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. Having a list and a disambig for apparently the same purpose looks like a problem in need of being fixed. But it's not as bad as it seems: the list can always go beyond bare disambiguation and explore the places that don't have standalone articles, as well as things common to all (starting with Why Temple? wasn't the Temple destroyed forever, milleniums ago? - right, I know it's a Reform specialty that's frowned upon by others, but it needs to be explained in more detail than is present in Temple#Jewish_synagogues_and_temples). East of Borschov 05:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, even if this article is kept, it won't have a discussion on the use of the term "Temple" in the Reform movement, since that's not really specific to Temple Israel, or Temple Sinai, or any of the many other synagogues called "Temple something". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a disambiguation page Temple Israel. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Keep this SIA article but move it to the location Temple Israel and replace the dab that is there now? That is exactly what i propose, in my note below. Just not sure if that is what you mean. --doncram (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This looks like a classic Set Index Article.It's a list article whose entries contain some useful information, but would not individually stand alone: the entries by themselves would be sub-stubs. Converting to a dab page would not be helpful to our readers: it would disambiguate to a set of sub-stubs. Therefore, I suggest leaving this page as-is. —hike395 (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the Set Index Article criteria is fulfilled because it is a set of synagogues. —hike395 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that any combination of synagogue articles can be a "Set Index Article"? How about Synagogues whose name begins with "T"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No: All of the entries have the same name ("Temple Israel") and belong to the same set ("synagogues"). This matches the SIA criteria at WP:D. If you wish to start a List of synagogues whose name begins with T, that is outside the scope of the SIA criteria. —hike395 (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Later: I was mistaken in thinking that the linked article are sub-stubs. I think it boils down to whether this article makes sense as a stand-alone list (of which an SIA is a subtype). Looking at other lists in WP, I believe it has the potential to become a good stand-alone list, and shouldn't be deleted. The current state of the list is somewhat sad: I hope that editors decide to develop the list further. —hike395 (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIR. An extremely commonplace name for a synagogue. What's next, a list of Roman Catholic churches called "Mary Our Queen"? Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of notable places named that, not a list of all places named that. You have to understand the implicit "notable" in the title, as for any other list-article of places. So it covers places that have Wikipedia articles, and other places that are adequately supported by sources as being notable. In fact it can help prevent the proliferation of separate articles on the marginally notable ones, by allowing for them to be covered in this list article instead of by separate articles, and be subject to good editing by Jayjg or other concerned editors maintaining the list-article going forward. --doncram (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep WP:SIA gives List of peaks named Signal Mountain as an example, and I think this is analogous. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. Only for Signal Mountain there needs to be a separate dab page because of the existence of a notable town or two that are covered in the dab page, but which are not of the same type of thing as the mountains covered only in the SIA. So there, a separate dab page is needed. For this case, all the items are of the same type, and a separate dab page is not needed and can be dropped (perhaps by moving to "Temple Israel (disambiguation)" and then redirected, in order to save its edit history), making way for the SIA to be moved to the most natural name, "Temple Israel". --doncram (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure why List of peaks named Signal Mountain is an SIA either, since the peaks have nothing in common besides a name. USS Enterprise makes a little more sense, since it's a more or less about two series of related ships - that is, each set of U.S.S. Enterprises (in one case fictional) were built by the same government, and inherited the name from the previous. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Jayjg, but since the guideline cites Signal Mountain as an example, I think this should be kept as an analogous SIA. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a valid set-index-article that has existed for several years, fully compliant with wp:SIA and obviating need for a separate disambiguation page. It could/should be moved back to "Temple Israel" where it long existed, and replace the duplicative disambiguation page there now. The only reason the SIA is at the current name is the deletion-nominator recently wrote over "Temple Israel" to create a different article, then some confusion ensued, and that article was eventually moved to Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma), and the dab page was creatged. Upon my objections the SIA was recreated but now at the name "List of synagogues named Temple Israel" and its edit history was restored (by Jayjg, thanks). I believe there is no need to have a separate disambiguation article as every entry in the dab appears in this set-index-article. This example is also under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Set index articles - what is "of a specific type"? and at Talk:Temple Israel#Requested move 2 and disambiguation vs. set-index-article. I don't get what the deletion-nominator actually wants. In the latter Talk page discussion Jayjg expresses interest in developing this SIA more fully, and developing more SIAs like this one, if this will not be deleted. This AFD is a test of the community of editors, and in that sense not a real proposal. Or maybe deletion is what Jayjg now wants, i am not sure. But, the SIA remains as always a valid list-article. --doncram (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, because the name "Temple Israel" is almost a generic sort of name for many synagogues and such a list is pointless and the worst of WP:LISTCRUFT. Like creating a list List of synagogues named Temple Judea, or List of synagogues named Temple Shalom, or List of synagogues named Beth David or some such etc etc etc. All quite pointless. IZAK (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a duplicate of Temple Israel. Both of them have the sole reason of disambiguation. Tavix | Talk 23:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, it's not exactly a duplicate. This preceded the current dab page set up now at Temple Israel, and this includes more entries than those listed on the Temple Israel dab page (because this covers some notable places not having wikipedia articles). Also this is different than a dab page; this can include sources and descriptions and pictures and so on. If/when it is verified that this set-index-article is okay, then I do happen to agree it will be appropriate to redirect the dab page to here or to move this SIA to that name. The question is, i guess, is this a valid set-index-article topic. --doncram (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Temple Israel, which is a disambiguation page. This is more like disambiguation material. Dew Kane (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, you can't merge in sources and descriptions and pictures: do you mean all those should be deleted? And you can't add the items in the SIA which do not have wikipedia articles, to the dab page. There is nothing you can add to the disambiguation page, practically, by disambiguation page rules (wp:MOSDAB). The AFD was opened by its nominator who would actually like to add more sources and descriptive material and pictures to this SIA page, as long as it is agreed that the SIA page is valid by Wikipedia guidelines. --doncram (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, the article didn't actually have any pictures in it, until you added one, right after making that comment here. And I'm not sure I'd add pictures to this article even if it is kept. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 13 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 00:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Abney[edit]

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

He played in four minor league games and worked a few odd jobs in baseball afterwards. This is not a notable individual by Wikipedia definitions. Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's almost speedyable in its non-noability. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing in the article that indicates importance at all and I could not find anything to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 05:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE -Drdisque (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets WP:ATH because he has played in a fully professional league (see professional baseball), however, it is obvious copyright infringement from his Baseball-Reference Bullpen page. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:54, 6 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 National Collegiate Athletic Association. give it a redirect to what User:Jujutacular suggested JForget 00:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA history[edit]

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

Not sure what the value of this article is. The history of the NCAA can be adequately covered at National Collegiate Athletic Association. The history of college football can be covered at College football and History of American football. Most of the college football history listed here is from before the creation of the NCAA anyway. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Collegiate Athletic Association. The section on the history there is enough. If it were expanded, this article could be spun out, but currently there isn't enough info there to warrant a separate article. I have no problem with this article in principle. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject matter is covered elsewhere, this article is, at best, seed for an information fork. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that the original intent of this in 2005 was to write an article about the nearly century long history of the body that oversees almost all university and college athletic programs in the United States, until it was realized that it had already been done. I guess that I do have a problem with the principle of keeping an unnecessary article around, and there's nothing here that needs to be merged or redirected. Mandsford 15:19, 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 aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waveland (Danville, Kentucky)[edit]

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

estate article, with little or no assertion of notability WuhWuzDat 02:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the article didn't indicate it before, this property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, a designation which indicates the estate is notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The NRHP listing does indicate notability. Also it has received significant coverage at least one non-NRHP 3rd party source. [40]--Oakshade (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable and rather well-known as a tourist attraction in central Kentucky, as the link added later demonstrates. It's usually a good idea to work on an article in userspace first and then to post it, rather than posting and then working on it. Put on the bandaid first, wade into the shark-infested waters second, not the other way around. Mandsford 15:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. And I like Mandsford's advice, :-P. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 19:35, 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! 07:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lamar School[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:ORG. elektrik SHOOS 02:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NHS. Racepacket (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wp.NHS is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contains a high school and, as always, what is required is attention to research sources not a rush to deletion. When you have a new editor, experienced editors should provide guidance not propose their pages for deletion within 13 minutes whilst still being written - see WP:BITE.TerriersFan (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding practice of retaining high school articles.--Milowent (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary schools are invariably held to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just noting that I completely disagree with Wikipedia practice that holds that all high schools are inherently notable. Hopefully this will change in the future. Them From Space 06:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the strong precedent of considering high schools automatically notable. Swarm^Talk 03:24, 12 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 00:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of controversial books[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic, especially the last column, and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, see also WP:Articles for deletion/List of controversial books. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is entirely original research and synthesis. While the idea of an article on books with significant controversies surrounding them is an inherently good idea, this article has too many flaws, and can safely be deleted (or userfied) without losing valuable content. Summaries are OR, many of the books listed dont have mention of the controversies in their main articles. some controversies, such as Kim's, are generic for a long list of older works. we would need clear inclusion criteria for a list, and the term "controversial" cannot provide a clear inclusion criteria. references dont seem to support enough of the article to salvage it. A better list is List of books banned by governments. the actal American Library Association list of controversial/banned books over the years could be an article by itself, and would contain most of these books. if article creator is interested, maybe that would be a better article to create with some help.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mercurywoodrose, or possibly redirect to List of books banned by governments. Tavix | Talk 03:33, 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. JForget 00:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Johnson (war veteran)[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guidelines, as there is no evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. There is also very little (if any) claim to notability: essentially he is someone who has lived to a great age and served as a solider around the time of (but not in) an important conflict. I admit that, being that this is such a common name, I could have easily missed sources, so I will gladly withdraw my nomination if sources demonstrating notability are uncovered. Canadian Paul 01:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has done nothing of note beyond the local newspaper article saying he turned 105 years old. I'm assuming old age doesn't equate with notability but will certainly defer to majority opinion. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Delete – Fails to provide notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. ttonyb (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not a war veteran, per the article, but has reached the age of 108, God bless him. Nothing which satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 15:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 20:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being old isn't enough, nor is being in the merchant navy (not armed forces, not a war veteran). Nuttah (talk) 20:29, 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! 07:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mean Girls (franchise)[edit]

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

There's not much of a franchise at the moment for there to be an article. There's the original film, a relatively obscure video game, and two planned sequels that are far too early in development for us to even know if they'll ever exist: one that has yet to shoot (Mean Girls 2) and another that is only in talks (Mean Moms). –Chase (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filming for the sequel begins in July 2010. Meaghan Jette Martin and Maiara Walsh have already been cast. An open casting was held just two hours ago in Atlanta, Georgia for the film. The film actually has two video games. I will be creating the page for Mean Girls: High School Showdown soon. The film also had a soundtrack and the films are based off two self-help books by Rosalind Wiseman. That's a pretty big franchise. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.204.243 (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have either of these video games received extensive coverage in reliable sources? No. Have either of the sequels been filmed yet? No, and they haven't received too much coverage at this point. Are the books part of the "franchise"? No. The soundtrack is pretty obscure too. –Chase (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single film does not a franchise make, nor does one film and 1-2 unnotable video games. Sufficiently covered by the existing films article, and per WP:CRYSTAL we should not be attempting to predict any future notability of two additional films which are not even in production yet. Casting is not production enough for WP:NFF. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's some decent content in the Development section which could go in the Mean Girls article. The Mean Moms section can be merged into Rosalind Wiseman's article; she wrote the book on which the film is based on. - Kollision (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant info to Mean Girls. Not enough now for a separate article. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 02:47, 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, JForget 01:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree a franchise article on a single movie is preposterous. There are always 10,000 movie tie-in products such as video games and so forth, so it shouldn't count for anything beyond common marketing of the movie. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Delete The video games were obvious cash grabs which were only designed to use title familiarity to get $30 out of mothers who didn't know better (and who clearly didn't have the sense to see that Lindsay Lohan wasn't even on the Mean Girls DS cover). Video games which are pretty much "dress-up" and "Bejeweled" clones do not a franchise make, and there are no sources for any future films as of yet. Nate • (chatter) 10:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's evident (from the references cited in the main Mean Girls article RE: Mean Girls 2) that a 2nd movie is currently in production, I don't really get the point of deleting this article, only to have to recreate it in 1 week's time when an "official" source does confirm there will be a sequel. I'm also not sure that someone's perceived quality of the 2 video games is particularly relevant (and they've been covered by IGN and Gamespot) - I would say a movie, a movie currently in production, another planned movie, a soundtrack and 2 video games does make a franchise - maybe others disagree. Merge it at the very least. Tom (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a second film is made, that doesn't make it a franchise. Soundtracks are par for the course for a film and do not make it a franchise either. Nor two tie in games. A franchise requires far more than just two films, and some unnotable media. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:07, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotrophobiosis[edit]

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

This seems to be in violation of WP:NOT#ESSAY, because it is structured like an academic paper and seems to contain original research. The article was created by "Prof. Dr. L. Horst Grimme", and thus is probably an attempt to attract attention to his work on the subject. Claritas § 10:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fairly clear who Hgrimme (talk · contribs) is, and that xe has a conflict of interest when it comes to concepts that xe has coined and that the world has as yet failed to take on board. And that is the situation at hand. The only thing known as ecotrophobiosis in the world at large is trophallaxis. "Ecotrophobiosis" was the name that E. Roubaud coined for it in 1916, but William Morton Wheeler's 1918 name of trophallaxis was what actually stuck in the end. Textbooks still mention Roubaud's alternative name, though, so ecotrophobiosis should redirect there. I can find no evidence that M. Grimme's concept has gained any traction in the world at large.
And much of this article, it should be noted, doesn't even address the subject, but rather provides information on other subjects that we already have articles on — as a lengthy prelude to explaining why the new concept, with the new name that the world at large outside of its coiners has yet to acknowledge, is a good idea. The sections in this article on nutrition, nutrification, and food production overlap our existing fairly lengthy and more detailed articles on those subjects. However, the great shame of this article is that the section explanining trophobiosis would have made a welcome addition to trophobiosis, which is a stub that could do with exactly that sort of expansion.
That last is the problem, as far as I'm concerned. It aside, this article is a synthesis of superficial discussions of other subjects, that we already have articles on, brought together to support a new concept being promoted here by one of its coiners, that hasn't been independently acknowledged by the world at large. This is not what Wikipedia is about. Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the section on trophobiosis is that it is entirely unsourced. While the information would be welcome, citations to reliable sources would probably be needed if such a large body of text was to be merged. Claritas § 15:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read it again. It directly cites de Bary, Francis Chaboussou, and (Wolfgang, I think) Tischler, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right - I was reading the "Trophobiosis of man as an ecosystem approach" section. Per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, however, there may be issues with deleting the article and keeping content, due to attribution. Claritas § 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hence the problem. Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either we salvage this, or Delete it. It's not notable, and it's an essay. Delete. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 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 01:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will defer from voting due to the strange nature of this article and my ignorance of the subject in general. Clearly an attempt at a collegiate work of some sort, the tone of the piece is non-standard and the references (if they are indeed refs) are listed as literature and in the wrong format for Wikipedia. Hard to say delete or keep, but certainly needs lots of work if it is to be kept. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Delete term used only in a very few papers; not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 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 keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Elfman[edit]

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

Promotional article about an apparently non-notable subject, who has notable relatives. May be part of a walled garden, see also buzzine. References are not reliable sources. Nuujinn (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Richard Elfman has a thirty year career in film, music, and theater. Please refer to his [41] page. While none of his films were exactly blockbusters, Forbidden Zone has a cult following, and even a live theater homage.[42] Richard was also the founder of the hugely influential music group Oingo Boingo. This article does have problems - namely that the article's subject appears to be the main contributor to (and heavy-handed editor to) it, but that's a different issue, and not one of notability. GreenGlass^(talk) 19:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first link you provide is a 404 not found, and neither would considered reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly promotional. I went and deleted the unsourced content, as well as information about his relatives and companies (since the article is supposed to be about him), and there's not much about him that seems to be actually notable. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Mr. Vernon. Elfman has certainly done many things, but it's not clear which, if any, are actually notable Vartanza (talk) 04:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. Richard Elfman is the creator of Forbidden Zone, which has a large cult following. He was also the leader and founding member of The Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo. In other words, without Richard Elfman, there would have been no Danny Elfman as we know him. There quite possibly would have been no Pee Wee Herman either as Paul Reubens is a fan of Forbidden Zone. As was pointed out above, Mr. Elfman's quite colorful contributions to his own page are a different issue. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add, just do the news search and you'll find a ton of sites discussing Richard Elfman and Forbidden Zone if you need any proof of the large cult following. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as the founder of Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo [43], and also as director of Forbidden Zone [44]. Interviewed in the Austin chronicle, SF Bay Guardian. -- Whpq (talk) 20:04, 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 01:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mr. Vernon. What notability is there is by association only, and even then it's extremely weak. It's also extremely clear, given the article history, that this is being used as a platform for self promotion (see WP:COI, WP:SPAM). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue of the article being used for self-promotion is separate from notability. If a more notable person, say Seth Green, were editing their own Wikipedia article in ways that didn't conform to Wikipedia standards, would we delete the article? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is "Richard" Elfman actually Danny Elfman? If so, there is no question about notability. He did the soundtracks for many Tim Burton movies and has already been pointed out, was the founding member of Oingo Boingo, a band with several hit songs in the 1980's. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Answer: “Is Richard Elfman actually Danny Elfman?” That can be confusing. Like the time a few years back I was getting drunk at some swank Hollywood club as the pretty barmaid--an Oingo Boingo fan--kept filling my ($11@) glass and refusing to let me pay for it. Under the noise and din of the music, I finally realized that the young lady had me confused for my younger brother Danny. I started to reach for my wallet, explain things and pay up, but decided not too, as I seemed to be getting confused on the issue myself… and I promise to never enter stuff like this on my article page in the future, even if it can be referenced!Richard Elfman (talk)

He is Danny Elfman's older brother. On the negative side, he does have a problem with his own vanity, which has affected the article as he has participated in it. I noted a website in External links questioning the fact that he claims to be younger than his younger brother. Not included is his Myspace page that comes up in a google search making that same claim. He certainly pales in the shadow of his brother's accomplishments from exactly the same notable starting point. He has obviously made some different career choices, but that is not cause to delete him.Trackinfo (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know Danny had an older brother, or that he was instrumental in forming Oingo Boingo, so I found the article interesting and informative. I admit I came into this after the AfD nom and have not looked at Mr. Elfman's apparently colorful edits to his own article. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Strong Keep I think I've answered my own question above ^^^ and although he is not Danny Elfman, he did apparently found the band Oingo Boingo, which in itself is quite notable. His work in movies is also notable, though somewhat less notable than founding the band. If there are problems with the subject's contributions, the article can be re-edited and he could be banned, if necessary, but I hope that wont be necessary. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Keep The fellow founded Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo [45] and even MTV refers to his 1982 Forbidden Zone, which is still being screened 28 years later, as a "cult musical comedy"[46] And oh... I forgot to mention I believe he may even meet WP:BAND. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oingo Boingo connection makes him notable, QED. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added and sourced more information. Oingo Boingo alone should make him notable, plus he's got more of a career of cult films, a few of them notable. Trackinfo (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without question. Google books Interview on quietearth, review of Forbidden Zone. Mentions in cinema guides etc. --JN 466 16:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology! I have apparently used my article page as a promotional platform with an obvious conflict of interest and lack of neutrality. Unfortunately, I must claim utter ignorance of the editing rules and guideline of Wikipedia, of which I have now started to read for the first time. I very much respect Wikipedia and value what it offers. Mea culpa and sorry for any fuss I have created. One last note: that birth date stuff about me being younger than Danny was put out by a long former publicist—she even created my MySpace page--which I had forgotten about until reading this page, and just ordered the MF page taken down—thank you. Please keep up your good work! Richard Elfman (talk)
Comment Mr. Elfman, it is common to be slapped around by editors your first time editing here. Though many people feel anyone can do anything to Wikipedia, and that is true, vandalism and non encyclopedic content will be removed, eventually. Contrary to many articles that have no notability to recommened them, we are well beyond that with you and your contributions to pop culture. I will thank you on behalf of all the editors here at Wiki and am glad to say it looks like we will keep it. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Rant We, the Wikipedia community, create rules upon rules upon rules then expect "newbies" to follow the rules without giving enough benefit of doubt. I've always found it frustrating. I see no real reason for this AfD. As the article needs improving, attention could have been brought to it in a less aggressive and more constructive manner prior to threatening deletion. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:51, 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) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring segments from Tosh.0[edit]

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

Contested prod. This article is one large WP:TRIVIA section, and fails our notability requirements because it is sourced only to the show itself. It is also overflowing with WP:OR. Reyk _YO! 01:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tosh.0. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:14, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that any individual segment or the overall concepts of segments of this series are notable separately or together. No one will ever search for this term so there is no need to redirect. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a fork of the Tosh.0 page (can be found at this revision) and clearly is meant to parallel the Recurring segments on The Colbert Report article. Fishal (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. Would be better on something like TVTropes. Bob talk 01:50, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony DeNiro[edit]

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

I apologize if this seems like a cleanup-AfD, but I'm not an expert on the topic at all. At least my google-search gave me a barrage of sources that I cannot evaluate for WP:RS. Bottom-line is, this thing has been tagged as unreferenced (BLP) since 2008 and no-one seems to have cared. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm on the way to bed, but a quick search found lots of sources. It appears this article just needs some major cleanup, wikification, and work. Bhockey10 (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can't find much information about this person, but when this article was up for speedy deletion a couple of years ago, I did find this article which I added as a reference to indicate that there is some substance to the article. The article may need to be cut down to limit the content to what can be reliably sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:59, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject clearly appears notable, but with no references to back up any of the claims made, such as "branding" hip hop and R&B stars and being a consultant to "award shows." Article is in terrible shape for Wikipedia and will need a monumental effort at cleanup to keep. Notability does not appear to be an issue, however there are no verifiable sources listed to prove such claims. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Delete ArticleThis is not a poorly-sourced article rather it is an article that lacks sourcing at all. The one reference supplied is weak at best and doesn't offer much in confirming any of the claims for the subject of this article. Looking at some of the information athletic information, I was able to confirm that some of the accomplishments listed in regards to the subject are untrue and am more than willing to post for reference. So if the authors of this article stand by these claims, they need to provide valid sources that back them up.Analyzerwiki 01 (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If no improvement takes place bringing the article up to Wiki standards. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:28, 11 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Betina Suárez[edit]

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

Unclear notability, unsourced with a quick google not revealing any useful ones immediately Falcon8765 (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Appears notable, but article is a mess, non encyclopedic, improper format, no references, and so on. Needs major restructuring to keep. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:10, 4 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Hope Atkinson[edit]

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

IMDB is not a reliable source. Need more evidence of notability. -- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 04:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about this?This brief mention in the New York Times took about three seconds to locate. Subject has done stage, film and television for decades. The article needs work, not deletion. Evalpor (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The evidence toward notability is in the Find sources above. That they are not IN the article is a reason to add them, as they are available... but not to delete because someone else had not done so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody else getting to it? Okay... I'll work on it myself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actress on many TV shows in the 60's and 70's, including Sanford and Son. I think having been on Sanford and Son is enough to keep the article. Sanford and Son was a great show and everyone on the show should have an article, especially Aunt Esther. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
- We do have an article about Aunt Esther in addition to the article about LaWanda Page who played that character. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a terrible shame if Wikipedia didn't have an article on Esther. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

What does Aunt Esther have to do with this nomination? (By the way, Nighteen Nightmares, consider reading WP:INHERITED.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:42, 6 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scripture in Song[edit]

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

Contested PROD - Non notable record company, fails WP:CORP. Codf1977 (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan Pennzoil NISMO GT-R[edit]

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

Article appears to be written by someone who is basing their information on the video game Gran Turismo. A car sponsored by Pennzoil did compete in a racing series, and this car in this paint scheme did appear in video games, but there is nothing in particular that makes this race car different or unique compared to other identical cars which competed in this series. None of the information in the article is correct and it appears to not actually discuss anything about the real car, rather introducing statistics from mentioned video game. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closing admin: Not that this is the best place, but this particular associated file would be best deleted as well since Google Images is most certainly not Public Domain. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:30, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or convert to a redirect to Gran Turismo (series). Does not warrant a stand alone article for sure. Delete the image and the license information is misleading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 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. JForget 01:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technology evangelism[edit]

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

I don't think this should be a separate article from Technology evangelist. I propose redirecting it, or making it into a disambiguation page between Technology evangelist and Platform evangelism. - EdoDodo ^talk 08:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author's response (JimPlamondon)[edit]

If I were *done* with the article Technology evangelism, I would agree entirely. However, it is essentially a stub, having been started just before I began a separate project. I expect to get back to it in min-July 2010.

In brief, the distinction between Technology Evangelism and Platform Evangelism stems from the difference between one-sided platforms (such as a text editor) and a two-sided platform (such as a text-editor that supports specialized plug-ins produced by third-party software vendors). Both kinds of platforms can create network effects; on both platforms, these effects can be both direct (among users) and indirect (among users and vendors of complementary goods such as test-editor-specific training materials). However, the differences in pricing structures and platform access are quite different. Consider, for example, Apple's recent ban on the use, in iOS apps sold through its AppStore, of any non-Apple-approved APIs. This makes perfect sense for a two-sided platform (like the iOS), but would make no sense at all for a one-sided platform.

You'll note that my article on Platform Evangelism refers frequently to the pre-existing article on two-sided platforms. I realized, after starting to write the Technology evangelism article, that it needed to refer to a similar article on one-sided platforms, which did not yet exist. I need to write this supporting article, and one on multi-sided markets, and a article to connect them all, to make sense of the whole thing.

Also, I expect to add a section to the Technology evangelism article that references historical examples, such as the War of the Currents, the battle over rail gauges, color television, etc. Many industries start with such an evangelism battle, then settle down. Computing never settles down, due to Moore's Law. There are lots of references for these data points; it just needs to be summarized and cited.

Then, most of the content of the Technology evangelist article can be shifted over to the Technology evangelism article, with Technology evangelist being a very short stub saying that "Technology Evangelist (sometimes "Technical Evangelist") is a job title for someone who practices technology evangelism."

So, gimme a month, and I'll flesh it out. ;-) - Jim Plamondon (somewhat later on 27 June) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPlamondon (talk • contribs) 21:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and give the editor a month or two to improve it along the lines he suggests. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I added and sourced a well known Technology Evangelist to the article. Frankly I don't see the need for the multiple articles either, so I'm leaning towards "merge" but I'll give the editor some time to work it out. It certainly is a real subject worthy of an article.Trackinfo (talk) 02:24, 6 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Werewolf in a Winter Wonderland[edit]

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

Novel which does not meet WP:NB or WP:GNG - it's a book in a series with no notability inherited from that series. Carolyn Keene is not an author but a pseudonym used by 10 or more authors, and the author of this novel is not considered notable enough to have an article for him/herself. Therefore, criterion 5 does not apply, and I don't see how it can meet any of the other criteria - there's very little significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 10:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the appropriate list of Nancy Drew novels. Edward321 (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't such a list, but Nancy Drew Mystery Stories serves a similar purpose. Claritas § 09:53, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Abdullah Zadeh[edit]

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

Very poorly sourced WP:BLP issues, created by possible sock of User:Saqib. Bringing here for discussion on whether to delete the page. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm at a loss trying to understand how an article with references to The Wall Street Journal, Forbes and Gulf News is so "very poorly sourced" as to merit deletion. Yes, there is some unsourced content, but that can simply be removed by normal editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:24, 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) 00:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rewrite The present article grossly fails BLP, making the assumption of guilt, describing the alleged crimes in excessive detail, and relying of anonymous comments--even if reported in good newspapers. I note the actual articles in those sources are considerably fairer than our article. The best thing to do here is to delete entirely and start over--I might say keep and revise sharply, except it's a negative BLP written by a single purpose editor. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. Could well be a G10 case - when I read the article I am of the view that it's sole purpose is to disparage the subject. Sourcing isn't enough for an article: it must be neutral and most importantly it cannot be allowed to attack its subject. So notwithstanding the sourcing, deletion is appropriate here. I agree with DGG that keeping it for a re-write is not appropriate. If someone wants to start afresh with a new BLP-compliant article, go for it.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:53, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Teens[edit]

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

This article does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines for corporations. There are no references of any kind on the article, and the only mentioning that I could find of this organization in the news was this article that listed it as a charity that received a grant. A web search shows no real coverage outside of its own website. Tjc₆ 14:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Insufficient evidence of notability per WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. After a search on Google Books, I found these: [47] [48] [49] [50] NYCRuss ☎ 00:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly merge with Unification Church as it was founded to promote abstinence (a key UC value), albeit in a non-sectarian way. It's significant because it represents one of several organizations or campaigns to promote specific values or ideas usually associated with religion, but with the hope of doing so without making any attempt at religious conversion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I in no way wish to imply that he's biased or not acting in good faith, I think it is worth mentioning that Uncle Ed above is a member of the Unification Church, and could be considered to have a WP:COI here. Robofish (talk) 22:33, 6 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, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Marginally notable organization, I'm sure it can be properly referenced given some time. If not then merge any relevant content with Unification Church, about which there is already a discussion here. -- œ ^™ 00:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the sources, a very minor organization, discussed only in connection with its Unification Church background. Actually, the present article is almost at the point of failing speedy deletion criterion G11 as entirely promotional. There is not really anything substantial worth merging beyond the basic facts of existence. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. The most that could be justified is a mention on List of Unification Church affiliated organizations, but I'm not sure if that would be appropriate as I'm not clear how official the links between them are. Robofish (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage and reads like spam. Nuttah (talk) 20:13, 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Caponigro[edit]

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

Puff piece for a non-notable person. A BLP PROD was removed but no substantial, reliable sources were added. There's a minor award from the U of Central Michigan, and that's it; board members of such a university are not automatically notable. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yup... the "article" reads like a resume. However, news coverage from 1995 through 2010[51] would seem indicative that this article might be salvagable with a major rewrite. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not quite finding the right kind of coverage to attempt a rewrite, but I will reserve judgement and see if anyone can work magic on it. Here's some sources I did find:[52][53][54][55][56] Fences&Windows 23:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:34, 24 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 14:51, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Following MichaelQSchmidt's cleanup, I think we can keep this. I think he just passes the GNG, and this isn't spammy now. Fences&Windows 01:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks... and I appreciate your pointing the way to possibilities. I also believe as well, that with a very very careful eye out for return of spam or unverifiable information, it is now worth keeping. Admittedly it was one of the more difficult articles to steam-clean... and if it were not for the long weekend, it might not have been done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Damn you, MQS, you West-Coast inclusionist. My evil plan foiled again! To any passing admin: Nomination withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 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 keep. no arguments for deletion aside from the nom JForget 00:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Turns Blue[edit]

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND. Aspects (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This band have released at least 10 albums.[57] The first was originally released on Rough Trade Records. I think these needs someone familiar with German pop music to judge - it seems highly unlikely that a band that has been around for so long and released so many albums will not have received 'multiple significant coverage in reliable sources'. The band's website states that their Ghost album reached #4 on the DAC chart, which appears to be the German Alternative Chart.--Michig (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One album on an important indie label does not pass #5 on WP:BAND and the band's website is not a reliable third party source. Aspects (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -"The Headliner" of the Festival are "Pink turns blue", which is for your appearance due to the successful entry their CD "Phoenix" in third place of the German Alternative Charts devised something special: they play exclusively a 100% concert. Translation quote from "Klassiker bringt Ruine zum Beben", Allgemeine Zeitung Mainz, 13 August 2005 Same publication later says (translation) -So-called "Headliner" of the evening was "Pink turns blue", a Wave legend, which deals with her new Album "Phoenix"- for same? Festival "Friedliche Eroberung der alten Burgmauern", Allgemeine Zeitung Mainz, 22 August 2005 duffbeerforme (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets clearly Wikipedia:Notability (music), Criteria for musicians and ensembles points 1,4,5 and 7. --Florentyna (talk) 07:32, 5 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, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiably a band that has released many albums, headined festivals, etc. German coverage is as good as any.--Michig (talk) 20:48, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Review[edit]

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND. Aspects (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three albums on Grover Records and one on Moon Ska Records should be sufficient for criterion #5 of WP:BAND. Unsurprisingly for a Dutch band, most coverage is not in English, e.g. Google News, though there is some coverage from English-language music sites: [58].--Michig (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Record is not a major label or one of the more important indie labels, in fact it does not even have a Wikipedia article, so one compilation album on an important indie label does not pass #5 on WP:BAND and In Music We Trust is not a reliable source. Aspects (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a record label has a Wikipedia article is totally irrelevant. Grover has a long enough history of releasing albums by notable artists (Laurel Aitken, Derrick Morgan, Doreen Shaffer, The Skatalites, Rico Rodriguez, etc.) to be considered important enough for this criterion. It's one of the major modern European ska labels.--Michig (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect a major independent label to have its own Wikipedia article. Grover not having its own Wikipedia article just furthers my belief that it is not a major independent label. Aspects (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of bands and musicians and hundreds of record labels that I would expect to have articles on Wikipedia, but don't, because WP is still a work in progress and there's lots more work to do. Grover has been around for over a decade with an impressive list of international artists in their catalogue. Would I expect a German ska label to have an article on the English Wikipedia at WP's current stage of development? Probably not.--Michig (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is Lars, Von (25 February 1999), "Musik für Sonnenblumenträger", taz - die tageszeitung (in German)

"Ska-Party im "Stone": "Mr. Review" dreht auf", Rheinische Post Dinslaken (in German), 28 December 2005 this says -Mr . Review alias Rude And Visser-

Others say things like Rude & Visser aka Mr . Review or Die Band Rude & Visser, besser bekannt unter dem Namen Mr. Review. Are they the same band still?

eg "RUDE & VISER, EL DÍA SIGUIENTE DE MR. REVIEW.", El Periódico de Catalunya (in Spanish), 28 March 2003 duffbeerforme (talk) 09:57, 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, 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.

^ http://books.google.com/books?id=P1qyHCmpT7EC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=norm+burley&source=bl&ots=UdI17QHlgD&sig=yeQwpAE7E-097_5epwiFgnjRDJc&hl=en&ei=NtcbTNPXJIX6NY7yhOgM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=norm burley&f=false
^ http://books.google.com/books?id=P1qyHCmpT7EC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=norm+burley&source=bl&ots=UdI17QHlgD&sig=yeQwpAE7E-097_5epwiFgnjRDJc&hl=en&ei=NtcbTNPXJIX6NY7yhOgM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=norm burley&f=false

[1] ttp://books.google.com/books?id=P1qyHCmpT7EC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=norm+burley&source=bl&ots=UdI17QHlgD&sig=yeQwpAE7E-097_5epwiFgnjRDJc&hl=en&ei=NtcbTNPXJIX6NY7yhOgM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=norm burley&f=false

[2] ttp://books.google.com/books?id=P1qyHCmpT7EC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=norm+burley&source=bl&ots=UdI17QHlgD&sig=yeQwpAE7E-097_5epwiFgnjRDJc&hl=en&ei=NtcbTNPXJIX6NY7yhOgM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=norm burley&f=false

[1]

[2]