Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 25

< 24 June	26 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle Raiders

best club in the uni. main player Jon Vince hydration officer of the season jon vince players player jon vince shot of the season. jon vinces back in sam jacksacks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.7 (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

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

Non notable British University American Football team. Sports teams at British Universities are rarely of not on their own campus never mind further a field. The small number of exceptions to this rule are generally confined to soccer, rugby, rowing and cricket. This team, which competes in what is a niche interest sport in the UK, does not appear to be one of those exceptions. Searching google I find only sites related directly to the team or its rivals. I have found absolutely nothing to grant the team notability. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - number of google hits (4,310) is too low for this to be notable. T3h 1337 b0y 23:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability has not been established, at least not for our levels here. HEY this one actually had a source!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very few British university sports teams are notable and this one does not appear to be an exception to this rule. Pfainuk talk 07:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with a few obvious exceptions, British university sports teams are rarely notable and this one makes no specific notability claims. TerriersFan (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've said it time and again, British University teams are rarely notable on their own campus, never mind in the wider world. I am also unable to find anything that can grant this team notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as a full, active member of BUAFL. See the extended discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derby Braves. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems little basis to assume that BUAFL members are inherently notable even in the absence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please demonstrate that such coverage exists. Pfainuk talk 17:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunderland Spartans

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

Non notable. British University sports teams are rarely notable, even on their own campus. This does not appear to be one of the very small number of exceptions to this rule. A search on Google returns only sites directly related to the team and its rivals. Article is unreferenced, and given complete lack of reliable and independent sources I can't see any prospect of being able to reference it Pit-yacker (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of references. This does not appear to be one of the few notable British university sports teams. Pfainuk talk 07:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with a few obvious exceptions, British university sports teams are rarely notable and this one makes no specific notability claims. TerriersFan (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as a full, active member of BUAFL. Please see the extended discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derby Braves. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems little basis to assume that BUAFL members are inherently notable even in the absence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please demonstrate that such coverage exists. Pfainuk talk 17:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sansouci

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. Subject played baseball in college and one season in an indy minor league. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources are not independent of the subject and are largely promotional. BRMo (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no arguments for deletion aside from nom JForget 22:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to Wild Divine

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

No evidence of notability. None of the references mention the game. Fails WP:N, WP:RS andy (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Macworld review, Just Adventure review, very short but usable PCMag piece, Discover magazine piece, small section in a Forbes article, Wired magazine. That's without fine-tooth combing book sources, this is clearly notable. Someone another 06:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Someone another 06:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: There's a whole pile of academic journal references too.

http://mm-werkstatt.informatik.uni-augsburg.de/files/publications/115/EmoteToWin.pdf

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1297287

http://weblearn.newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Research%20Centres/SORTI/Journals/AJEDP/Vol%208/v8-amon-campbell.pdf

http://134.148.4.164/Resources/Research%20Centres/SORTI/Journals/AJEDP/Vol%209/v9-Wright-Conlon.pdf

The list goes on and on...Google Scholar matches run into triple figures, and most of them look usable. Highly notable. K2709 (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Sources look pretty good and easily pass for notability. –MuZemike 23:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft

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

Mostly same rationale as the prod. Non notable game; no references in reliable sources establishing notability. It doesn't even pass WP:WEB. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 21:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable; references are anecdotal at best and not reliable and/or independent at worst. (I originally speedied, then PRODded this article.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB. I browsed through the sources recommended by WikiProject Video games and the only thing out there is the (currently linked) interview at Gamasutra. Everything else is trivial or a forum post (or both). Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the interview on Gamasutra (which admittedly doesn't help with reception) there's a full review on Jay is Games, there is a piece of some description on Play This Thing (which for some reason went down like yesterday, hope it is getting renewed :S), a small piece on Rock Paper Shotgun, small piece on indiegames - the weblog, part article on Big Download (AOL) and another nugget. The Jay is Games piece is user-submitted, but it was done so as part of a competition and has been vetted by 8 of the site's reviewers, no less, so should be fine. I would really like access to the Play This Thing source, another review would be helpful, but I think the other pieces wing it in regards to reliable non-trivial coverage in secondary sources (notability). Someone another 11:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "wing it," do you mean they don't qualify as reliable? I see very little in that list that does qualify. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean wing it in terms of volume of coverage. If they were all full-sized reviews for instance then the amount of coverage would be much higher. The return (phew) of Play This Thing has however changed that since it is indeed a proper review. I've been using Jay is Games as a source for a long time (they're a respected source within indie/casual gaming), and have used them on at least a couple of GAs. Rock Paper Shotgun is a site run by 4 experienced UK games journalists like Jim Rossignol and Kieron Gillen, appearances can be deceptive. Indiegames.com is part of the same group as Gamasutra, a very respected source of information on the industry, there are several other gaming sites under the same umbrella. Play This Thing is run by game developer Greg Costikyan (and indeed the post is by him), who is not only a relevant 'expert in the field' but has been quoted repeatedly, along with the site's deputy editor Patrick Dugan, in the gaming press on the issue of indie games. There's some very good sourcing here, it just doesn't look it. Someone another 22:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Someone another 11:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm happy with the reliablility and significance of the coverage at Bigdownload and Play This Thing (self-published but the author, Greg Costikyan, looks qualified). The smaller pieces: Indiegames (UBM TechWeb) and Rock Paper Shotgun are checked off as a reliable sources at WP:VG/RS. I don't think there's been a concensus on the reliablility of Jayisgames, yet, but there's plenty here anyway. Marasmusine (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, wasn't aware of the list at WP:VG/RS. Good thing to know about. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Looks like there's enough there to get past on notability. –MuZemike 23:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I personally would like to see this stay, obviously I'm biased being a long time member of the community, but nevertheless I have my arguments for it, the game has been referred to in the confirmed reliable source PC Gamer ([1]) and PC PowerPlay ([2]). --Zuriki (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)— Zuriki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep - This is a freaking sandbox game... There's not really too much that can be added to the article. What surprises me is that the game has been out for over a year and it DOESN'T have an article yet. 24.0.228.58 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. It is a discussion. The project page is articles for discussion. The weight of the arguments are weighed, not the vote count, and that is not an argument, you don't explain why it should be kept at all, unlike a few others here that have given a valid reason; documentation in reliable sources. Now, I would withdraw, but per policy, I am not allowed to as delete votes still remain unstricken(and no, you cannot strike them yourself. If you do, that is refactoring another's comment against their permission and is strictly forbidden.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 07:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many people that enjoy this game, and it seams to be very identifiable for the most part. People see pictures of this game plastered all over the far corners of the internet and go "Hey, thats the mine-thingy game right?". Notability is being Notable, not how many sources have noted it. If this article deserves to not exist JUST because some random guy from the New York Times has not yet written an story about it, than I do not beleive this is truly an encyclopedia. People come to Wikipedia to find out more information. Even if only a small amount of information is 'verifiable' at the time, then so be it. Leave it as is and build on it as more comes available. The point of articles here is to start on them, and improve on them as a community, everyone adding their share. Not for the article to be perfected the instant someone types it up, and if its not, to be deleted. Minecraft is already recognizable by many people, and many more will come in the future. A lot of whom are likely to come to Wikipedia to find out more information on it. I feel this article should be here for them. --Jaryth000 (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, notability is how many sources have noted it. We have to be able to verify what is written about a subject, and we do that through references to reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and assuming that "many more will come in the future" is ludicrous on its face. How do you know they will come? You don't, nor does anyone else. Notability of this game aside, your post exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia determines notability of any subject, video game or otherwise. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very true sir! On all accounts! And I apologies. Still does not stop the fact that I think the article should remain. --Jaryth000 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the nom reason, the relevant policies are N(notability), V(verifiability), and WEB(webcontent, such as websites, games, etc.).

WP:N - Significant third party sources which are independent of the subject, and the mention cannot be trivial, in that it can't be a few lines, the article itself needs to be about it.
WP:V - Original research is not verifiable, as it is not documented in a well-known publication with a history and reputation for fact checking. For this reason, straight photos, videos, or tabloids cannot be used as sources. Photos can be modified, video can be faked, and tabloids don't always give the facts, rather, they tend to put 'spin' on stories, make accusations, etc. I've dealt with a few BLP(biographies of living persons) violations myself concerning this one because of tabloids. This is also the reason why Blogs can never be used as sources. No fact-checking present. No verifiability.
- WP:RS - This one falls under WP:V. It defines what a reliable source is.
WP:WEB - This one is rather short. I don't know it in and out, one can simply check the page to read it's contents, it isn't rather long. In short, if it has won a notable webby award, it qualifies.

I hope this helps things.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 07:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MSSolve

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

No public references or original research JanT (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As original author of this article I nominated it for deletion as there are no open sources available about this application. While I was creating the article and finding some lovely detailed sources/references/footnotes I only realised half way during writing that I had my VPN to the Microsoft corporate domain active and all the nice detailed information I could find about MSSolve was all MS confidential and not available on the internet: as said: while writing it I wasn't really aware that the VPN to the MS network was active..... Thus now the article is unsourced and could be seen as 'original research' which isn't allowed in Wikipedia. JanT (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requested by the author and sole editor of the article. I couldn't find any public sources either. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Boys Clapham FC

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

General rule of thumb at WP:FOOTY is that a club needs to have played in the top 10 levels of the English football league system or in a national cup competition to be notable, this club has not done either of these. No sources found to pass WP:GNG either. Note also WP:COI as article was created by club chairman -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable team. Giant Snowman 21:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - how can this be notable with only 4 Google hits? T3h 1337 b0y 23:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This club clearly fails WP:FOOTYN and other relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article creator put this on the talk page, which I guess can be interpreted as his !voting to keep: This page is linked to the Surrey South Eastern Comination page. I noticed that other teams in our League have a page such as Crescent Rovers and Mole Valley SCR. I think the more local people know about football in Surrey is a good thing as most players come to us through the internet. The purpose of the page is only to give information. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Lower

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

Amateur/semi-pro short track racer - fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE/Motorsports. Also, article is not written like an encyclopedia article and would require a fundamental rewrite. Drdisque (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11. Claritas § 21:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author specifically says this was created from primary sources ("Article primarily written directly from information collected from Hank Lower himself. Hank Lower, the race car driver about whom this article is written, was interviewed numerous times over several months by the author of this content.") Thus it's pretty much original research as well as its other problems as noted above. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akkan Baby

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

I'm assuming my responsability as the one who tagged this article for not meeting any of our applicable inclusions guidelines in this case the General Notability Guideline and the Specific Notablity Guideline for Book in September 2009. Nine months later nothing changed and the recent article PROD by another editor was contested by an Ip without any reason or edit summary. To give a proper burial ceremony to this article and to say hello to WP:BEFORE, i'm pilling below all the findings that lead me to ask for Delete:

No relevant coverage found. Only links to illegal scanlation read online websites, download links, read through youtube and the likes.
No licensor found in English, French, German, Italian & Spanish.
No Ja wiki article.
English Scanlation was complete over 5 ago and did/does not generate big ripples within the fandom. KrebMarkt 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article creator, most content edits contributor & depproder were duly notified of this AfD. --KrebMarkt 20:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bot that does that automatically. Not a lot of contributors to this thing, and are any of them active? [3] I don't see you contacting people in other AFDs you have participated in, so this seems a bit odd. Dream Focus 18:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used bot only once to initiate AfD, all other times i did it all manually. Participating to an ongoing AfD and initiating one aren't the same thing at least for me. Per Good Faith, i consider that the AfD nominator has done some homeworks before initiating the AfD, including contacting relevant contributors to the nominated article. --KrebMarkt 19:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --KrebMarkt 20:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was an okay but largely disposable manga, which is kinda startling considering the themes it raised -- but given that, I'm not surprised that it sank with barely a ripple. As KrebMarkt, I'm finding no reliable source coverage in languages I can read, and I'm only finding barest responses in Japanese blogs. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BK = Delete, though if anyone finds a couple reviews, I'll change that. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent coverage by reliable third-party sources. Article is fundamentally a plot summary with almost no real-world context. Fails WP:BK and WP:NOTE Being serialized in a magazine does not make something notable. —Farix (t | c) 01:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A manga magazine that's been around for 45 years, knows more about what is notable and what isn't than any of us do. This manga had a published run in Bessatsu Friend. You use common sense, not just mindlessly follow the suggested guidelines. These types of things aren't reviewed often, so you can't expect to find that. Companies that own rival products aren't going to let their publications, be it newspaper or magazine, promote their competition. Dream Focus 18:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability can't be inherited and it's even more true for a manga serialized in magazine containing over 20 series. I really doubt publishers being more cluefull about what would be notable. In France we release 2x more novels titles than decade ago and yet the market sales remains the same as before. Cluefull i don't think so, trying to over-flood the market certainly with over 25 new or reprint manga hitting the store each week. --KrebMarkt 19:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, DF? What are you on about with the rival companies bit? It's coming in out of nowhere, without you connecting the dots. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the magazine editors being better judges than us of notability, yes, I would how they have a better chance of predicting what will be notable than I am -- but we here have an advantage over them -- it's called hindsight. If publishers were perfect guessers, there would be no need for remainder stores. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KrebMarkt - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brett McGrade

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

Hoax - no driver named McGrade has ever competed in NASCAR according to [4] and no driver named McGrade has ever competed in the 24 Hours of Daytona, nor is he listed at Driver Database. Drdisque (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calendars.com

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

Passes A7 for "having the largest inventory" (presumably of calendars). Google returns nothing substantial, and the one source used in the article, internetretailer.com, states on its listing, "If you would like to be considered for inclusion, please contact the Top 500 research team." Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reference in the article doesn't demonstrate notability per WP:CORP, and a Google search doesn't seem to turn up any coverage in reliable sources that would indicate notability either. I acknowledge that this is a tricky company to Google, and if someone can find appropriate sources, I'd be happy to reconsider. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 23:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) ) 18:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Pasternak

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

This looks like a resume for the subject who is a journalist. There's an assertion for a ham radio journalist. I can find articles written by him, but can find no signfiicant coverage about him. Whpq (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He sounds like an interesting guy, but the article is completely unsourced and I couldn't find any sources on Google except self-referential ones written by the subject. The article seems to be basically derived from this [5] autobiography at Amateur Radio Newsline. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cursed Videotape

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing but in-universe information of a non-notable film element. Not something that should have its own page. Anything relevent is bound to be covered on the film pages. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are several non-trivial uses of the subject in the book search, such as "Second Takes: Critical Approaches to the Film Sequel‎", "Fear without frontiers: horror cinema across the globe", . And there are google scholar hits for it, such as "From Scrolls to Prints to Moving Pictures: Iconographic Ghost Imagery from Pre-Modern Japan to The Contemporary Horror Film", "Horrifying adaptations: Ringu, The Ring, and the cultural contexts of copying"; and it definitely has a life of its own on the web, separate from the films/novels. So it does have notability separate from the films/novels, as such it's been independantly spoofed as well. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete if nothing sourced can be added or move to Ring Trilogy Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yeah, I'm not seeing coverage for this common fictional element, but agree this could probably be appropriately covered elsewhere per WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article can be sourced, in which case I would support merging and redirecting per WP:PLOT. Claritas § 15:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The anon IP's results make it clear that as a fictional item and trope of fiction, it is of enough scholarly interest that it passes WP:N. As such, keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Unsourced in-universe trivia; mostly original research. Reyk _YO! 05:11, 1 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. from the discussion there was a clear consensus not to keep this but the problem with the merge option is the consensus that this isn't sourced tp detailed sourced. This essentially means that we have no sourced material to merge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putinjugend

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

The last AfD's for this article saw heavy involvement from members of the WP:EEML, hence I am bringing this back to AfD now for re-discussion. Essentially, the main problem is that it is documenting a WP:FRINGE neologism. It is also using German sources, in which the meaning of the word in German does not necessarily match what the article states. There are also problems on WP:UNDUE as documented at Talk:Putinjugend#Walking_Together_listed_is_WP:UNDUE. Moves to a neutral term (i.e. Pro-Kremlin youth movement) has been rejected, and editors have used the article to write criticism of groups whom detractors refer to as Putinjugend. What can be said about this term is said - it is a pejorative neologism used as a slur to refer to a number of groups by a minute number of sources. Instead of moving to Pro-Kremlin youth movement as was previously tried, and as documented at Talk:Putinjugend#Moved_to_.22Pro-Kremlin_youth_movement.22, I am bringing this back to AfD, so it can be discussed yet again. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 19:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect salvageable info and sources to Nashi (youth movement) and/or Pro-Kremlin youth movement. "Putinjugend" is not a valid title—the word is a neologism not established in the English language. Not to mention the fact that this article can't possibly provide anything beyond the scope of "Nashi"; nor is the title neutral.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 25, 2010; 19:44 (UTC)
Speedy keep, as the nominator does not give any valid reasons for deletion. Article is very well referenced (Find sources above gives many more), the concept is actively used and often described; not only in news but also in books and scholarly sources. I do not understand why one German source, discussing the phenomenon in detail, is mentioned in the nomination - especially as even cursory reading of said source makes it clear that the article is about meaning of the Putinjugend described in the article. I also would like to remind the nominator that AfD's are closed based on arguments, not votes - and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. --Sander Säde 07:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, this German source does not discuss the concept in detail, it described Nashi (youth movement) in detail. In fact, the term Putinjugend is mentioned in that article a total number of two times - once in the title of the article, and once where it is written Der Gemeinsame Weg erwarb in der Berichterstattung der Massenmedien bald den Beinamen "Putin-Jugend", weil die Aktivisten in der Regel T-Shirts mit einem Putin-Porträt tragen. Basically, what you are trying to advocate is the writing of an article on Pro-Kremlin youth movements or on Nashi, based upon a fringe term. One does not write an article on Saakashvili with a title of Fucking lunatic [6], and there is no reason that this should be an exception. It is a fringe neologism, as I have clearly demonstrated by way of Google search results, and that alone is reason enough for deletion, as we do not document neologisms on Wikipedia. You claim that scholarly sources describe the concept in detail - can you please choose one from any of these sources which describe Putinjugend in great detail, instead of describing Pro-Kremlin youth movements in great detail, with a note that detractors of those organisations refer to them in a derogatory way at Putinjugend. The fact is, there are none. And I have checked. Refer to Wikipedia:GOOGLE#What_a_search_test_can_do.2C_and_what_it_can.27t if you are going to claim that something is notable, especially the part titled Search engines cannot:. I don't nominate anything for deletion on frivolous grounds, and my arguments and evidence more than demonstrate that this so-called article is documenting a non-notable neologism, and hence it should be deleted. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 09:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I can see a long detailed discussion of the origin of the concept in the article, with a whole sections dedicated to Putin cult and relations to (anti-)fascism, including descriptions of several youth movements - to which the quotation you provided applies.

"It is a fringe neologism, as I have clearly demonstrated by way of Google search results" - I wonder how come scientists, writers and journalists haven't picked up it to be a neologism. The term has been in use since 2002, with latest sources from 2010, so eight years of active use of "neologism"? And since Nashi (youth movement) was created in 2005, how could various pre-2005 sources describe Nashi as Putinjugend?!

Please also note that you are violating your interaction ban, Russavia.

--Sander Säde 09:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a comment on "last AfD's for this article saw heavy involvement from members of the WP:EEML", out of 18 users commenting, five were related to EEML - and one supported deletion, three wanted the article kept and one did not support any position. "Heavy" involvement indeed... --Sander Säde 09:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge in the criticism section of Nashi (youth movement). The term is a marginal neologism, not adopted by mainstream media, so doesn't even deserve a redirect. A note about the use of the term in the article about the movement is OK, however an article is giving undue weight to the POV of those criticising it.Anonimu (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ezhiki. Colchicum (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1) This cannot be merged to Pro-Kremlin youth movement because it actually is a fork of this, and the wikipedia licence requires that the editing history is preserved, which is why that fork instead should be merged to this earlier article. 2) I see that Putinjugend as term is used in some publications and is over the threshold of notable. This article should not be deleted. Maed (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to criticism section of Nashi (youth movement) per Ezhiki. --DonaldDuck (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per Anonimu's reasoning supported by others. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the neologism did not received significant coverage in the media. What we have in the sources is just a trivial mention (certain youth movements are labeled as Putinjugend). The rest of the article is criticism of those movements and original research (so far there is no secondary source claimimg that "Putin youth" is directly made form Putinyugend). --Blacklake (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. More specifically, a quote: To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. It could be used often, but given nearly nonexistent literature about the neologism one can conclude that it is just not notable. Criticism of the organizations, on the other hand, is quite notable and belongs to the corresponding articles. (Igny (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Use of the term in a title is significant use. And looking atthe actual sources, at least some do discuss the term. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: at least some do discuss the term. You probably mean that some sources "mention the term in passing" (Igny (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nexus (comics). Any sourceable information can be merged, as the article history is left intact. The theoretical existence of hard-to-find sources doesn't necessarily warrant keeping a completely unsourced, stubby separate indefinitely. If substantial coverage in reliable sources can be demonstrated, this can be spun out again in the future. ~ mazca ^talk 11:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judah Maccabee (comics)

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

Despite the claim on the article's talk page that sources exist for this character, the link provided displays a search that mostly turns up sources for the historical person Judah Maccabee, the First Comics character Judah Maccabee. This character has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources exist for this character. For example The Slings & Arrows Comic Guide by Frank Plowright and The Comic Book Hereos: From the Silver Age to the Present by Will Jacobs and Gerard Jones. Finding sourcing for this character is difficult because of the historical figure of the same name (who has also been the subject of comic books) but sources being difficult to locate doesn't mean they don't exist. Otto4711 (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Search for the name and the comic the character was most featured in. [7]
SUPERHEROES FLAUNT THEIR JEWISH ROOTS $2.95 - Miami Herald - NewsBank - Dec 9, 2006 "Judah Maccabee a 1980s comic book character who's also calledthe Hammer of ... the Book of Esther read the Nexus comic book series featuring Judah Maccabee ..."

Can't read the entire thing without paying. But it did get coverage there, and in the books found by Otto4711. Dream Focus 00:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In The Comic Book Heroes: From the Silver Age to the Present it says, "Nexus gained a new partner—an apelinke alien sporting a mohawk haircut—and the comics gained one of their most original characters. Judah Maccabee—hero, professional wrestler, gourmet cook and self-proclaimed ajudicator—is an explosive bundle of humor, rage, appetite...". This sort of treatment in secondary sources, which many a comics topic lack, is what is needed to write an article. Perhaps the nominator could take a look at this article; Pixie (Morlock)? Abductive (reasoning) 10:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Nexus (comics) from which it is currently a WP:SS breakout. I can't find additional sources, nor the full text for any of the three listed above. No objection to a keep if someone can source the article to offline sources. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was never part of Nexus (comics). It was created at Judah Maccabee as a redirect to Judas Maccabeus in 2003. In 2006 I started the article for the character, which was then moved to Judah Maccabee (fictional warrior) and finally to its present name. Otto4711 (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Otto4711 and Dream Focus. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nexus (comics). I really cannot see significant coverage in these sources. They appear to be single sentences in comic book directories. The history of whether it was broken out from the comic article in the first place or not is irrelevant - it's how best to treat the material now that counts. It would easily merged, and makes more sense as part of the comic article. Quantpole (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nexus (comics) per WP:PLOT and WP:BDK - there's little significant coverage in reliable sources of this character, and the article is essentially excessive in-universe plot coverage. Claritas § 15:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Nexus (comics) per Claritas. SnottyWong ^chatter 19:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was about to close this as "keep" but I have a suspicion that I'll get my talk page blown up if I did that (ditto if I closed "merge"). The only thing that is certain here is that no delete buttons are going to be pushed. My own opinion is that the content currently in the article would fit nicely into Nexus (comics). (except the part where he likes to bowl) However, if there are ample sources to write a comprehensive encyclopedic article with additional content besides plot, then I would have no problem with this as its own article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are compromise options - merge it to a section in "Supporting characters" on the Nexus article and then if people improve it to the point it needs to be split off to its own article then people can start a discussion or close as keep/no consensus and return to this in 6 months to see what improvement has been made and then start a merge discussion. (Emperor (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Merge to a section in supporting characters (the first option I mentions above). I'd tend to favour this as there only seem to be passing mentions of the character in the Google Books search and it is unclear what could actually be used from them in the article. Plus, as I say, this option leaves the door open to splitting off the section in the future if/when notability can be demonstrated (a lot of minor comics characters are failing on notability and I'm working on starting lists of minor characters to act as a merge target, this seems to fit this general plan). (Emperor (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dyesol

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

~~Company which fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. There's significant coverage in The Age, but not in any other independent reliable sources.Claritas § 18:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep seems like it has pretty significant coverage to me [8]. Artw (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I actually found quite a bit of non-trivial coverage from just a google search of dyesol -wikipedia as well as a google news search. SnottyWong ^gossip 23:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking the Google news search link at the top of the AFD, you instantly see coverage appearing in plenty. Just read the titles and the summaries of the ones up top, and that should be convincing enough. Dream Focus 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like plenty of reliable sources exist. The article has been flagged for rescue, so hopefully it will be improved. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite clearly notable, I probably was a a little too eager to nominate there... Claritas § 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"NYC Transparency Project"

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

I can't find reference to this project in reliable sources. I question its notability. The links in the article do not appear to directly mention the project, and all of them are from the New York City government. –Grondemar 18:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing on Google, Google News, or Google Books about this except for the Wikipedia article. NYCRuss ☎ 00:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jim.henderson (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G11, advertising) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WeAreTheBrits

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

Not formally launched -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UT Cougars

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

British university American football team that does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Google shows up nothing unconnected to the team or its rivals. British university sports teams are not generally notable, and those that are tend to be in either Association football, rugby, cricket or rowing. This team does not appear to be an exception to this rule. Pfainuk talk 17:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pfainuk talk 17:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also worth note article is completely unreferenced. Given the lack of independent and reliable sources on the team, I dont see any prospect of being able to reference it. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources given, no article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with a few obvious exceptions, British university sports teams are rarely notable and this one makes no specific notability claims. TerriersFan (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as a full, active member of BUAFL. Please see the extended discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derby Braves. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems little basis to assume that BUAFL members are inherently notable even in the absence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please demonstrate that such coverage exists. Pfainuk talk 17:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fawn Liebowitz

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

unremarkable fictional character. Provided references do not demonstrate notability. Band of the same name does not meet notability guidelines either. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge fictional character info and redirect to National Lampoon's Animal House; delete non-notable band info. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure it merits even a merge or redirect. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've got to agree, its a minor character, a merge is not warranted. I'm starting to wonder if the article was created to promote the band.--RadioFan (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a reliable source here. Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally I'd support a merge, but this "character" has no lines and no screen time. Edward321 (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Claritas § 15:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - text was copied from Bungie.net Marasmusine (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Bug Release (ZBR)

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

WP:NEO. No claims of importance. — Timneu22 · talk 17:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its video game terminology for a specific stage in development that wasn't covered by any articles so I thought I should add it. ChaoticReaper (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¡Ay, caramba!

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

Article is a neologism and is heavy with unsourced information, my efforts to remove unsourced information and my efforts to redirect this article to Bart Simpson which is the only sourceable reference to the phrase have been objected to. Cat-five - talk 16:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't need encyclopedic articles on the usage of every combination of expletives that have ever been used in popular culture. Even a redirect would be of questionable relevance. Keep. Good rescue effort. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed ~~16:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)~~ 01:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A lot of the information should be sourced properly, but I believe the information is out there, often under the anglicised spelling of Aye Carumba.--TimothyJacobson (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per TimothyJacobson, WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The exclamation is not a neologism as I have added some citations relating to its popularity in the 1780s. The idea that this should be an exclusive reference to Bart Simpson is absurd recentism. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Col Warden and as I've mentioned to Cat-five before - Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The articles is 5 years old. How come all of a sudden it's unacceptable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The core premise that it's a neologism, i.e. a newly coined word, is clearly false. I was hearing that phrase in my Spanish class, decades before Bart Simpson came along. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's also worth pointing out that "Don't have a cow" didn't originate with the Simpsons either. That's another one I used to hear back in the 60s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right then, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I'm going to do just that. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per Colonel Warden's edits and observations. ¡Ay, caramba! is not neogolism. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable expression, used for centuries, and seen in many notable media. Dream Focus 18:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. Soxwon (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dream Focus. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactshit

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

I can't find significant coverage of this bootleg/self-released album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NALBUM says "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources.". This is a self-release/bootleg, and I can not find significant independent coverage in reliable sources -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Johnson

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

Delete. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if your only claim-to-fame is that you won or were a runner up for a beauty pageant which serves as a preliminary pageant for Miss California then you're not actually all that notable. Especially if there are no third party sources provided non-trivial coverage to suggest otherwise. Okay, maybe I'm not going out on a limb after all, but for some reason there is yet another WP:WALLEDGARDEN here which needs some pruning. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can find no notable coverage -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Seems to fail WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. Would be willing to reconsider if reliable sources could be found. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nene Thomas

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

Delete. This is yet another branch from a massive WP:WALLEDGARDEN of non-notable WP:BLP articles lacking non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. The only source currently cited comes from the subject's own personal website. Thanks to User:Dougweller for remedying the copyvio within. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can find no notable coverage -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I also can find no significant coverage in reliable sources. Reyk _YO! 21:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:CREATIVE. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Millenovecentonovantadieci

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

Unreleased film of questionable notability. No indications of importance or notability, no references provided, no significant mentions in independent or reliable third-party sources or news articles. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the original play for similar reasons (lack of references, no indications of notability, etc.):

Delete all per WP:NFF and the natural equivalent to theater (though the play was performed, there is no evidence it was notable). I have tagged the Corrado Guzzanti article (author of the play and film) for notability and lack of references as well. There might be a case for deletion there.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NF. VQuakr (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with reasons above. --Half Price (talk) 12:41, 1 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) 02:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DreamWorld Motion Pictures

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

Contested PROD. Unreferenced. I've tried to find sources to establish notability and to verify some of the films they are supposedly connected with and have been entirely unsuccessful. I believe the article may be a recreation of The DreamWorld Company which was speedily deleted as not asserting importance. I don't think that criterion applies (this version may be an expansion on that original article which perhaps did fit the criteria), but nevertheless I'm struggling to find good cause for keeping this. AJ Cham 15:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3 "DreamWorld aslo Produces/Distributes Animated Films, mostly with Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar Animation Studios and DreamWorks Animation." So that makes the actual distributor of Disney products in India, The Walt Disney Company India Pvt. Ltd. seem like they distribute zero films from their corporate parent at all? No inbound links to the article, no notability, it distributes films from two studios that are putting it lightly, competitors, and has a name that DreamWorks would sue them out of existence for carrying? Incredibly blatant hoax. Nate • (chatter) 00:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability - a small film distribution studio which does not explain why the subject is notable. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 04:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Additional Find sources find lots of stuff about a theme park[9] and only one article something called "DreamWorld Pictures Entertainment"[10]. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Tokyo, Japan, January 18, 2001

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

Non-notable bootleg. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NALBUMS - "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Can find no significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this bootleg. Joe Chill (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe not if there is more information, but there isn't enough. AirplanePro^Radio_Checklist 18:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with everyone above. Allow me to add that I am familiar with this band and its history, and the bootleg album here is rarely if ever mentioned as an item of merit for fans. If they don't even care about it, that tells you how (non-)notable it is. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. The AfD tag pointing to this discussion was created as a new article, the actual article having been deleted 13 minutes earlier. Also I don't understand the "procedural reasons". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Murawski

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

I contest the WP:PROD for purely procedural reasons.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Murawski resulted in a consensus for deletion;
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Murawski (2nd nomination) does not appear to have been included in the en.wikipedia project;
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Murawski (3rd nomination) does not appear to have been included in the en.wikipedia project;
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Derek Murawski does not appear to have been included in the en.wikipedia project. It would thus seem appropriate to send the article to AfD again! Shirt58 (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion under criteria A7 - a group with no indication of importance. Marasmusine (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Evo Players (Ireland)

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

No evidence of notability; completely original research; BLP issues Quasihuman (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Best soccer players according to some dude's criteria. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even that, it's the best players of a soccer video game according to some dude's criteria i.e. it's him and a few of his friends. Delete as completely non-notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has no place in an encyclopedia. Not notable. Bazonka (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pangalawang Cubicle

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

Non notable student film. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost no coverage whatsoever. —fetch ·comms 21:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NF. No doubt that it exists... but it has no sourcable notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Apparent consensus. I have no clear opinion personally on topics like these. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mario's Cafe Bar

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

Cafe only notable for being the setting for The Sun's "Biggest ever brekkie" record attempt and now serving said breakfast to willing victims who are willing to sign a disclaimer taking responsibility for their own health. This one line article is of zero encyclopaedic value. Codf1977 (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pretty much non-notable and unencyclopedic. ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 14:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Brekkie is a big deal to some people and we shouldn't damage the encyclopedia's coverage based on the whims of health food nuts, vegetarians, and communists. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have never edited that article and never tried to have it deleted (see the page history) – I trust you will remove your accusation against me? ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 15:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. It's borderline, but it does seem that this local eatery's large breakfast has attracted fairly durable media attention, enough to give it a small measure of significance. (And let's be civil. Calling other editors "nuts" and "Communists" is one thing, but calling them "vegetarians" crosses the line.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in RS (I count 4 news sources in the article) means it meets WP:GNG. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sufficient sources for notability. We have always included spouse of heads of state & usually of heads of government DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Mathieson

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

Entirely non-notable except for the fact that he shares a house with a politician. Notability is not sexually transmitted. Speedy deletion refused - I think this deserves some discussion. Mattinbgn\^talk 13:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree For example, see Thérèse_Rein or Denis Thatcher. It is hypocritical to reject Mathieson but have a page on Thérèse_Rein. She would also be entirely non-notable, except for the fact that she shares a house with a politician. When it comes to the Prime Minister of a country, notability is sexually transmitted. Brett.Samuel\^talk 13:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rein is a successful millionare businesswoman. Thatcher is a knight of the realm. Mathieson is a hairdresser. WWGB (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Being "successful" or being a "millionaire" don't necessarily make one notable; being the Prime Minister's spouse does. Denis Thatcher was made a baronet, so that his and Margaret's son could inherit a knighthood - but had he not been Margaret's husband, would he ever have got that honour? Very unlikely, imho. Would Michelle Obama ever have got an article had she not been married to Barack? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. --Ari (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, "family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits." This guy does not make the cut. WWGB (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has appeared in several major newspaper articles as the major topic, surpassing WP:N. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does not necessarily meet WP:N. WP:N states "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article" Does any of the coverage discuss the subject in his own right, rather than as the partner of the PM. The articles may be about him but the only interest in his role as the PMs partner. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 14:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly argument. He's the partner of the PM. As such, he's the subject of interest - and not in passing, since there's already been several profiles of him in the press. He's just as notable as Rein, and any other spouse of a PM bar Enid Lyons. Rebecca (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To add to my deletion rationale, I would ask this question: What happens if the PM and the subject break up and the PM finds a new partner? Do each of the PMs future dates get an article? When do we deem a relationship of the PM to be serious enough that the partner requires an article? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 14:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, that is rude, they are living together, and they have been together for four years. If that were the case I would have to ask, with divorce rates at 50% should we stop including the husbands/wives however notable because they might get divorced? -- Brett.Samuel\^talk 14:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett.Samuel (talk •(UTC)contribs) [reply]

Comment. This seems to miss the point to the objections. You state "should we stop including the husbands/wives however notable". If they were notable e.g. Rein, then it wouldn't matter if they were the former spouse of a PM. See also: WP:NOTINHERITED --Ari (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2010

This is a ridiculous argument - every former spouse of Australia, including Rein, inherited their notability from their partners, with the exception of Enid Lyons who later became an MP. Rein's article would have been speedy deleted if she weren't Rudd's wife. Rebecca (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see how notability could be established. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is plainly established - he's been the subject of several profiles in his own right, and that's only going to continue. There's already an abundance of reliable sources, and the recent trend in the past few weeks towards deletion arguments that make literally no sense does the project absolutely no favours. He's as notable as everyone who's come before him. Rebecca (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources that really discuss the subject in his own right apart from his wife. All I see is, "This guy who is the husband of the prime minister is a hairdresser and a fine fellow." If the above commenter is correct, and substantive profiles of him will be written in the future, then we can revisit it at that time.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is not what I said. I said substantive profiles of him have been written. Read the bleeding papers. Rebecca (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I refuse to vote until I know what Jimbo, Mimi and Tim himself think about this article. After all their views are worth more than all of ours, especially the views of any Australians. 60.224.211.247 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is the signifigant other of a world leader and thus will only come further into play and notability- so if he is deleted he will shortly be notable and then there will be another discussion over a hasty deletion Masterknighted (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Julia Gillard. Notability is not inherited and there is not enough info available for stand-alone article, but redirects are cheap. Location (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above comment by Location.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as Australia's first male partner of a head of government. The coverage in reliable sources is more than significant: [11], [12], including being appointed as a "men's health ambassador" by the Commonwealth Government [13]. So he meets the GNG in spades. "Notability is not inherited", which comes from an essay not any formal guidance let alone policy, gets a little silly when we start deleting articles about people who are the subject of international news articles.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. Notable as Australia's first male partner of a head of government. There has been difficulty in the Gillard article trying to describe her "marital" status. It is inevitable that her partner be mentioned there. Without this article, much more detail about Mathieson would be required in the Gillard article, and that would make him appear to be even more notable. I came here and found that he has changed jobs from the one the mass media seems to be largely reporting. Without this article, that information would need to be in Gillard's article, and I don't think anyone here wants that. This article is sloppy and needs much work, but it must remain. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is appropriate that the entry for the de facto husband of a prime minister is retained and further developed over time. That said, some of the content is potentially scandalous and its veracity should be ensured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peewee2007 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most definitely, now that his paramor is the Prime Minister of Australia. Prior to 24 June, the case would have been much weaker (we have no article on Tania Costello, for example; but if Peter Costello had ever made it to the Lodge, does anyone seriously believe we would not have had an article on his wife?). Janette Howard, Annita van Iersel, Hazel Hawke, Tamie Fraser and all the rest became notable through their husbands - or, more to the point, through the high office that their husbands attained. None of these ladies would be known at all - AT ALL - if it were not for who they married and how high they rose. If it's fair enough for them, it's fair enough for Tim Mathieson. So they're not married; so what? It's not exactly unknown for married people to separate. Therese Rein may well have become notable through her own work, maybe not; but that's been overtaken by events, viz. she married KR. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First Partner of Australia. Notable paramours of world leaders are notable; see Madame Pompadour, Camilla Parker-Bowles, Monica Lewinski. "What is good for the goose is good for the gander." Bearian (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mkativerata and others. Meets WP:N, that's enough for me. Hobit (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—notable because he is the first male partner of an Australian head of government. Airplaneman ✈ 03:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that there's been sufficient coverage of Mathieson over the last few years to get him across the WP:BIO threshold, albeit not by much. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, having read every comment on this page, and WP:NOTINHERITED which states: "Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady." He is a figure of clear public interest in Australia, and possible the rest of the world. Donama (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long term partner of the PM ensures notability Porturology (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long term? Orderinchaos 10:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but we have articles on other Prime Ministerial spouses like Annita van Iersel who are more low-profile than Mathieson, and their existance does not seem to be particularly controversial. Given that Mathieson is the first male to find himself in that position, I also think that the existing volume of coverage on him can only increase. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:N; has been the subject of numerous reports already, and is certain to be the subject of even more in the future (and that's not WP:CRYSTAL, that's WP:COMMONSENSE). Frickeg (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a snow at this point. "Notability is not inherited" doesn't mean that people who have a connection to other famous people can't possibly be notable.Minnowtaur (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The partner of Australia's prime minister, the first male partner of a prime minister and quite likely to be involved in at least some or another major event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.198.101 (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Orderinchaos 10:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a desire by the public to acquire knowledge about the partner of the Prime Minister, as can be reflected by the number of hits on the page. If there is a need, Wiki should provide the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb redelman (talk • contribs) 08:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia is not the Who's Who. Orderinchaos 10:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't matter why people are notable - they are all grist to our mill. To exclude material on opinionated grounds would not be neutral. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BIO. The previous spouses have articles because charity and other such work comes as par for the course as First Lady and they became very notable (especially Hazel Hawke) in those roles. Therese Rein, Margaret Whitlam and Lady Sonia McMahon were independently notable even without the first lady status. Orderinchaos 10:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As someone pointed out WP:NOTINHERITED specifically does not apply to this situation. And secondly, the examples you use don't make sense - Therese Rein was a millionaire businessperson with no other claims to notability. Sonia McMahon was an occupational therapist. We'd speedy their articles if they hadn't been married to a PM, but since, like Mathieson, they were the partner of a PM, they were notable, and thus we have articles on them. Rebecca (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No where near noteworthy and lacking marital status. 121.217.96.246 (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 121.217.96.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: They do have marital status, not that of ceremonial marriage, but by Australian law they are considered spouses. See common law marriage and domestic partnership#Australia. Donama (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (very) many reliable sources clearly establishing what we call 'notability' - the fact that her sister is also notable should indeed be irrelevant, but we don't (yet) have a 'one per family' policy. (wait.... that last bit may have been intended for a previous discussion... maybe delete would be better? dunno - ask Jimbo ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Good call, Private. Tim has a DUI conviction too, so maybe he will call Jimbo? WWGB (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability cannot be established and there is no lawful relationship between the two. Романов (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock. Orderinchaos 13:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "No lawful relationship"? Catch up Romanov, it's the 21st century. WWGB (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - non lawful: It is not seen as a legal relationship between the two to my knowledge (or for what I can find). Have they filed domestic partnership with the ATO? Романов (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As you most likely already know, their relation is simply a common law marriage which is called 'de-facto' or 'partner' in Australia. This has the same legal implications for the couple. It's truly opinionated to say assume a common law relationship is "not good enough" to establish his notability as spouse of the prime minister. I'd be surprised if Gillard and Mathieson hadn't declared themselves to be domestic partners to the ATO given Gillard wouldn't want to risk being accused of tax evasion. Donama (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: De facto relationships have legal status in Australia - official government forms include "de facto" as an option alongside other designations of relationship status, de factor partners of citizens can apply to migrate on the basis of the de facto relationship, etc. roughtheory.org (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that the sheer volume of people who can say who Mathieson is, on either side of this debate have really proved the point that is is worth keeping the Mathieson article. Brett.Samuel\^talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.187.102 (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dennis Thatcher had notability in his own right. I can't see any for this case other than by association. He merits a mention in the PM's article, but not one of his own. Peridon (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep This article is in accordance to Wikipedia policy and have validity due to recent events and maintains the articles on Australian Prime Minister's Partners.Liberalcynic (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This person is notable.....there is interest in who he is and various articles about him in the media —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.119.127 (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 115.64.119.127 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The spouse of the head of government is treated in many countries as a formal, if unelected, role, expected to fulfill specific public and symbolic functions, and is therefore a public figure in their own right, even if they gained this public status through their relationship to their spouse. They will attract public curiosity, making an article useful and in service of a common need for more information. roughtheory.org (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd just like to reiterate that WP:NOTINHERITED specifically states that the first lady/first man of a country is considered notable.Minnowtaur (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. The applicable guideline in WP:BIO is Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria (which incidentally does not have a catchy quick link pointing to it). Not everyone agrees with the aformention exception that you noted, otherwise it would probably appear in the relevant guideline and not just the essay. Location (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above comment by Location.--137.122.49.102 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.51.116 (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The comment by Location was that there was not enough material. Three days ago that was probably true, but not any longer. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Npepperell, he's notable here. Also they're self-declared as de facto and co-habitant, both of which have legal recognition here, not that it would matter. Any long term boyfriend of the prime minister would be notable once they started accompanying the PM to functions etc but Tim has been assigned the usual goodwill ambassador roles (beyondblue, mens health, shed association) so he's clearly occupying the customary role. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this discussion is crazy. He is the Prime Minister's de-facto husband by law, end of story. Claiming that status is not significant shows bias against those who do not wish to, or can not, marry under the marriage act. 124.168.189.178 (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 124.168.189.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First Gentleman of Australia. Can't believe it's even being suggested he's not notable. 124.148.143.23 (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 124.148.143.23 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Please comment on the nomination, not the nominator. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your point? WWGB (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant to post this about the person one keep vote up who wrote that the nominator was biased against people who hadn't married - sorry for the mix up. I agree with the SPA tags. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Individuals can become notable because of personal relations that bring them to public attention - another non-married case that springs to mind is Levi Johnston. Mathieson's profile has invariably only risen in the last week but has now become notable because of the position he is in. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- what position? Gnan garra 12:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as per the recent Mimi MacPherson decision, to quote Jimbo Our guideline is clear that "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. " (See WP:BIO#Family.). Gnangarra 12:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- #1 that AfD was closed effectively as no consensus, default to delete (due to request for deletion) #2 The keep side was stronger both in policy (IMO) and numbers (by count), so the NC close was a stretch to begin with. #3 We don't rule by "Jimbo said", and even then "in itself" is less than clear. #4 He meets WP:N by a good measure. May I suggest you put Michelle Obama up for deletion if you feel this strongly about it? She's clearly only notable at this point due to her husband. I'd say she's top 1% of all BLPs notable due to that relationship, but you seem to be claiming that if notability (that is coverage) only exists due to that relationship the article should be deleted no matter that the subject meets WP:N or not. Michelle Obama would be a great test of that theory. If you are claiming something else, could you explain? Hobit (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about you put Michelle Obama up for deletion? Most of the arguments to keep in this discussion are vaguely based around WP:WAX but at least you are brave enough to state it explicitly. Comparing Mathieson with Michelle Obama is nonsensical: Obama played a leading role in her husband's election campaign over a significant period of time and the role of First Lady in the US is a formally structured role in the US. Mathieson has not played a role in public life anything like Michelle Obama and there is no formal (or even informal) First Lady (or Bloke!) office in Australia - and if there was one, it would be a better fit with the partner of the Governor-General. Some partners of political leaders have participated in public life - such as Michelle Obama - some have not - such as Mathieson. I am not pointing that to criticise Mathieson, but merely stating a fact. You would be better served making an argument as to why Mathieson is notable rather than arguing that Michelle Obama is notable as no one is disputing that. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Conversely, how about making an argument as to why you think Mathieson specifically is not notable, rather than making a nonsensical argument about anyone whose notability is inherited from their partners not being notable? This might cause people to give your arguments some sway, instead of making you look pretty bloody silly when they point out why your argument is illogical. Rebecca (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because that deletion was based on [[WP::BIO#Family]] which says "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. ". Mathieson is not independently notable. Gnan garra 09:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mimi Machpherson was deleted specifically because she herself requested deletion. The closing editor was clear that, had that not been the case, the article would most likely have been kept.Minnowtaur (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps waiting a few days before nominating this article would have been a good idea. Consider: The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Herald Sun, and even the UK Telegraph, all running profile pieces on him which have him well above the general notability guideline, inherited or not. Frickeg (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment did you read them, they are Marshmellow pieces they are about Gillard getting a blow job at 4:30 am to make her ready for TV talk shows. Gnan garra 03:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's not at all misogynist. Rebecca (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, I did read them, otherwise I wouldn't have linked them. It doesn't look like you read them, though, considering two of them barely mention hairdressing and refer instead to completely separate business dealings. Either way, even if they were puff pieces they would still amount to significant (and, I might add, international) coverage, and it hasn't even been a week since the leadership change. Frickeg (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean blow dry, or not?--Mkativerata (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'comment Yes, there is much garbage, and the tabloid media and womens mags will only get worse, but there was some criticism of his employment by a strong Israeli rights campaigner. Obviously only an issue because of his connection with Gillard. Politicians and pillow talk has long made partners of many kinds an issue. Not quite the same seriousness with models and porn star sisters. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable in his own right, but I think that "first lady" or whatever the Australian term is, are transferably notable. Shadowjams (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The position of Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia is notable enough to warrant an article itself, and all living holders of that title have articles themselves (in fact you have to go back to the second world war to find one who doesn't). We shouldn't be confusing the questions of "would he be notable if it weren't for Gillard" and "is he notable". StuartH (talk) 02:31, 1 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. since this already has an appropriate eight of coverage in teh NYT article there is no need to merge content tainted by accusations of POV pushing Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times and the Holocaust

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

Quite frankly, I fail to see why The New York Times and the Holocaust needs its own article at all. The fact that many of the folks who have been working on it are calling each other names (one user even falsely accused another of being a Holocaust denier; see the ANI record here: [14]) and generally acting in extremely uncivil and obnoxious ways makes me doubt whether such an article can ever truly satisfy NPOV, or whether it, by its very nature, is bound to remain a magnet for POV-pushers and general ne'er-do-wells. The very title of the article could be construed as inflammatory, and that is probably why this article has caused so many problems for the Wikipedia community. In general, I don't like articles with titles of the form "X and Y", since such articles by their very nature run into problems with SYNTH; when Y is something as emotionally and politically charged as the Holocaust, the problem is only magnified a thousand times, since the article essentially becomes an attack page on X. I think that any content that is worth keeping could be merged into other articles, like that of the New York Times or Criticism of The New York Times. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any genuinely valuable content into relevant articles. The New York Times may have an interesting, perhaps unique, view of the Holocaust. That belongs in the New York Times article. It is unlikely that articles on the Holocaust require a section on coverage in the New York Times. Once an article has proved divisive, and this one has, then it ceases to have encylopaedic value. This article displays none anyway. It is a brief opinion piece, and pushes some sort of veiled POV Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UNDUE and as a POV fork. An entire article based on the opinion of two authors? Throw a paragraph into Criticism of The New York Times if you like, but this does not merit a standalone article. Reso lute 14:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia:Content_forking. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE. My impression is that the topic is expanding upon detail in accordance with our guidance to do so when the detail would otherwise overwhelm a more general article. This is not forking, it is natural growth. For there to be forking, there needs to be a comparable and competing tine of the fork. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Content_forking#POV_forks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline advises that we should be getting rid of the Criticism of The New York Times article, not this one. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a sub-article and I'll show you either a PoV fork, or a PoV-driven "banishment" fork meant to hide sourced content away from readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale — this isn't criticism of the New York Times. This is an investigation into the causes behind subdued news reporting where heightened news reporting would be expected, focussing on the New York Times because of its stature. The Times is treated compassionately by the sources. This is, after all, an even of over 60 years ago. The sources raise questions. "How was it possible for so much information to be available in the mass media and yet simultaneously for the public to be ignorant?" This isn't typical criticism. "What kept American journalists from recognizing the significance of the systematic murder of six million people?" These are questions. This is not simple criticism. This is compassion, not necessarily criticism: "The press alone could not have altered the currents of public discourse that swamped the news of the Jews’ destruction, and certainly a single newspaper by itself could not have accomplished that." It is a misconstruing of the nature of the sources that support this article to simply say that this material should be part of an article on criticism of the New York Times. The quotes I am providing are from here Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, the US, British and German governments kept folks from knowing about the industrial slaughter of concentration camp inmates, most of whom but not by no means all were Jewish, by the National Socialist leaders of Germany as their military defeats began mounting up in the early 1940s. This belongs in the NYT article. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale — but are sources saying that? I am finding this at the same source I linked to above: "But the media had enough credible information to treat the news of the extermination of the Jews as important." And: "The result: The New York Times was in touch with European Jews’ suffering, which accounts for its 1,000-plus stories on the Final Solution’s steady progress. Yet, it deliberately de-emphasized the Holocaust news, reporting it in isolated, inside stories." Also, you are mentioning governmental suppression of information. The same source says this: "The Roosevelt Administration’s determination to downplay the news also contributed to the subdued coverage." (That of course is in complete agreement with what you said.) Shouldn't we just be writing the article that develops from a certain realm of sources? Other sources can be brought to this article, to expand it, perhaps. But I fail to see the reason to confine this particular subject matter to an article that it does not properly fit into. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is, it doesn't belong in this PoV fork. Sourced text about this can go in the NYT article, if PoV patroling tag teams along with other sundry WP:Systemic bias doesn't keep it out, which will likely happen, but that's for another talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It should be a section in the Criticism of The New York Times. If the day comes when that section becomes overly large (more than, say, 60% of the Criticism of The New York Times article) or when the Criticism of The New York Times article itself gets too large, then it should be split out as a content fork. --Noleander (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence given that the Times' coverage of the Holocaust was any more notable than any other American paper's. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek, that's actually quite wrong, but you might get that impression from the current locked article. Two many ecs to fill out right now, but its on the talk page.--Milowent (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not opposed to discussing a merger. Technically this really isn't appropriate for an AfD because the topic is notable, though it might be treated better within Criticism of The New York Times. A little background, the original article creator was rebuffed from trying to include the content in the NY Times article and so created a separate article (and then those against its inclusion argued for its deletion in the first AfD). A few editors seem to consistently ignore sources and the Times own admissions regarding its Holocaust coverage which has resulted in a poor article at this point, in my personal opinion. But I also believe that the subject can be covered in about two paragraphs within Criticism of the New York Times. Some others would prefer a more lengthy treatment, which sources would also allow. I have tried to mediate a bit on the talk page but it goes nowhere.--Milowent (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor was rebuffed when trying to add the content into Criticism of The New York Times, I think that after this AfD is finished (assuming it ends with a Delete/Merge recommendation) that the editor can go back to Criticism of The New York Times with this AfD as evidence of community consensus that the content should be in that article. On the other hand, if the editor was trying to put it into the The New York Times article, that probably was the wrong article.--Noleander (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was the latter IIRC, and you're right.--Milowent (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete and take Salvageable content to Criticism of NYT Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete and attempt to salvage the reputation of wikipedia. (Oh, reasons. Obvious POV fork and totally WP:UNDUE.)--RegentsPark (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki reasons you give seem to be secondary to support what you deem to be the reputation of Wikipedia. How does deleting this article salvage Wikipedia? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salvage the reputation of wikipedia (not salvage wikipedia). POV fork and undue are the main reasons for deleting the article. The rest was tongue in cheek though I stand by my opinion that it is articles like this one that make wikipedia look like silly. (Sorry, but if you don't see it that way then I can't explain it to you!) --RegentsPark (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you try to put yourself in the shoes of those effected by this, then you too won't really see it that way. Tongue and cheek about a subject like this, is callousness, and it isn't funny. You make it sound as if WP reasons for deleting this article isn't really necessary, because to you an article like this damages the reputation of Wikipedia and that is sufficient to delete this article. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if I have to explain this to you, you're not going to understand it anyway. Give it a rest unless you want to keep making a point for no particular, um, effect. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least two books have been written on the subject and numerous articles cover it. It has also been written about extensively in the Times itself. Closer should note that the delete voters are calling for a merge, which certainly doesn't require deletion. Also, this version of the article is disputed and an expanded text is only visible in the article's history. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) and SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs). ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 15:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Warrants a few sentences in one of the articles on the NYT. There may be some wider article yet to be written on the treatment of coverage of the Holocaust in the US during the early part of the war, and the part this played in America's initial neutral stance, in which coverage of the two books covering the subject should have an expanded role.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Milowent. This event is notable, but not significant enough to stand on its own. If not Criticism of The New York Times, then is there a Contemporary media reporting on the Holocaust? (And why not an article on that subject? The WP:AN/I discussion raised a number of questions about the subject in my mind.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add a graf of two to Criticism of The New York Times. POV fork, inherent synthesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhGustaf (talk • contribs)
Delete/Merge - Per content fork. Any neccesary information can be merged into the criticism article. DiiCinta (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per Milowent and llywrch - Some of the content the creator wanted to add may also be appropriate for expanding Buried by the Times. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course this article should not be deleted. There was a period of time when the Holocaust was taking place. The New York Times was a functioning newspaper at that time. Surprisingly little coverage of the Holocaust found its way into the New York Times, at least not prominently placed, such as on the front page, except in a few instances. In retrospect that seems odd. Commentators have looked into this. Laurel Leff is one, writing a book called Buried by the Times. Also, Deborah Lipstadt has studied the subject. There are sources specifically on the scope of this article. Its parameters are delineated in these sources. In what way is the article in violation of WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV? How is it an attack page? It is not "created primarily to disparage its subject." It is documenting the news coverage of a very sensitive event. The sparse news coverage of that event by one of the most prominent news outlets at that time is a well-sourced phenomena. Why subsume it into another article? Isn't it a stand alone subject? The failure of the Times to cover that event is a topic in its own right. WP:NPOV in this case means providing counterbalancing material to the notion of "failure" to to cover an eminently newsworthy event, if such material is available. Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT wrote about "what was happening to the Jews in Europe every other day, on average, during the war." -- Laurel Leff, who's quoted in the article.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bali ultimate — that is deemed to be low coverage, for an event of that magnitude. Bus stop (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's good form to have a an article about the lack or relative sparsity of something (in this case, the relative lack of coverage of the Holocaust in the NYT compared to most other newspapers). That would be like having an article about Humans and Tails dedicated to the fact that humans don't have tails, and saying the subject was notable because most other mammals do. It just doesn't seem like good form to me. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stonemason89 — sources are of paramount importance. It would probably not be a good idea to write an article on "Humans and tails" because sourcing such a topic might prove difficult. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see why we should have a separate article for this. The whole thing seems like an attack page based on SYN. Although there are sources, it just seems totally unnecessary. Dave Dial (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Dial — there is no violation of WP:SYNTH. That would be the case if for instance sources supporting separate assertions were brought together by editorship to present the argument that the Times dropped the ball as concerns providing coverage of what in retrospect was an enormous event. But editors are not reaching that conclusion by their own devices. Sources are reaching that conclusion and sources adequately flesh out that assertion. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious POV fork. Ample room in existing articles for any useful content.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt — this is obviously a stand alone article on a phenomenon just like any other subject covered by Wikipedia. In this case a phenomenon supported by at least 2 books devoted to the subject of the failure of the New York times to adequately report the Holocaust as it was unfolding, or at least to place stories in its newspaper prominently to convey the urgency that in retrospect seems conspicuously absent. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into criticism sub article. --Tom (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge While I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of "Media coverage of the Holocaust" article, of which the information herein could form a part, this article seems far too pointy, even in its current, improved form. Why single out the NYT? There's a bevy of information out there about media coverage of the holocaust, and that's an article I could endorse. This just doesn't work for me. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Throwaway85 — we are not singling "out the NYT." Sources are doing that for us. We are only reporting what sources have have made a point of. You may find the material presented "pointy." But sources exist that that are unambiguously puzzled by the sparse coverage of mass killings in what was even at that time the newspaper of record. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion for that article was based on my own perception of what I think people outside Nazi Germany either knew or suspected was happening to the Jews, which was no one believed a respectable society would think of doing that; all evidence to the contrary was either downplayed or ignored until the truth came out. (Yes, the Soviets had their Gulags in Siberia, but they weren't "respectable".) The NYT's their failure to uncover what was happening was not unusual, nor prevented any other US media from learning the truth, had they thought to look. When the truth came out, everyone -- including Jews in the rest of the world -- were shocked. Now either my perception is a fair & accurate summary of the situation -- or it's wrong in part or whole -- which I admit can be the case. But until we have an article on the matter (hopefully without too much of the inevitable edit wars, WikiDrama, & kooks on either side making a reasoned collaboration difficult), this will be yet one more hole in Wikipedia's exhaustive coverage. -- llywrch (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It just makes no sense to me that the NYT be the only outlet for which we have an article. I'd be willing to help merge this information into a larger Contemporary media coverage of the Holocaust, but it seems like an attack to have this article and this article only. Certainly, it could form a major part of the new article, especially as new sources are being found, but it just doesn't work for me as a solo article. At any rate, I'm travelling for the next couple weeks. If this article is still around when I get home, I'll grab some sources and get cracking. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Middling, agenda-driven, non-notable criticism. Why one newspaper? Why this newspaper? The sources do little to justify the significance of the subject matter. I was for a merge at first, but on second glance through all this now, not even sure if it is worth a mention at the "Criticism of..." article after all, but that can be taken up later. It is an unlikely search term, so not even worth retaining as a redirect. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc — "why one newspaper?" Because sources assert that the New York Times failed to adequately report the Holocaust in a timely manner. Wikipedia adheres to what sources say. If you find sources on a closely related topic, perhaps you could add material based on those sources to this article. Bus stop (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A pair of sources does not a notable criticism make, certainly not for a standalone article at any rate. And speaking of "perhaps"...perhaps you could stop responding to just about each and every entry made here; an AfD doesn't need one editor's personal attention to this degree. Tarc (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc — it is not "criticism," as you refer to it in your first post. Wikipedia should not have have "criticism of…" articles unless sources exist supporting specifically that. The subject of this article relates to a specific newspaper. Sources exactly delineate the topic covered. You say that "sources do little to justify the significance of the subject matter." Isn't that an argument of I don't like it? Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the article being mentioned as a merge target is Criticism of The New York Times, so I have no idea what you're getting at there. And no, it isn't an issue of liking or disliking it; the point is, why is the Times at fault? Was this criticism widespread or notable? Did other leading newspapers of the time have more coverage? Tarc (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc — I don't think this article is a "criticism" article. While it does not put the New York Times in a good light, the primary subject is not the criticism of the New York Times. The primary subject is the failure to report the Holocaust while it was unfolding. The sources that we have focus on the New York Times, so we follow sources and the result is this article. To me it is noteworthy that the Times did not extensively report on the death camps that are now called the Holocaust. That is a lacuna in news reporting and sources are identifying it as such. You are asking good questions concerning other newspapers of the time and their coverage. But we can only go by sources. As I said above, I think if you find related material, for instance concerning other news outlets, or the general availability of information about the Holocaust at the time, I would think such material would logically fit in this article. But this article can only be built around the sources that we have at hand. Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And no other newspaper could have reported this in a timely manner? IIRC, the Times wasn't even the premiere newspaper in New York during the 1940s -- the Herald-Tribune was. And there were many other newspapers across the US which had the resources to uncover this story -- had they thought to look. -- llywrch (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable enough of a topic to be mentioned by Marvin Kalb in a formal speech. Egregious enough to be acknowledged by the paper itself. Influential event in history. The article at present has been sliced and diced by people who want it gone. It needs a careful expansion and sourcing, not deletion. →Stani Stani 18:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is a story of epic proportions which shouldn’t be suppressed or minimized either by deletion or merging. It is of extreme importance to the study of the holocaust, how it happened and who let it happen. The purpose of an Encyclopedia is to educate not censor. We need more detailed articles not less. As much reliable information as possible and convenience to access them, should be our only focus. The New York Times was the newspaper of record, which not only New Yorkers but the entire United States including the White House read, and it surely deserves its own article. Instead of deleting or merging, more articles of this kind should be written, not only for the Jewish holocaust but for the Armenian, Kurdish, Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia and all other holocausts and genocides. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing and hoping for coverage of related topic you think are important does not make a substantial argument for why this article should be retained. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My last comment was not part of my argument. It seems like you missed my point. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork and UNDUE weight. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into Criticism of The New York Times.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undue weight POV-fork and historical revisionism. The New York Times press coverage has been criticized, if one reads the material, for insufficient emphasis. During the war in europe it wrote about the holocaust every other day -- more than any other US newspaper. The problem with forks like this is they are little watched, and can allow novel ideas, agendas and interpretations to be transmitted and amplified. What's next Los Angeles Times and the Holocaust? The Times of London and the Holocaust? Etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bali ultimate — what does "insufficient emphasis" refer to? Isn't that the underreporting of death camps geared toward the elimination of noncombatants? We go by sources. You may have your understanding of how well various newspapers performed in this regard. It is original research until you add it to this article with a source. Bus stop (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was the conclusoin of all of the sources in the article and the newseum stuff which was under discussion on the talk page but may not be in the current version (i suggested an addition with it; it's at the bottom of the talk page). The complaint was that the Holocaust coverage was not on the front page enough, that the suffering of Jews was not treated as substantially different from the suffering of other victims of the war. That is, it's a complaint about emphasis. At least that's what the few sources say.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust was not just about Jews. As you know others were eliminated in the extermination camps. Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Holocaust was not just about Jews. But one of the sources specifically complains that the "plight of the Jews" was insufficently emphasized, which is why i mentioned it.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear and obvious POV fork. AniMate 23:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a pure POV fork at best, and a thinly-veiled attack page at worst. Why does the opinion of a couple of journalists merit its own article? This could be mentioned in a couple of sentences at the main NYT article. This article ought to be deleted and salted to prevent recreation. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, it already has two or three sentences at the main NYT article. Consensus was they're enough. PhGustaf (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a clear POV fork based on flimsy ground. Sure, a couple of authors have been critical, but per WP:UNDUE we do not base a whole article on that. Where is the secondary source with an analysis of what other media outlets were doing at the time? In some other article dealing with broader issues, it may be suitable to mention the claims re the NYT, but if a large claim is made, WP:REDFLAG applies and strong sources are required (sources with an analysis of the overall situation). Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Criticism of the New York Times, possibly a section on this subject. in the seminal book The Abandonment Of The Jews, author david wyman does make numerous mentions of the Times' importance in holocaust coverage (or their paucity), and speculates that their approach to coverage (in his analysis, somewhat decent coverage but buried off page 1, to not appear too jewish to counter being jewish owned) may have influenced other newspapers to lessen coverage (this is from my reading of the sections the actual books index points to, not our article, which i have not reviewed). he does NOT have a chapter devoted to the new york times, despite the times being the newspaper of record at that time for the US. This is an important subject, which deserves carefully collected information here, but i dont see it warranting its own article. with more npov details added, an article called "newspaper coverage of the holocaust" would be a possible article, or "us newspaper coverage of the holocaust".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems easy to find scholarly sources covering this topic such as On the Inside Pages: The Holocaust in the New York Times, 1939-1945. The topic is therefore notable and so it is our editorial policy to find a place for it. Forcing the material into a criticism article would be contrary to our core principle of WP:NPOV as this would, by its title, frame the issue as a criticism rather than a matter-of-fact study of the editorial judgement of the day. And, under whatever title we choose to cover this topic, we should not delete the current title as it seems a good neutral search term and the edit history is needed to attribute the contributions in accordance with our Creative Commons licence. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mindboggled - How is an accusation that a leading media outlet of the Western world purposefully gave short shrift to the murder of over 6,000,000 people not a criticism? Tarc (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your loaded language is not the language of the source I cited. It seems to present the matter in a neutral way and we should do likewise. And your position on the matter seems confused. If the issue was a big deal then why do you want it deleted? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsensical, there is nothing "loaded" about calling this a criticism; it is a fact. And I don't think it was a big deal, as I have noted above that it is not a notable, significant, or widely-held criticism. Anything else? Tarc (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That you don't think that it was a big deal is regrettably your own opinion; but those who were effected by the holocaust think it is a very big deal that the NYT chose to bury this information out of everything they found "fit to print". The matter this article deals with is very notable, extremely significant, and not just widely held but the New York Times even admits it. Our opinions of this, either a big deal or a small deal, is irrelevant; only reliable sources is what counts. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of my argument here is not personal opinion, as you wrongly suggest. What this article amounts to is a fringe criticism of the NY Times of the time, a criticism not widely held outside a small circle of conspiracy theorists. Perhaps it is worth a mention in the main "criticism of..." article, but it is not worthy of a standalone entry in the Wikipedia. Such an article gives unduie weight to the criticism. I hope that clears up some misconceptions for you, regarding my point of view. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight means that undue weight is given to one opinion over another. Here there are no opinions that say that the NYT did cover the holocaust fairly; such an opinion does not exist and understandably so, because even the NYT admits it. On if the holocaust happened or not, for that there is two opinions (one of them fringe) and there you would correctly argue that we can’t put undue weight in stating that the holocaust didn’t happen, and you would also be correct in arguing that stating that it didn’t happen is considered fringe. Regarding the NYT there's no weight here to be undue, and no alternative view to be considered fringe.

You stated that the subject matter this article deals with is not notable, not significant, and not widely held, and on top of that, no big deal. That is pure opinion and it smacks with I don't like it. My comment to write about all holocausts was only a suggestion not an argument. My arguments to keep this article are based on the rules of Wikipedia as regarding this article. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc — no one has suggested "conspiracy," and the New York Times themselves acknowledge inadequate coverage. Properly understood, this is not "criticism of the New York Times." This article is an explication of a phenomenon. I see little indication of blame. I see investigation into a curious lackadaisicalness when one would expect alarm. The conditions can be investigated without implying that anyone acted with caprice. The tone of the sources to the greatest extent possible omit any suggestion of blame or culpability. You refer to wp:undue weight. In point of fact there is no "weight" involved at all. There is no indication of there being "criticism" of the New York Times for an event that is 60 years old. The tone of the sources is one of investigation into the underpinnings of a surprisingly lax response from news reporters in the face of unprecedentedly traumatic events. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None but a handful of cranks feel that every-ther-day coverage is insufficient. None but a handful of cranks think that the subject matter is not a criticism. Please stop wasting my time with these pedantic responses. Tarc (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is serious business Tarc. This isn't trivial or pedantic. The NYT WWII's day to day coverage is subject matter for very serious scholars, not fringe holocaust deniers. It is not cranks that feel that way, but the NYT themselves who feels that way. They never defended nor will they ever defend their coverage of those years. Your argument seems to be that because you deem their coverage sufficient (something the NYT admits wasn’t), therefore this article should go? Why should your opinion about a subject ("sufficiency" in this case) decide if an article is to go or stay? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very careful when throwing the term 'holocaust denier' around in this debate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting I called someone here a "holocaust denier"? You should be very careful of insinuating that. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a flimsy WP:POVFORK of the already extant and better sourced Criticism of the NYT article. Verbal chat 15:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Milowent and Mercurywoodrose.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only purpose is for POV pushing. DreamGuy (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the purpose for those saying to delete? NPOV pushers or NPOV defenders? Your’s is the funniest vote of all. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Widen scope. I don't oppose merging some material summary style into Criticism of The New York Times, but I believe that a much better course of action than a full merge would be to widen the scope of this article to Contemporary coverage of the Holocaust. On top of specific coverage of the NYT's Holocaust reporting, e.g. [15][16][17], there is Why didn't the press shout?, a lot of relevant coverage in The Holocaust in American life, also [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Deletion would be a very suboptimal response to this article; why are we so quick to delete promising material and see the question as a binary of keep vs delete? Fences&Windows 18:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think many (most?) of the Delete recommendations - including mine - are actually Merge. Meaning that the content is good and worthy, but simply belongs in another article. Your suggestion of Contemporary coverage of Holocaust is good; but so is merging the content into Criticism of The New York Times. --Noleander (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~My merge !vote above was with respect to the Times-specific criticism.~~ I agree that there is much material about wider press coverage issues which would make a good stand-alone article.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start over with Contemporary coverage of the Holocaust (I had already come here to make this comment before seeing the one just above). [30] and [31] are just two examples showing that the contemporary coverage was woefully inadequate among most or all news sources, including BBC and the Jewish press. First Light (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV-fork. Lightly-watched spin-outs such as this are easy targets for POV pushers and when inappropriate POV inevitably creeps back in they can bring the whole project into disrepute. Jack Merridew 23:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject here is not criticism of the New York Times. The subject is the conspicuous absence of news coverage of what is now known as the Holocaust while those events were unfolding. Nobody is particularly concerned that the New York Times is the news source whose failure is being highlighted here. That is of secondary importance. There is little attempt to place blame, in the thrust of this article. There is not a pointed emphasis on any suggestion that the New York Times "purposely" did not report this event. Such notions are of secondary importance to this article. Of primary importance in the article The New York Times and the Holocaust is that years transpired during which, right beneath the world's nose, enormous crimes against humanity were carried out. This is very unusual and deserves to be noted in an article devoted to that. It took place mid-twentieth century. It took place in leading nations of the world in terms of technologies of communication. The sources that this article are built around involve the New York Times, but the thrust of this article is not primarily a "criticism" of the New York Times. We here at Wikipedia can only build articles around sources. Expand the article to include related material. Find sources on the topic of the availability of information on the holocaust at the time it was unfolding. Find sources that shed light on other print news outlets in the United States at that time vis-a-vis their coverage of this event. The conception of this article is separate from the criticism of The New York Times. It may appear to be criticism of the New York Times because we are limited by the availability of sources. Scholarly work is apparently being done on why the news of that event failed to make a sufficient impact on Americans at that time. That is the crux of the article. Why was the news so subdued? There can be many factors, taking place on each side of the ocean. This article should not be placed in a niche of another article on general criticism of New York Times, as that completely misconstrues the thrust of this article, and blunts the main point of this article, which is the surprising silence of reporting emanating from that tragic event and reaching average American ears. Bus stop (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silence? During the war "articles in the Times and elsewhere described the propagation of anti-Semitic laws in German allied countries; death from disease and starvation of hundreds of thousands in ghettos and labor camps; mass executions in Nazi-occupied Russia; and mass gassings in Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek. The articles also indicated that these were not isolated incidents, but part of a systematic campaign to kill all the Jews in Europe." Laurel Leff, the main source for the article.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silence was the wrong word. You are correct that sources are not claiming a news blackout. Bus stop (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little salvageable content in both current and previous versions, article seems like an one-man-crusade against NYT. --Sander Säde 08:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crusade against the NYT? Sourced or not sourced and WP policy should be the only guide, and should put all opinions aside. Opinions of a subject should not guide policy. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a ridiculous POV fork. Hindsight is always 20/20 - we don't need articles about what everyone who was around in WWII did relative to the Holocaust. --B (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What, even if those topics are notable due to having received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources? Looks like you're trying to impose a personal opinion instead of going where the sources lead us. Fences&Windows 14:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are plenty of things that were, at one time or another, covered in reliable sources that we don't include in Wikipedia. I like the idea above of having an article on contemporary media coverage of the Holocaust or some such thing, but unless there is substantial coverage of their role (or lack thereof), a separate article doesn't make sense. Just because someone writes a book about a particular gripe or a theory doesn't mean we are going to have an article on their topic. --B (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:B — the article is not about a "particular gripe." It is the generalized low key to the coverage (of the Holocaust in WW2 Europe) that is being commented upon in this article. And we do have articles on books that may not be particularly remarkable in a grand sweep of history. The Invention of the Jewish People is just one book. Yet a long Wikipedia article ensues from that one book. The New York Times and the Holocaust article has at least two books dealing with the topic of this article. They are part of the sourcing for the article. The intention of the authors of those books I don't think can be said to be focussing upon criticism of the New York Times, so I don't think this article is a POV fork. The article is rather a unique subject not covered in any other article. Even if this article was primarily a criticism of the New York Times, which I think it is not, I don't think there is really another point of view, in the sense that there isn't an argument that the Holocaust was sufficiently reported on in the American print media. And furthermore, we don't see an editorial effort to merge the The Invention of the Jewish People article into for instance the Origins of Judaism article. Preventing POV forks is a valid concern. But recognizing where subjects are sufficiently distinct to warrant separate articles is another valid concern. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because undercoverage of the Holocaust was a worldwide and media-wide phenomena, (even including Jewish journals and press),[32] The New York Times coverage is not "sufficiently distinct to warrant separate article(s)". It only serves to mislead readers (intentionally, in my opinion) into thinking that the Times coverage was unique. In fact, it was most common. First Light (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Light — but the New York Times was more prominent than any other newspaper. Other news outlets and the population in general took their cue from the Times. It would have taken a maverick publication to buck the trend. The failure was greater at the New York Times due to their position of importance. This article as it now stands is not just ordinary criticism of the New York Times. Articles should be written on subjects distinctly identified by sources. Criticism of The New York Times, in comparison to this article, constitutes an amorphous topic. It is actually arguable that that article should be broken up into articles on its constituent parts. Do sources cover the topic, "criticism of the New York Times," or is it just a topic cobbled together by sources covering only subtopics within that article? I would guess the latter. This is an article that involves the New York Times. It isn't only about the New York Times. And it is set against a backdrop that dwarfs the other issues covered in the Criticism of The New York Times article. This article is not about a scandal, or even a controversy. There have been no court cases over this. This article takes note of an anomaly. It really has nothing to do with "criticism of the New York Times." Bus stop (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT was more prominent than any other newspaper? Like The (actual) Times?? The NYTs aspect doesn't warrant it's own article, as B has said. Verbal chat 20:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

after e/c: Bus stop, I see no evidence in the many sources mentioned above that the BBC coverage, the Jewish press coverage, etc., "took their cue" on Holocaust coverage from the New York Times, or that it "would have taken a maverick publication" to buck the Times, or that the Times' "failure was greater". I agree that "This article as it now stands is not just ordinary criticism of the New York Times" - in fact it's extraordinary criticism of the Times, by singling it out and giving an extremely misleading impression that they were unique or responsible for the nearly universal under-reporting of the Holocaust. First Light (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Light — the sources for this article deal with the New York Times, not the other news outlets you mention. The subject of this article is commentary on a wider event. Its subject matter is not confined to how well the New York Times functioned in its capacity as a newspaper. Sources, in the form of at least two books, address a topic of wartime Europe, mid twentieth century, involving antisemitism. That is not "criticism of the New York Times." This article is on a topic that involves world war, genocide, antisemitism, and lastly — news reporting. Laurel Leff, in this interview points out the leading role the New York Times played in setting the tone for news reporting. Bus stop (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that one author thinks that the Times was responsible for the actions of nearly every other news outlet during that time, then that one author's point of view could be presented in Contemporary media coverage of the Holocaust. The mere fact that there are sources that deal specifically with the New York Times does not warrant an article targeting them alone. Nor does specific sources dealing with the BBC, the Jewish press, etc. Otherwise we should be starting The BBC and the Holocaust, The Jewish Press and the Holocaust, etc., etc. Proper context, balance, and due-ness are all fulfilled with an overall article on media coverage of the Holocaust. First Light (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop is not one author thinks who thinks so, I too agree with him and so do probably all who voted for "keep" including many who voted for "merge". Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the one author (Laurel Leff), that Bus Stop mentioned above, who apparently thinks that the Times was in some way responsible for all other media coverage of the Holocaust. I wasn't referring to the different Wikipedia editors who are voting "keep". Of course there are several of those. First Light (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge precis into main NYT article (as it is not particularly a criticism article, but more of an advocacy article about people in general not reading all the stories which were published.) As a stand-alone, it is an advocacy article at best. Perhaps WP will allow them at some point, but not yet. Collect (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADVOCACY and Advocacy articles are just essays. How are they are applicable to this article? Bus stop (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt as per WP:SOAP... non encyclopedic cross categorization similar to "Recessions in the Wall Street Journal" or "9/11 on Fox News"... but this one was blatantly created to push a point of view... not something that can be fixed by normal editing because the article's very existence is the POV of a single editor's original research... Arskwad (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arskwad — such topics as "Recessions in the Wall Street Journal" and "9/11 on Fox News" would be synthetic topics. That is, no source supports the overarching subject. Those articles would be editorial contrivances. The sources that support this article derive from the work of multiple entities — at least two books by two different authors — and the scope of those sources is exactly the scope of this article — no synthesis is involved. This article is delineated by its sources. This article's parameters conform exactly to the sources it depends on. Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expand scope - I struck my earlier merge !vote above after reading a number of the arguments on this page. I think the problem is not so much that the current article title ansd scope is improper It's not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH - multiple WP:RS authors repeatedly mentioned above have written about the specific issues with respect to the Times's coverage. It's not even a POV fork, since there isn't really actually an article somewhere arguing that the Times's coverage was just right or too much. What it is is an article that is unencyclopedic in that it doesn't provide the lay reader with enough context with regard to other media coverage of the Holocaust. I propose expanding the scope to a slight variant of some of the suggestions above: Contemporaneous media coverage of the Holocaust in the United States. My reasoning for this scope is that we have good sources for US coverage scope (see the Newseum's Holocaust: The Untold Story [33] for a good overview) and that trying to do the entire world's coverage in one bite is really too much to ask for. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic topic, gives undue weight to minority opinions. (No more than 3 people are cited as discussing this issue in any way.) Anything beyond a brief blurb in the main NYT article is uncalled for. *** Crotalus *** 17:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Nazism in the Middle East. The arguments here are very evenly split between those advocating deleting it because it's a seriously POV essay, and those advocating keeping it because it's a notable topic. From what I can discern here, both sides are absolutely correct - this is a dreadful article on a reasonable topic. In its current state, which seems mostly to come from a single fringe source, I'm not comfortable leaving it in the mainspace - and it's quite clear that any valid encyclopedia article here will be very substantially changed - so moving it to the incubator at this time seems the appropriate compromise solution. ~ mazca ^talk 11:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism in the Middle East

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

This article is a clear attempt to push a particular POV; its creator has a history of POV-pushing and disruptive editing. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, you will learn more about mainstream thinking on this subject from reading the discussion on the talk page than from reading the article. The article is based almost exclusively on one non-mainstream source. The article is lousy but that is not a valid reason to delete it if the subject is good. There is a valid subject here. My recommendation is to keep but remove all the POV even if it means reducing the article almost to a stub. This is something I suggested a while back but never followed through on. Ideas discussed on the talk page can then be brought into the article if mainstream sources support them. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete pure OR... makes week comparisons between practices and Egypt and how they resemble fascism... but no reliable source demonstrates a real link between the two... pure POV pushing... trying to dress up "muslims are nazis" using academic misquotes... Arskwad (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that its not just a POV, but a very ugly one. But wouldn't you agree that Nazi actions and policy in the region is a valid subject for an article (i.e. notable, encyclopaedic) if it is written properly (i.e. from mainstream reliable sources)? --DanielRigal (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we could try a different article that tries to pin down something more encyclopedic... but the scope would have to be very clear... it would have to be a WW2 article and not a "allegations than muslim political groups are influenced by the nazis" kind of article... it would literally be a completely different article which is why we would delete this one... even the older version of the article reads like a conspiracy theory... feel free to suggest new article titles... Arskwad (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little to nothing of value, serves only to push a POV. Throwaway85 (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV essay synthesized almost wholly from one questionable source. PhGustaf (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: OK. It looks like we are heading towards to a delete outcome. Its no great loss but can we all agree that the deletion is to be without prejudice to recreation if anybody wants to write a decent article on the topic at some point in the future? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Though it might work better as an addition to Fascism worldwide. Searches on the current title are unlikely. PhGustaf (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rename to Nazi Germany's influence in Egypt. A very encyclopedic topic, listing meetings, organizations started, money given to setup printing press, etc, how they achieved things. There are references. I only read through the first part thus far. If you see something you believe is inaccurate or bias, please tag it, and discuss on the talk page. What they did caused a lasting effect, they killing off Jews in that country and getting more people to be anti-Semitic which never had a problem with Jews before. It has references. Dream Focus 18:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete- I agree with DanielRigal and DreamFocus that the topic could potentially be done encyclopedically. But I also think that the current version is so bad that it needs to be entirely rewritten. Best thing to do is nuke it and start afresh. Reyk _YO! 21:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really expect anyone to rewrite it from scratch. Just tag anything that needs a source, or cut it out and put it on the talk page until its worked out. Dream Focus 23:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is gross distortion of history. While of course there were Nazi sympathizers in Egypt during the war (more to do with the fact that Egypt had been long occupied/governed by the UK) that isn't akin to a spread of the nazi ideology. The strained, rather pathetic attempts to tie the Moslem Brotherhood AND Gamal Abdel Nasser (not exactly pees in a pod, ya know) is just sauce for the goose. This is basically a piece of propaganda, relying largely on guilt-by association, equations of anti-semitism with "being a nazi", etc... in order to make a case that Egyptians (and ina certain sense Arab's by extension) are collectively responsible for the Holocaust (this article obviously leads back to the israel-palestine dispute). Far too much cited to one source that is far, far outside of the academic mainstream of opinion during WWII (which is not to say many egyptians didn't want the nazis to win the war, or also happened to antisemitic, or also later opposed the foundation of Israel. It's just that this wasn't "Nazism." It was for a complex blend of reasons, some good some bad.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:OR. This article is almost entirely based on one reference, and has insurmountable NPOV problems. SnottyWong ^yak 23:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was something else [34]. It listed the Nazi documents in Germany where all the research started from. It then list how the Jews were accepted in Egypt originally, holding seats in Parliament and working in the palace even! Showing this and then the actions of the Nazi Germans, followed by the results, is quite encyclopedic. The article just needs to be done in a proper manner. AFD is not cleanup, it suppose to be a last resort. I don't see any recent discussions on the talk page. Dream Focus 23:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible references found in Google book search. [35]
Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World by Jeffrey Herf - 2009 - 335 pages

"Just as Nazi propaganda in Germany and Europe was doing, the German Arabic-language broadcasts accustomed ... to “describe to the Egyptians how the Nazi policies here enumerated would actually be applied in practice in Egypt if the ..."

Egypt from independence to revolution, 1919-1952 Selma Botman - 1991

"Axis propaganda was available in Egypt, having infiltrated into the country before the start of World War II through German staff officers, diplomats, and Nazi dignitaries who visited Egypt trying to attract nationalists to their cause. ..."

Surely there are plenty of books out there about this moment in history, which could be used for references, speaking of how the Nazis infiltrated Egypt. Dream Focus 00:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The first version of the article has this: Egypt’s Hassan al-Banna and his Muslim Brothers are known as the first promoters of modern jihadism. They developed their ideas and methods under the direct influence of the German Third Reich’s political and propaganda machine. Al-Banna’s unique contribution was to mix Koranic teachings with Hitler’s obsessive wish to destroy the Jewish state. Quite encyclopedic? Hassan al-Banna died in 1949, yet he and Hitler (who died even earlier) were "obsessed with destroying a Jewish state" that didn't exist in their life time? The Muslim Brotherhood's core beliefs and ideologies have nothing to do with either Israel or "jihaddism." You're out of your element if you think they do (or you think that's anywhere approaching the scholarly consensus.) Their core ideas evolved far, far away from the "direct influence" of the Third Reich. Yes there are plenty of books about Egypt during WWII, Nazi infiltration etc... None of the credible ones support any of this garbage, or indeed make any case for Nazism in Egypt. Sheesh.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are obviously other sources available for this such as Germany and the Middle East, 1871-1945. Note that there were significant links between Nazi Germany and Afghanistan/Iraq/Persia during the thirties, so it's not just Egypt that we're dealing with here. If the current version of the article is not yet finished then it is our editing policy to keep at it. "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Colonel Warden (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy of Nazi Germany in the Middle East would literally be a completely different article... different geographic scope first of all... second of all it would have a different scope in time... finally it would focus on actual policy and actions... the current article represents a WP:FRINGE theory from Matthias Küntzel... Arskwad (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Incubate until the article no longer reads like a biased essay ripped from a single source. Abductive (reasoning) 10:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a personal POV essay, not suitable for wikipedia. If a valid article could be written with this title, it would be better to start fresh. This is not a good base. Verbal chat 15:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is based on a single source, a non-academic book that pushes a fringe view. TFD (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The topic of collaboration with the Nazis in the Middle East is valid, but this article is distorted, it should be reduced to a neutral stub. Related material is covered at Islam and antisemitism#Support for the Third Reich. Egypt is missing from Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, though Palestine is mentioned. Fences&Windows 19:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (perhaps by userifying or incubating). However, the article needs a great deal of pruning and sharpening up. I am not happy with the present title, possibly Middle Eastern collaboration with Nazi Germany. It is probably too heavily based on one source (or a very few), but teh topic is a valid one. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason given for this article to be deleted is that it has POV problems. The solution is to fix the POV problems, not to delete.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The very title (and concept) of this article is POV, which means that the only way to fix the POV problem is to delete the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd have to agree with Cdogsimmons.. and I'm no scholar or historian, but I don't think this concept is just someone's POV, there's no denying that Nazism did have a real effect in the Middle East, and this article, biased as it may be, deals with a historical topic. Something which Wikipedia should at least cover it in some way. Perhaps we can salvage the useful bits to merge into Fascism worldwide? -- œ ^™ 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Nazism operated in the Middle East we need to show that it has been treated as a topic in academic literature before writing about it. The only existing literature is highly controversial and has not been published within academic literature. The term Middle East itself is ambiguous. See the map. Which geographic borders should the article use? TFD (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stonemason is right.. the article is POV because the title and scope are OR... imagine "Nazi influence in the Republican party"... maybe there might be a few nazis who were once republicans or even developed relationships with republicans... but the majority of the article would descend into a bunch of fringe comparisons between the republican party platform and nazi germany.. this article is in essence the same... it takes one policy memo from WW2 and then extrapolates using original research and fringe sources to make comparisons between muslims and nazis... the source from kuntzel has no place in wikipedia except in an article about Matthias Küntzel... Arskwad (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nothing inherently POV in the title since Nazism influenced politics in many parts of the world, as indeed justified by references currently present in this article.Biophys (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/rename. A topic - though currently light on links - backable by scholarly research such as Wild, Stefan (1985). "National Socialism in the Arab Near East between 1933 and 1939" (PDF). Die Welt des Islams. 25. Netherlands: Brill: 126–173. ISSN 0043-2539. Retrieved 2010-07-01. This article concentrates on the reception of National-Socialist ideas and ideology in the Arab Near East during the inter-war period. While the political relations between this area and the Third Reich during World War II have been studied thoroughly,1 the period before 1939 has only more recently found attention.2 The reception, discussion and importance of National-Socialist ideas and concepts has been investigated even less. This article sees the transfer of these ideas against the background of a general philo-German atmosphere, which dates back to Turco-Prussian relations in the late 19th century, the connections of the Young Turks with Germany and the influence of German nationalistic ideology on the development of Arab nationalist theory. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss the contents. We do not delete because of POV problems, and there are sufficient sources to show this a notable topic. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nanyang Kindergarten

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

notability, nothing makes this different than any other sub-high school doing what they do Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have never seen a Kindergarten that is notable and this won't be the first. Fails WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 11:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canley Vale Airtex plane crash

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

This article describes what appears to be an unremarkable, non-notable common accident, which seems to fail WP:AIRCRASH. Crum375 (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom no sign of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. I actually know several people who work for the company concerned, but objectively this is not notable enough to stand on its own. The mention at Airtex Aviation is sufficient IMO. YSSYguy (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS, non-notable aircraft crash. - Ahunt (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Airtex Aviation. Unlikely to ever justify a stand alone article, but the operator article gives too-brief coverage.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, adequately covered in Airtex Aviation article. Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - An unfortunate crash, but fails WP:AIRCRASH and is non-notable. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Orderinchaos 10:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's my opinion that all air crashes are notable. KzKrann (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"All X are notable" really doesn't fly as numerous other articles of this type have been deleted on a range of grounds in the past. The small end of the aviation market is highly competitive and accidents occur "below the radar" more than ever gets reported - there are questions of WP:NPOV in deciding any of these are worthy of an article, especially considering the real-life harm that can be done to individuals by having a top 5 website document their company's failings and misfortunes, but not those of their competitors. Orderinchaos 17:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was'nt saying all air crashes was notable. I just said that's my opinion. You cannot change my opinion. KzKrann (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the entire purpose of discussion to change each others opinions. If you are truly unwilling to consider other editors' arguments, they in turn will be justified in ignoring yours. That way lies madness. So instead, we collaborate, offer each other both reasoning and evidence, and take the time to consider what others offer. Sometimes we change their minds. Sometimes they change ours. It's the Wikipedia way. If you are unable to accept having your opinion changed, WP is definitely the wrong endeavour for you. Indeed, many if not all editors consider that it is downright WP:UNCIVIL to announce on a talk page that you have your fingers in your ears. Please reconsider if that's really what you meant to say. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but since i think it's notable, i cannot just suddenly say it isn't just because no one else is with me. KzKrann (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. without actual sources for this specific episode the delete arguments have not been rebutted. (hint, if you find me some detailed specific sources I can review this sympathetically) Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art (Law & Order: Criminal Intent)

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

Delete - as with far too many TV episode articles, there is a lack of independent reliable sources that establish the notability of this specific episode. Per WP:EPISODE, individual episode articles should be created only if there is enough reliable information from secondary sources. Here there isn't. There is no need for a merge and redirect as the information in this article is already contained in the article for season 1 of the series and the episode's title is an improbable search term. PROD removed by editor who assumed that I didn't do the legwork before placing the tag. Otto4711 (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note a discussion for an episode of the same series, which resulted in deletion for just these reasons. Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see there have been attempts to recreate it,[36] as its the only one that season without an article, "16:45, 25 June 2010 B (talk | contribs) deleted "Seizure (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode)" ‎ (G4, though I don't agree with it, this was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seizure (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode))"--Milowent (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are many series where every episode has its own article, and this appears to be one [37]. I touched on this phenomenon here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackout! (Ugly Betty). I don't care strongly about the organization of episode summaries, as the show here is highly notable. Sometimes you get a merge result in one of these AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Drowned and the Saved (Law & Order episode), but then the article inevitably comes back. I understand the reason for the nom, but IMHO its not worth it.--Milowent (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That there are other series that have articles for every episode does not mean that there should be articles for every television episode or that there should be an article for this episode. There need to be reliable sources that substantively discuss the specific episode. The best way to stop articles like these from coming back once deleted is to !vote to delete them at AFD and help establish a strong precedent against their creation and retention. Voicing a "keep" opinion does nothing to address the overall problem and encourages the creation and retention of unencyclopedic articles. Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or expand the merged material There are no accepted standards for notability of episodes. I do not consider the GNG notability standard relevant--it does not yield sensible results for this type of article. It seems reasonable that major series should contain significant information for individual episodes, either in articles or else appropriate long merged sections. Personally, I would not care which, as long as it is merged adequately. Alas, experience shows that this is the sort of article where a merge as usually carried out here results in insufficient information. For the present series, most of the discussions in the combined season article are not really very poor, though they should also contain information about the production--and for that matter, so should this article. I am not convinced, btw, that a proper search has been carried out from material about the series. Has it been limited to the Googles? It would also need to include the appropriate indexing services for video and popular culture, and account for material that might be in comprehensive works about the series, the actors, and so on. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The standard that applies to every single article and enjoys wide consensus amongst editors is not relevant to an entire class of articles?! That's very convenient. Carving out exceptions that allow non-notable subjects to have articles means we might as well shut down AFD (something I suspect you'd be in favor of). Where then does the line get drawn, if not at WP:GNG? GNG yields outstanding results for this and every other Wikipedia article. It's a very simple flowchart: Have multiple independent reliable sources included substantial coverage of the episode? YES ---> article NO ---> no article. Woolly-headed nonsense about what people expect in a season-length episode article as justification for including non-notable episode articles is not a substitute for the simple standard that every other sort of article is expected to meet. Season-length articles, including this one, can and do include production information like the writer and director (something whoever put together this article didn't bother to do and basic plot summaries (as opposed to the WP:PLOT-violating episode summary included here). Any episode that garners coverage in independent reliable sources can then have an article written.
Thank you, by the way, for your COLOSSAL failure to assume that I did due diligence before nominating this article. That really elevated the debate. Otto4711 (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you review the 100s of AfDs like this and drama debates that have gone nowhere for years? Let's not go crazy here, we are all acting in good faith.--Milowent (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the relevant policies and guidelines and searched for reliable sources that substantively cover this particular episode. Finding nothing in those policies or guidelines, or in the available resources, that indicates the notability of this particular episode, I nominated it for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Notability issues notwithstanding, it fails WP:PLOT spectacularly. Which could be dealt with editing if there are sources. Yet I see no reason to simply delete. I think that to have a list of episodes with a quick summary of each episode is the best compromise: about as informative and more compact unless sources (e.g. reviews) of the episode give something more that deserves a full article. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the existing information at the season level article is more comprehensive than what's in the existing article and given that no one is likely ever to search for "Art (Law & Order: Criminal Intent)" there is no need to merge, since the existing plot summary in the nominated article fails WP:PLOT. Otto4711 (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It didn't take long to find a source: Law & Order: Crime Scenes. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And on what pages of that general source on the Law & Order franchise is the substantial coverage of this particular episode? There is no question that the franchise is notable. What is required to retain this article on this episode are reliable sources that substantially cover this particular episode. "There are sources about the franchise" doesn't cut it. Otto4711 (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sources establish independent notability for this episode, fails GNG.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect or merge. Whatever. It's a given to me that someone who really cares, and has access to a multi thousand dollar lexis nexis account could establish notability and create a GA out of this (Check out the Homicide: Life on the Street GAs for examples). But, it's from 2001, and no GA creating editor cares about LnO right now, and wiki's rules don't have the right exceptions, so do you what you must, closing admin. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last I heard, the baseless assumption that sources exist does not satisfy our notability criteria. The existence of reliable sources is a pre-requisite to an article. Articles are written from reliable sources; they are not written in the hope that one day reliable sources will somehow be discovered. Otto4711 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NRVE. No significant coverage, and we can't just presume that significant coverage exists. If any editor wants to work on it, we could send it over to the article incubator or userfy it. Claritas § 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sushma Roy

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

The article doesn't seem to meet the requirements of WP:ARTIST. Web search returns mostly self-published stuff, book search only this acknowledgement, and news search nothing at all. In particular, I haven't been able to locate sources concerning the awards mentioned. Favonian (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Favonian (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Favonian (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really tried to find anything about her at Google, Google Books, etc. but I was unable to find sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kilibarda

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

No indications that this surname is of any particular significance or notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability of the name; unsourced; basically Original Research. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eurogrand EG8180-RD

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

This article is written like an advertisement of the musical instrument. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 09:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:GNG (no reliable secondary sources). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a catalog of instruments. -- œ ^™ 15:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Dewritech (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notable instrument? Not! Definitely Advert like. --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 05:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eurolive VS1220

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

This article is written like an advertisement of the loud speaker. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 09:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an article, there's no real content here, just specifications and description of an individual speaker. Wikipedia is not a catalog of electronics, nor a an indiscriminate collection of information. -- œ ^™ 10:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, and redirect to Behringer probably unnecessary as it's not a very likely search term. Claritas § 12:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:GNG (no reliable secondary sources). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Dewritech (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notable speaker? Not! --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 05:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colocation America

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

Company which fails WP:CORP, only sources read like press releases. Contested prod. Claritas § 08:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This business offers dedicated server hosting, voice over IP [VOIP], bandwidth and IP services and managed virtual private networks to enterprises of the small to medium sized variety...., another non-consumer Internet firm in a crowded field. Also obviously promotional: they have cutting edge data centers and joined in the eco-friendly movement too. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 12:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 12:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. No independent sourcing found. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Tidwell

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

The article doesn't show why the person 'Basketball coach' is notable on Wikipedia. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 08:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:BIO. Coaching a women's basketball team is not a particularly remarkable achievement. Claritas § 08:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about him becoming the Athletic Director as well, which is a notable achievement for a division 1 school. Also he is a fairly successful Women's basketball coach since he has had several national appearances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasHorn7 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Claritas. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The article has been updated to include additional information on the persons notability. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasHorn7 (talk • contribs)

Comment Sorry, ThomasHorn, you only get one !vote; you voted "keep" above already. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article needed help - I added references and categories. I found a few news reports about his appointment as interim athletic director and about his team's championship. Maybe if he gets confirmed as athletic director (instead of "interim") he would qualify as notable. But for now his coverage is minimal, considering how much reporting there usually is on anything related to sports. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eurolive B1800X PRO

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

This article is written like an advertisement of the loud speaker. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 07:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't look like an advert to me. There's no second-person grammar which promotes the subject nor there are any spam links. (Well, I found a broken link, which I'll remove soon) Minima c (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an advert, but doesn't appear to be a notable subject for an encyclopedia. Why this speaker out of 100,000s others? Tzu Zha Men (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable speaker, no third-party sources. Hairhorn (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:GNG (no reliable secondary sources). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Dewritech (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notable speaker? Not! --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 05:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. While there is a rumor about a sequel, nothing can be verified by reliable sources at this time. Dreadstar ☥ 04:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonball 2: Reborn

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

I've not been able to find any announcements that the film and what information I could find was either rumors or speculation from blogs and forum posts. Completely fails WP:V and is possibility a hoax. The original article was a copy and paste of Dragonball Evolution, which I've removed along with unsourced information about casting before nominating this article. (WP:BLP) —Farix (t | c) 23:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 23:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 23:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per above, as pointed out in the original prod There are no reliable sources to prove production or filming of this film. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As unconfirmed rumor/hoax. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to note that dragonballrebornmovie.com is currently registered to a cyper-squatter.[38] On the other hand dragonballreborn.com doesn't appear to be registered. If the film is in production, than FOX would have acquired one of these domans by now. —Farix (t | c) 00:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So speedy delete this as a hoax? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very real rumor that's been floating around the internet since before the first film was released. So I don't know if the article would qualify for speedy deletion. —Farix (t | c) 00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote the lead so that much is verifiable. —Farix (t | c) 02:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - this article is seriously a hoax, doesn't have any sources per WP:V and Wikipedia is not a rumour mill or a crystal ball for that matter. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the rumor gets more steam and reportage, then maybe then, but the guideline says not until production has confirmed to have started. For now, things aren't there yet: delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to prove filming has begun or that the film is even in development. - kollision (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone copied information from the Dragonball Evolution article. The links to reviews are for Evolution. Dream Focus 20:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No reliable sources to suggest filming has begun. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Cut and paste move fixed, article is now at what IMDb gives as the title, and two AfD's consolidated. One comment was on the other one, which is as follows:

Looks like someone began the AfD for this article but never actually finished it. Anyway, I'll have to go with weak incubation because although there seems to be a lot of sources about this movie being in development, they're all forums. In addition, the IMDb page doesn't even have a cast listing. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I highly disapprove of the move of the article and AfD to "Dragonball 2: Reborn" as there is no official title and "Dragonball: 2 Reborn" is/was the original name of the article up for deletion. The IMDB listing is apparently part of the ongoing hoax/rumor. Also, the list was completed, as shown by this edit. Apparently, someone must have removed it from the day's log. —Farix (t | c) 03:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, rumour/hoax. Forum posts are so far from being reliable sources that I would even oppose incubation or userification on this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A couple of SPAs !voted keep, but all those who had substantial previous contributions !voted. Delete. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blinner

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

Nonsense / trivial spoof dictionary definition. I'd nominate it for speedy deletion if I could find the right category. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously made up at school one day. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. JIP | Talk 06:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, made up one day and without any reliable sourcing. DiiCinta (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, blinner has 10,800 results in google search. It's obviously a word that is becoming more popularized and a cultural phenomenon that needs to be addressed in Wikipedia. blinner is a word that I've heard for several years (at least since 2005). I completely disagree with user Biker Biker that it is 'nonsense' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.144.129 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As if it weren't obvious already, the above user has only edited Wikipedia to promote "blinner". JIP | Talk 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism. Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Similar to any wikipedia article this is a work in progress and it's an interesting article. Many portmanteaus are not found in a dictionary but they are commonly used in popular culture. Blinner is such a portmanteau and needs to be addressed in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FoodloverinLA (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The above user User:FoodloverinLA falsely signed his comment as User:JE, who last edited Wikipedia on 23 May 2010. I don't think masquerading as other users is respectable behaviour on Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 05:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, A language is dynamic- constantly changing and people are constantly constructing words to describe new experiences and new phenomenon--Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinner (talk • contribs) 00:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Both of these two users have only edited the article Blinner and this AfD discussion. JIP | Talk 05:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: It looks to me as if foodloverinla, blinner and 76.166.144.129 are actually the same person. I can either instigate a formal sockpuppetry investigation or and admin can use a dose of common sense and just delete this article. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jobspeed

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

This nomination was malformed, it was redlinked in the AfD list. Nominator will be asked to come and provide deletion rationale. I remain neutral. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as theres no valid argument for deletion. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not yet there isn't. Why don't you wait til the original nominator has had a chance to provide his/her rationale? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If s/he provides an argument, than i will review it. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that Oz_311 (talk · contribs) has not yet understood our criteria and that this is a tit-for-tat nomination after Topbargains.com.au (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, despite the lack of a rationale, I'm not sure that this site meets WP:WEB. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

[Nomination, implicit delete] Inclusion of this site on Wikipedia is a joke. It has absolutely no traffic (check Alexa), less than 50 jobs listed. This is not a 'tit for tat' deletion but rules should be across the board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz 311 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oz 311 is the user who placed the AfD tag on the article. I added the "[Nomination…]" notation to the front of his comment for ease of identification by other participants in the AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the sources, they're all relatively minor depth of coverage and all two years old. Accordingly, I don't think it meets WP:GNG, and nothing jumps out at me that would make it meet WP:WEB. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:WEB. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB and appears to be an advert for a bsuiness. Orderinchaos 10:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with everyone above. This is more like an advert and being purposedly pushed again and again. (talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:24, 1 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. NW (Talk) 11:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel – North Korea relations

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

no diplomatic, trade, tourist relations. no visits/meetings of ministers/leaders, no agreements. "Korea has supplied missile technology to Israel's rivals, including Iran, Syria, Libya, and Egypt. Syria, which has a history of confrontations with Israel" is pure synthesis to say this equate to relations. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a notable relationship, even if hostile. Article just needs sources, which should not be hard to find. Borock (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
provide sources then. LibStar (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added multiple sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 16:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Relations are not transitive. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what you mean, please? I genuinely don't understand... ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 16:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend does not agree that the enemy of my enemy is my friend or vice versa. History indicates otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a relationship exists, and is manifested by non-recognition, refusal of entry to Israeli nationals, etc... In other words, even an empty set is still a set. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not all bilateral relations are automatically notable, at least 100 of these have been deleted. Many countries do not recognise Kosovo, that does not mean automatic article about their non-relations. LibStar (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs sourcing, but even as a hostile relationship it is notable relationship. And Kosovo is entirley different, most countries that do not recognise it are not so intensley hostile towards Kosovo they just do not recognise it for a range of different reasons, Kosovans are still free to trade and travel with most of these nations. DiiCinta (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I read the article expecting to !vote "delete" but then changed my mind. The two countries have an interesting and stormy relationship, with issues of hostile military action, munitions supplies and non-recognition. Seems notable to me. (I'll check out to see if I can find more sources...) ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the perfectly sensible proposed rationale of what is and is not notable bi-lateral relation, which even works for non-relations. Most if not all of this the referenced hostility is not unique to the Isreael-N Korea bi-lateral relation. Hundreds of countries have condemned N Korea, many do not recognise Israel, etc, etc. MickMacNee (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the source I uncovered identifying North Korea as modelling their nuclear strategy on that of Israel, then? ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 16:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say anything about the relation as a topic does it? Like a lot of the content of these marginal br's, it is simply referenced info that mentions two countries that just belongs in more appropriate articles, such as North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. MickMacNee (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike the other Foo-Foo relations, this is actually a real issue. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ten North Korean nuclear advisors to Syria getting killed in the Israeli airstrike pretty well sealed it for me. Relations don't always have to be friendly, or even direct. Mandsford 01:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finding a source for this is easy: Israel's quest for recognition and acceptance in Asia This source details explicit negotiations between the two countries. I found it on the first page of hits when using the obvious keywords israel north korea in Google Books. The failure of other editors to find obvious material of this sort shows the level of competence with which these topics are being addressed. WP:POINT seems applicable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what does it say then? Anybody who has been involved in these Afds knows that the deletion side is usually a little more nuanced than 'there are no sources'. I note that the book is about Asia, so do we know have to also have an Isreal-Asia article too? MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what does it say then? If you click on the link provided, you can read quite clearly what the source says. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 13:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been clearer - I meant what does it say that shows the notability of this relation specifically? Where you or Warden presumably see a book discussing a notable bi-lateral relation, I see a book about the whole USA-Israel-Middle East conflict, where NK-Israel negotions are just a small but inseperable part. I don't think this article being kept just to record the specific bits where they talked brings any benefit to the recording of the wider topic it covers. Russia and the Arab–Israeli conflict is an example of a better way to do that if people think there is enough material here on NK's role in that conflict. Infact, there doesn't seem to be any sources offered up here or that were already in the article that wouldn't be better placed in a North Korea and the Arab–Israeli conflict article, even the parts where NK models its nuclear posture on Israel, or the air force strike in Syria, are better explained in that context, rather than in just another random b-r article. Given the fact they are openly hostile, what other sourced aspects of the relation are even going to exist? It would be fantastic to think there are other aspects to it, but I have my doubts. MickMacNee (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of the following text do you think is not about the relationship? "A [US] State Department official said, [...] We believe that meetings between representatives of Israel and North Korea will not be useful. [...] While Peres tended to support the Foreign Ministry's attempt to engage in a meaningful dialogue with North Korea, Rabin categorically rejected the move [...] and informed the Cabinet that he was completely displeased with the contacts initiated by the Foreign Ministry. [Israel's] contacts with North Korea were not given publicity in the beginning. However, when questioned by reporters regarding the economic deal, Peres revealed that North Korea had taken the initiative in these contacts and asked Israel for financial assistance in managing the gold-mining operation. When Pyongyang announced its intention to suspend its withdrawal from the treaty, Israel resumed its talks on bilateral relations. However, fear of US reaction continued to be a discouraging factor. In a telephone interview with shalom futile, Peres said: I do not need a visa from the Americans to go to North Korea, but the Americans are in the midst of the negotiations with North Korea, and we should not barge in likeable in a China shop. After all, we do not presume to replace America in global negotiations, and we do not have the means the United States as depression or career. Therefore while we turn an alternative ear to North Korea's proposals, we do not want a turn our back on the fact that the United States is the leader conducting these negotiations. Israel's request of the to North Korea stop selling missiles to Iran had fallen on deaf ears in Pyongyang. Moreover, officials in Pyongyang denied any connection with Jerusalem..." ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 14:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whose post are you replying to? Because it certainly isn't mine. I said it covered the relation in the context of the middle east conflict. And nothing in those lines disputes this. MickMacNee (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I was replying to your post. The passage I quoted from the book clearly discusses the Israel-NK relationship. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 15:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I never said it didn't did I? Who is not hearing who here? MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that I have anything further to gain from engaging in this any further, especially since it looks like the article is definitely safe. ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 15:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. You were wasting both our time with these nonsensical questions cross-examining me on points I never argued for. MickMacNee (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is more about the nonrelations between the two countries, but the sources provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added and per TreasuryTag. Im only on my mobile connection today but will further improve the article with a Groubani style map on Tuesday. FeydHuxtable (talk)
Keep The leader of one nation calling another nation part of an axis of evil, shows a notable relationship. Dream Focus 20:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep relations covered by reliable sources... hostile relations definately had a lot of sourrces so worth an article.. Arskwad (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources show coverage to provide notability under current policy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to My Bare Lady. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Knox

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO This article was nominated for a WP:CSD which was contested with a "maybe it meets a criteria." Brought to the full community for WP:CONSENSUS.--moreno oso (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't by any stretch of the imagination eligible for an A7. Seriously two minutes after [[39]] goes up, and you've speedied the only article I'm listed on my userpage as creating. Then you AfD it within three minutes of another editor removing the speedy nom? Next time you get the urge to make a bad faith nomination in retribution for an AfD, you might want to check the edit history of the article you're nominating. Horrorshowj (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please observe proper AfD rules and do not conduct personal attacks. I am Page Patroller and have many more edits tonight in combatting vandalism. To name a few, I had a page protected; I opened a WP:SPI and had a couple of other articles WP:CSD'ed. My contribs will prove those edits. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the timing is just an enormous coincidence then. Out of curiosity to you frequently misapply A7 tags to articles that assert notability, well even if the weren't already ineligible by virtue of surviving a higher deletion proceeding, or is that also coincidence?Horrorshowj (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, no assertion of notability, and really no information on the person. Borock (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This does seem like a pointy nomination in reaction to the Rachel Starr afd. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The vandal blocked by the SPI would say the same. Let's move on with the debate and stop the NPA attacks. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are referring to with regards to the SPI vandal and how it relates to your nomination of this article unless you are making an ad hominem argument. Commenting on the possible motive of a nomination with the given evidence is not a personal attack. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail GNG & PORNBIO as the nominator states. DiiCinta (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to My Bare Lady - Her notability is mostly based on being one of the four stars of the first season of that show. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the nominator's motive certainly appears retaliatory, the subject looks to clearly fail the pertinent notability guidelines; therefore Delete. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to My Bare Lady per Morbidthoughts. No longer passes WP:PORNBIO due to the increase in award requirements, as noted in my previous PROD listing.Horrorshowj (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Starr

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

Delete Disputed PROD. What few returns are found on AVN [40] and XBIZ [41] are either press releases or barely qualify as trivial. 0 gnews hits [42] that appear to be the same person. Alternate name only used for two films. While IAFD is accurate, its mission of including every performer renders it useless for establishing notability. IMDB isn't allowable for a source, as it is user edited. No evidence that subject meets any of the additional criteria. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PORNBIO. Horrorshowj (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Horrorshowj (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, fails PORNBIO and no reliable or significant coverage to establish that she passes GNG. DiiCinta (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing pertinent notability guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Safiel (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wyley gates

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

This article is about an criminal who does not meets the criteria of notability. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 03:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:PERPETRATOR. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under A9. — ξ ^xplicit 22:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Break (album)

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

Non-notable album by non-notable band. My db-album tag was removed. The claim of having sold 64,858 copies is unsourced, and there are zero hits for this album in Google news. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Weigang

AfDs for this article:

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

Being the founder (apparently) of a chapter of the JDL does not guarantee automatic notability. The subject is frighteningly non-notable, as indicated here. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to know that when this came up for deletion before I felt the same way, so it seems. And my wife calls me fickle. Ha! 03:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Shouldn't this be speedied as a G4? Movementarian (Talk) 12:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Abductive (reasoning) 09:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references. I tried my best to use what there was out there. I am friendly and knowledgeable of the person this article is of. Everything there is true, yet not referenced well.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B'nai Elim

AfDs for this article:

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

Twice AfD'd, twice-speedied article that keeps returning from the dead. The problem is the same one that led it to be deleted previously: because there is no independent coverage, there is nothing to construct the article out of except material drawn from the group's blog, website, MySpace & Facebook pages, etc. And because there is no coverage, the subject fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG (like it did both times before). Time for some NaCl. (I would nominate it WP:CSD#G4, but I don't know how different the current version is from previously-deleted ones.) -- Rrburke (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some passing references in google news archive but not enough to build an article.Prezbo (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs third-party sources, but NGOs with international operations are generally considered notable.Minnowtaur (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't any sources out there, and NGOs are subject to the same notability requirements as everything else.Prezbo (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until and unless reliably sourced to multiple, independent RS'es. Once something has been deleted so many times, there's really no reason the burden of proof shouldn't shift entirely to the re-creator. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Wikipedia:Independent sources. The entire article is constructed out of the group's own website and blogspots. Yoninah (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Am No Limit

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, unsourced Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and not notable. Becritical (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Clear case of crystal balling. Karppinen (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NALBUM might become notable on release. Mo ainm~Talk 16:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain kenny

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

Entirely non-notable topic, see this Google search. From the makers of Shadow spider, by the way. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of any notability. JIP | Talk 06:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto'. —I-20 the highway 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the following reasons: per above (non-notable), and possible hoax. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 04:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another good reason WP:NFT should be a speedy criterion. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SNOWBALL. (Emperor (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - seems to be a WP:MADEUP violation. Claritas § 15:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn (singer)

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

Non-notable singer signed to a non-notable record label who has yet to release a single or album. If it weren't for the claims of charting on a non-notable chart, I would have put a db-bio tag on this. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not yet notable. No significant coverage found of her or her album.--Michig (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow spider

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

Non-notable —I-20 the highway 01:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This thing doesn't even exist on Google. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain kenny. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of any notability. JIP | Talk 06:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 04:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SNOWBALL. (Emperor (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Education Group

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

The article reads as a self-promoting advertisement. No references are provided, nor could I locate any WP:RS suggesting this company would meet WP:N. Additionally, article seems to have been made by a WP:SPA. Listed CEO also wikilinks to a soap opera character so perhaps this is an elaborate joke? Transmissionelement (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing it to remove any material that appears to be promotional or loathing of the brand, but I can assure you that by no means is this some kind of joke. Victoria Newman also happens to be a very common name, and there is no relation to the soap opera actress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesGreenwichEd (talk • contribs) 03:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC) — JamesGreenwichEd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Appears fine now. Make aware of any promotional flaws that you see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesGreenwichEd (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This is unsourced, not notable, and seems a clear case of self-promotion. Becritical (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, blatant spam: the entire thing reads like a sales brochure. (Uncertain what this has to do with a soap opera actress, and I suspect one comment may have gone astray.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously referred to as Greenwich Education and Prep. Google that phrase. But overhaul completed of promotional aspect. Revise comments if change is seen. --JamesGreenwichEd (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)--JamesGreenwichEd (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: nothing like WP:N. Dewritech (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no example of passing notability. Smerdis, the CEO's name is "Victoria Newman"; when the article was nominated, it linked that name, and "Victoria Newman" is the name of a soap opera character. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability? It's extremely notable in Greenwich, CT and the surrounding communities. It's unfair to define notability on a national scale. There's no reason this page shouldn't exist, since pages for prep schools on New England appear, as well as private schools in CT, of which it is a member of both. To revoke this page would be saying that it is OK for similar schools like Brunswick to have a page, but wrong for Greenwich Education group to have its own page, which would be unfair in every sense of the word.--69.121.232.78 (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC) — 69.121.232.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a school, just a private tutoring company. Non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Hero Demo

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not notable at all. Keytar Shredder : Talk To Me 12:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NX Nastran

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

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moreno

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. He doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria listed at WP:MANOTE. Article has been tagged for notability since May 2009 and has been speedily deleted 4 times. Its previous AfD generated only 2 votes--1 for AfD and 1 for keep. Article appears to have a lot of sources, but they're not independent and some of them are either dead links or don't mention him at all. Papaursa (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would consider myself more educated on mixed martial artists than regular martial artists. But I see nothing in the article or in a Google search or in the article's contents that suggests this guy is notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Lack of coverage in WP:RS to show notability. —mono 03:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, its a shame about the earlier nomination, but this guy lacks coverage to show notability. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not shown by reliable sources. Astudent0 (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Afghan training camp. no consensus has emerged to suggest this is sufficiently notable for a standalone article but there are suggestions that this is an area where a clear article structure hasn't emerged. I'm IARing slightly to redirect this to leave the history intact in case of a later consensus of where to use this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ahrar training camp

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

Fails WP:N WP:GNG as one mentioning in one source does not add up to "significant coverage". All information already presented in Ali Abdul Motalib Awayd Hassan Al Tayeea. IQinn (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As I pointed out in a comment on another similar {{afd}}
- WP:RS state there were on the order of one hundred non-Taliban military training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas, pre-9-11.
- According to Felter et al, allegations that Guantanamo captives attended or were associated with at least thirty-eight of those camps were offered, in part, as justifications for captives continued detention, during their 2004 CSR Tribunals.
- For some of those camps WP:RS have identified them as having trained 9-11 hijackers, or other prominent terrorist suspects. Ahmed Ressam, the millenium bomber, attended the Khalden training camp. According to the DoD allegations, approximately one-eighth of the Guantanamo captives attended the Al Farouq training camp. Tarnak Farms training camp was not only one of al Qaeda's advanced camps, but was subsequently the site of a notable friendly fire incident. Derunta training camp was alleged to have been one of the camps where Iraqis trained militants on how to use Iraqi WMD. Some of these camps are clearly exceeding notable, and merit individual articles. Other article merit merging. I know of no one who is arguing that they should all be kept as separate articles.
- However, in my opinion, a series of {{afd}} nominations is a highly inappropriate way to determine which of these articles merit coverage in an individual article. Possibly it is our nominator's intention to one by one nominate each of the 27 camps not named in the bar chart.
- Should our nominator rescind all their individual nominations, and make one mass nomination? That would be a better approach, one closer to both the spirit and the letter of our policies, however, personally I think it would be better to have a non-{{afd}} discussion, because there are complications. I started a discussion over this issue in March -- Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?. I have attempted to get our nominator to engage in several centralized discussion when there were common issues shared by articles on related topics we were both working on. In every single instance our nominator has flatly refused to engage in those central discussions. I find their preferred alternate approach of WP:Wikihounding, of which the half dozen individual {{afd}} on individual camps they initiated yesterday are an instance, very unfortunate.
  - As I pointed out above the camps aren't all equal. Some unquestionably merit separate articles. Others don't. Nominations to delete multiple articles, IMO, should only be made when the articles are all clearly in the same boat -- and that is not obviously the case here.
  - The 38 camps listed in Felter et al are only a subset of all of those used to justify the continued detention of captives. OARDEC convened four additional sets of annual Administrative Review Board hearings, in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Those allegations were much more detailed, and added training camps not listed in the 2004 allegation memos.
  - On the other hand later sources have clarified some of the camps were referred to by multiple names, reducing the total number of known camps.
  - At least one of the eleven camps that Felter et al listed on the bar chart is not a separate camp, but is actually a sub-camp of one of the bigger camps. Another camp seems to be listed under two names on the bar chart.
- Joseph Felter, Jarret Brachman (2007-07-25). "CTC Report: An Assessment of 516 Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) Unclassified Summaries" (PDF). Combating Terrorism Center. Retrieved 2009-08-30. mirror

Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- In several of the essentially identical concurrently running {{afd}} our nominator has made they have suggested that all of the information in the article on the camp is adequately covered in the article(s) on the captive(s) alleged to have attended the camp. I believe this suggestion is one that erodes the value of the wikipedia for readers interested in these training camps. We don't currently have a list of all the alleged camps. I suggest we should. I suggest that those articles on camps we decide are not well enough documented to support a separate article should be redirected to the article that contained the list of all the camps known to-date. Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like one more of your filibustering replies without addressing the given arguments or to provide clear defined new arguments. You are right some article meet criteria for inclusion some not. That's what we are here for. I am mystified why you do not addresses the given arguments i must say i find that a bit disruptive. This particular article here fails WP:N WP:GNG as one mentioning in one source does not add up to "significant coverage". IQinn (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did address the content portion of your comments. (1) Some of the known camps lack sufficient documentation to merit individual articles; (2) there should be a central discussion as to which camps do or don't merit individual articles, so that the eventual results are consistent; (3) your suggestion that each of the individual articles on individual camps should be merged and redirected to the article(s) on the individual captive(s) alleged to have trained there seriously erodes the value of this material for any reader who is studying the general phenomenon that there were on the order of 100 camps in pre-9-11 Afghanistan and that on the order of 200 Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified due to alleged attendance at one. Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand this here is the Afd of Al Ahrar training camp nothing else, please stop filibustering and stop to disrupt the Afd of Al Ahrar training camp. We know you have a special interest in this topic and that you are the sole contributer who has mass created all these articles.

3. No that is wrong. I did not make this suggestion. I said that all information are already presented in the article Ali Abdul Motalib Awayd Hassan Al Tayeea.
2. No need for another fillibustering central discussion. Afd's are central and the place to discuss if this topic here merits an individual article Al Ahrar training camp. Highly doubtful as this article fails WP:N WP:GNG because there is no "significant coverage".
1. This is the Afd of Al Ahrar training camp. Your comment on other articles is not helpful here. So i am going to repeat my request that you address the given arguments that the article here Al Ahrar training camp fails WP:N WP:GNG as one mentioning in one source does not add up to "significant coverage". IQinn (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I suggest to some of the editors above that the use of the word "you" in a contentious AfD generally does not help matters. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Afghan training camp. At this time, there is no indication of sufficient notability to support a stand-alone article.--Pink Bull 01:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Satra. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cossack motorcycle

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

Merge with Satra. "Cossack motorcycle" is a made-up term to describe Russian motorcycles which is propagated by the web site http://www.cossackmotorcycles.com, but "Cossack motorcycle" is not a category recognized by anyone else. The most notable usage of the term is actually by the Seattle Cossacks Motorcycle Stunt & Drill Team, who ride vintage Harley-Davidsons, not Russian motorcycles. Possibly "Cossack" is British slang for a Russian motorcycle, but I can't verify it, and I'm not sure that justifies the article's existence. Dbratland (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC) --Dbratland (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE for the same reasons as the nominator. Dnepr, IMZ-Ural, IZH and others are all distinct brands and are covered on Wikipedia. This article is redundant. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They were sold in England and Australia with "Cossack" badges on the tanks in the early seventies. I saw a number of them in South Australia at the time, and knew some of the dissatisfied owners. No doubt insignificant in the USA, and probably beyond the memory of younger Australian riders. Marketing rather than a distinct brand. Don't see how it could be "advertising" as they are no longer available under this name.Seasalt (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is being advertised is the web site, www.cossackmotorcycles.com, which is owned by www.f2motorcycles.ltd.uk who happen to be in the business of selling parts for Russian motorcycles. It is subtle advertising, but advertising none the less. I'm still not clear on whether this article needs to meet the criteria for a company, a brand, or a category of motorcycles. And if the topic is Russian motorcycles then a new article on that topic should be created. Also it seems a little demeaning to both the Cossack and Russian peoples to use their names this way, particularly when the term 'Cossack motorcycle' is so lacking in strong sources. --Dbratland (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Whatever people outside of the UK think of the idea these motorcycles were marketed and sold as cossack motorcycles. And the term gives over 4000 hits on google including this leaflet http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/COSSACK-Motorcycle-Poster%2FPamphlet-+-1976-Price-List_W0QQitemZ180472969066QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxq20100316?IMSfp=TL100316133001r507 perhaps the advertising could be toned down but if this article was to be deleted then we would still need to explain on each of the articles about motorcycles sold under this name that they are sometimes called cossack motorcycles so the term would not dissapear from wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if this is about the brand, then a merge with Satra might make sense, although I would be happy to trade 100,000 Google hits for just one (1) WP:RS that says Satra or Cossack passes the bar for WP:COMPANY, ie., it "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." --Dbratland (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a reasonable idea Dbratland I would withdraw my keep and give support to a re-direct/merge to Satra. MilborneOne (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This document explains more about the SATRA link and the specific models which were imported. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Seasalt (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but Satra could probably use some better sources. It looks like self-published original research to me, plus some scans of posters and ads. --Dbratland (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick read on web and it looks like a genuine tradename for a number of soviet motorcycles sold in the United Kingdom. It would seem to be a reasonable thing for an owner or somebody interested in one of the bikes to use cossack motorcycle as a search term. It cant be re-directed as it appears to cover more than one imported type. Quick search gives 11,000 ghits. MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know this is original research, but as someone who was riding motor-cycles in the UK in the 1970s I remember the Cossack 650 well. It was particularly noted for having a reverse gear (useful as most of them had sidecars). Here's a source confirming existence. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. According to this the 650 was a rebadged Dnepr, so this should probably be redirected or, if other makes were badged as Cossacks, converted to a disambiguation page. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not clear on what we have, specifically, that meets the criteria Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). --Dbratland (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: looks like thinly veiled advertising for cossackmotorcycles.com. -- Brianhe (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Satra - simply rebadged Satra's, with Satra itself a Soviet-era middle company which globally distributed and marketed Soviet-made products. It existed as a UK brand marketing exercise, something which is quite common in the global motorcycle industry. The existing article is poor but contains some useful stuff to merge into the Satra article, which would improve it. From the Satra article, the point could easily be made that it bought/distributed and rebranded other Soviet manufacturers products (which it poorly does at present). Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:38, 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mortal Kombat. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NetherRealm Studios

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

Company has no established notability. Notability of Mortal Kombat franchise is irrelevant. No released games, and little coverage in reliable sources. NOTE: -- Changed vote to Redirect per comments below. --Teancum (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) --Teancum (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak OpposeOne could find some notability under this name, but it's limited.Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for keeping an article when there is established notability, so if there is any please provide proof here and by updating the article. To just say you "could" find it doesn't help. --Teancum (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I say could. Maybe after the game is released, then it'll have notability but until then... maybe not. (If you can redirect instead, that would be great, just keep the history because this article shapes up well as a beginnning article). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with a redirect (preserving page history) for when it becomes notable. As Subzerosmokerain, this studio is likely to become notable in the future, so a history would be useful. --Teancum (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent company Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment. There's little published information about NetherRealm itself - most news hits discuss MK9 with only brief mention of the developer. Marasmusine (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect — to parent company. —mono 03:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but I would redirect it to Mortal Kombat, as that appears to be their sole focus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep New Mortal Kombat game makes it notable. Portillo (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the game does not equal notability of the studio per WP:NOTINHERITED. There is also no indications it passes WP:CORP. --Teancum (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fluent, Inc.

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

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is a subsidiary of a parent corp which is also up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANSYS, Inc.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should probably be merged with its parent company now. -Lonedrops (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no arguments for deletion aside from nom JForget 22:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANSYS, Inc

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ANSYS, Inc.

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

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note the following article - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluent, Inc. a product of Ansys - is also up for deletion and should be combined discussion, but I am not sure how to do that. Active Banana (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that the article itself is actually ANSYS, Inc. (with a period) the links above are just to the redirect. Active Banana (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? I vote no. If you have a question on citations then the external link is available. ANSYS is a fortune 1000 company that is a major cog in both the regional and national economies. Not sure how this would be a legitimate candidate for deletion, I better check Walt Disney Company, General Electric and Simon Property Group now before they too are also deemed unencylopedic. Hholt01 (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure why this article is being targeted. As with many articles on mid-sized companies, most of the info that's available is the basics: the type of stuff that comes from a business magazine or a company website. While it needs improved, this goes for a massive number of articles.Mr. Vitale (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hint on why the nomination: targeted deletion probably from a competitor of those companies. Canonebeseriouz (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple possible sources can be found by the above search links to establish notability. --Karnesky (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs to be rewritten. The company is notable from searches.Lonedrops (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article needs to be improved, but topic meets WP:ORG. Dewritech 06:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewritech (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 12:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OPUS (research project)

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

The article does not offer any reliable sources verifying the notability of this project, and I wasn't able to find any sources with my own search of Google News. Prod removed by creator with no improvements.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Non notable, no coverage that I can find in independent reliable sources. Dana boomer (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bonner

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

DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 19 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, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proof of notability, or reliable sources; this is almost a speedy delete. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:25, 1 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 Mount Loura. Article has already been redirected so let's close it that way. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady of Maali

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

Possibily hoax as the only reference to it that I could find is the unsourced article Mount Loura. Schuhpuppe (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a hoax. See the Guinea 10,000-franc banknote at this website. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Search for "Dame de Mali". See [43] and various tourist guides at G-Books. In my opinion, redirect to Mount Loura is the most sensible outcome. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Mount Loura. The author of this article thinks that it is man-made but offers no evidence to that effect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

Regarding the origin of "the lady of mali" there are two dominant versions:

1. It is a natural granite formation.

2. It is made by man.

both versions are valid and accepted by scholars and nonacademic people, is necessary to respect the plurality of the media and even more because in Peru there are others findings even with correlation of similar attire.

1. I propose the restructuring of the article based on these two versions.

2. I invite you to join in the discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan L. Bacigalupo (talk • contribs) 13:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you cite any reliable sources for the second theory? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your response: Pitoni Angelo; 1995 "Il mistero della vita" (original version in Italian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.160.55.30 (talk) 21:21, 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, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect to Mount Loura per nom, RHaworth, and author's track record. The former article now redirects to Lady of Mali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) per these edits, 19:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC), so the redirect and its target are now the subjects of this discussion. — Jeff G. ツ 02:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the author's track record, this article and redirect, Palaeoarchaeology, and Supermegalith have been spammed several times by Juan L. Bacigalupo, using that account and using or influencing the users of various Peruvian IP Addresses matching 186.160/14, 190.43.160/19, and 190.81.128/17. — Jeff G. ツ 08:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mount Loura and Lady of Maali are different concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.160.72.70 (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I observe very little information about the "Lady of Mali" this phenomenon occurs mainly in the English language. Tip: see "Lady of mali" in other languages. Please use translators, Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.160.53.168 (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Front

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

fails WP:ORG; I can't find any coverage that isn't merely routine. Ironholds (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if deleted redirect to The Great War: American Front as a {{R from alternate name}} . 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 19 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, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable racist group easily passes WP:GNG. Searching "American Front" + "skinhead", I find lots of GNews hits from the late 80s to early 90s related to related to many different unrelated events, as well as 183 GBooks hits. Plenty of other independent references including the ADL [44] and the Southern Poverty Law Center [45]. Location (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danagog

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

Speedy-deleted "not notable", deletion queried by its author. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be given a chance because it reflects the life of a young Nigerian entertainer and the struggles of single-handedly being an achiever Damilae (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is not what Wikipedia is for. It's not for helping someone to climb in their career - it's for recording them when they get notable. With the current references, little or no chance. Blogs and own sites don't count as reliable. Peridon (talk) 21:31, 21 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, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had hoped some better references might have appeared. When they are obtainable, come back. In the meantime, good luck. Peridon (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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