Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 7

< 6 June	8 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 02:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White back-lash[edit]

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

First of all, I have never seen the term spelled with a hyphen (as it is in the title of this article). In fact, when I first saw the title I thought "back-lash" (with the hyphen) was some sort of reference to whipping or slavery. Second of all, this topic is notable but is probably better covered somewhere else, rather than having a poorly written article of its own. Third of all, the article juxtaposes historical (Reconstruction-era) and recent (post-2008) events in a rather incoherent fashion. Finally, the term "white backlash" is associated more with the 1960s than with the 2000s (as evidenced by the fact that the search term white backlash redirects to a subsection of a 1960s politics-related article), yet this article only mentions the 2000s and does not refer to the 1960s at all. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The spelling notwithstanding, it's an essay "They form together into groups like the Ku Klux Klan and, in any way possible, restrict the power of minorities in the U.S. to get back their feeling of power" is one of the things that white people do. You know how they are. Mandsford 18:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ironically there is room and need for a general article on the topic, which isn't american centered or overtly political. But I don't see the point in trying to salvage this article. Szzuk (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gbooks shows that this is a notable topic with many sources available. The article's current state as a heavily POV essay is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV essay. The only sourced/sourceable material refers to White flight, which already has an article. This article even cites, as an example of white backlash, an event that didn't happen but "could have happened". Hopeless IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete controversial but favors one POV, essay format, and non-notable. Triple whammy. GSMR (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn, had no idea the article was vandalized, should have checked the page history a little closer ;) 2 says you, says two 13:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus University[edit]

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

~~Unaccredited degree mill, no assertion of notability, zero references, google and gnews turn up nothing other than their website.~~ 2 says you, says two 23:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's probably best to restore the article to a former version (such as this one, perhaps) which demonstrates notability with ample references and media coverage. The article has been gutted by someone's removal of all non-flattering content. Peacock (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason there were zero references and no indication of notability at the time User:2 nominated this for deletion is that a WP:SPA had removed the references along with most of the article content, presumably because the third-party reliably sourced coverage of this institution is embarrassing to the institution. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Northern Virginia, it is difficult to imagine that the article would have come to AfD if the nominator had looked at the article history for unvandalized versions of the article. WP:AfD is remarkably inefficient as a method for reverting simple vandalism. Thanks to Arxiloxos for restoring the deleted content. --Orlady (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after restoration. Out of the nom's concerns, the only one that is still valid is that it is a diploma mill, which is more of an WP:IDONTLIKEIT statement than a statement on notability. The organization appears to have been covered sufficiently to have a verifiable article. Them From Space 04:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A diploma mill, but evidently a notable one, with coverage over a period of years, from the 1998 Irish Times "famous diploma mills" list, to the 2003 Charles Abell controversy, to a very recent (and rather interesting) report by WWL-TV about an ongoing FBI investigation.[1].--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SynthMaker[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (software)#Inclusion. Current article reads like an advertisement. SnottyWong talk 22:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't able to find independent coverage and tagged it as spam a month ago. Speedy was declined back then, but I forgot to AfD it. Pcap ping 01:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blade (producer)[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced BLP (MySpace and Twitter are the only sources). He appears to have production credits on a few songs, but nothing more. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. SnottyWong talk 22:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, and nothing reliable turning up in Google. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Booky's Crush[edit]

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

Non-notable TV movie; contested prod. CosmicJake (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination as substantial evidence has now been incorporated into the article that this TV movie is notable. CosmicJake (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [2]. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per improvements. Joe Chill (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pitiful stub for a multi-award nominated film. Will do some improving and report back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Solid keep of a now expanded and sourced article about a multi-award-nominated made-for-tv film that acts as third in a series. With respects to the User:CosmicJake's good faith nomination of the three meager sentences he first sent here, [3] I perfomed my WP:AFTER, saw potential, and expanded to THIS. My guideline supported philosophy... if something CAN be improved, the project benefits if we do so. Deletion should be a last resort. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article is now well referenced with reliable secondary sources that cover the subject in detail (as required by WP:N). —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep I know that these bunnies are controversial, but there are some awards/distinctions that might prompt people to look up specific individuals. Being the playmate of the year or centerfold is, one of those distinctions. Plus the fact that the numbers/trend are in favor of keeping... I think this is fairly straight forward.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Quist[edit]

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

No assertion of general notability, playmate citation and imbd where she is claimed to have uncredited parts in four shows, nothing of any note. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. No reliable sources to establish notability. Fails GNG/BIO etc;. EuroPride (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see assertions of notability, apparently article is already being edited since nomination.--Milowent (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides being a Playboy Playmate, which is a highly notable modeling title in an of itself, she appears to have been a "Bunny of the Year", according to Lockhart Post-Register; Lockhart, Texas; Thursday, March 06, 1980; Page 7. Morbidthoughts has added cited evidence of notability-- handprints in downtown Austin named a tourist attraction, and appearances in mainstream films. Also, a search through local newspapers shows appearances indicating notability. e.g.: Appeared at the 500 World of Wheels show with Minnesota Fats: (Kokomo Tribune Kokomo, Indiana; Friday, January 12, 1979; Page 4); autographing posters at Splash Day, Galveston (Galveston Daily News Galveston, Texas; Tuesday, May 06, 1980; Page 6)/ appearing at the Armadillo Alympics in 1980 & 1981 (New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung; New Braunfels, Texas; Tuesday, August 26, 1980; Page 5 / Seguin Gazette Enterprise; Seguin, Texas; Thursday, October 23, 1980; Page 6 & New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung; Sunday, August 23, 1981; Page 5) and the Cancer Bowl V (Lockhart Post-Register; Lockhart, Texas; Thursday, March 06, 1980; Page 7 - this article labels her "1978 Playboy Plamate bunny of the year"), etc... All indications of a high-profile, notable individual. Dekkappai (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage from multiple newspapers satisfies GNG, even if the mention is trivial every time. Her notability is based on her status as a playboy playmate which the sources keep mentioning. Even if it's just a signing appearance[4], the newspapers think it's notable enough to print. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, going through the newspaper listings I cited above, it's obvious that the US media considers being a Playmate to be "notable". It's the main hook for her appearances... Too bad WP "notability" criteria are based on a changeable, subjective "consensus" of editors, rather than something objective and verifiable... Dekkappai (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG in my opinion. Overall coverage is too trivial. Epbr123 (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial coverage by local press is insufficient to satisfy the GNG, especially when it's little more than a schedule of promotional appearances. The average high school quarterback gets more press coverage, and more substantial press coverage than this, i there's a newspaper based in his town. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re high school quarterback - hardly, but if he did, and was a playboy playmate, i think he would be notable.--Milowent (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Dekkappai --80.192.21.253 (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- By what reasoning? EuroPride (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reasoning? Because I !voted the opposite way. Check out the editing history [5], noting especially comments like this one [6]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, check out the way I ruthlessly agreed with your 'keep' on Wildenstein... --80.192.21.253 (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - By the reasoning that she's more notable than a lame high school quarterback analogy. Come on guys, there is clearly a difference of opinion on these playmate AfDs both generally, and specifically on each one.--Milowent (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would argue that Playmates of the month were a much more notable phenom in the 60's and 70's than they are now, when playboy had a larger subscription base and was in the forefront of culture. so once notable, always notable. however, im biased in her case, as i had that issue back then, and will recuse myself from voting:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know that knowledge of or interest in the subject is generally frowned upon in these AfDs, but I don't think it completely disqualifies one from !voting, Mercurywoodrose... ;) Dekkappai (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai and Mercurywoodrose. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mercurywoodrose. Personally I consider all Playmates of the Month notable, as it remains the highest distinction in the profession, but it was certainly true through at least the 70s, DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep personally not sold on the keep, but conse nsus says otherwise.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European immigration to Brazil[edit]

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

Speedy (A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic) declined.

This is an ad-verbatim copy-paste of Immigration to Brazil, sections "Brief History," "First Period"-"Fourth Period". I don't know why this wouldn't meet A10. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicate material.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Immigration to Brazil is somewhat long and could do with being split into subtopics. Though I don't know if splitting by continent of origin is the best way of doing it. European immigration to Brazil seems reasonable as a redirect, at least. cab (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been recently created. Evidently it is initially based on "Immigration to Brazil", but the intention is to develop along two different lines.

First, it should deal with part of the material included in Immigration to Brazil that consists in speculation about the relation between race and immigration. While this relation is undeniable, it is grossly oversimplified in Immigration to Brazil and related articles, which assume a very particular POV - that the predominance of European immigration to Brazil is exclusively or mainly due to racist positions of the Brazilian government and landed classes. This evidently is part of the discussion, but there are many other aspects involved - one of them the fact that Europe was in fact an emigration region in the period considered, while Africa and most of Asia weren't. But an article about Immigration to Brazil shouldn't be encumbered by this discussion. One could perhaps argue that Emigration from Europe should be the solution, but that article deals with a different material, starting in the 16th century - and besides, it again shouldn't be encumbered by a particular discussion about Brazil.

Second, it should help freeing White Brazilian from wild assumptions that equate White Brazilians to European immigrants to Brazil and their descendants - which most of them are not. This would allow White Brazilian to deal in more depth with the sociological significant aspects of being White in Brazil, particularly in their relation to non-Whites (White Brazilian, in spite of some improving earlier this year, is still plagued by the unstated but pervasive POV that there are "true" Whites and "false" Whites in Brazil, the former being identified with descendants of immigrants, which totally confuses this discussion and causes the article to be encumbered with immigration issues). 201.47.160.36 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am now noticing some sort of agenda here (see Talk:European_immigration_to_Brazil). If not A10, then POV-fork. Probably also a copyvio which breaks WP licenses due to incorrect WP:Splitting. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No POV fork. The issues to be dealt in this article are not different views on a same subject, but rather subjects that cannot be adequately dealt within the articles in which they are now crammed, causing confusion. Perfectly in accordance to Wikipedia's policy as defined here:

In some cases refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to include in the encyclopedia).

This is exactly the intention in this article: allow subtopics to be discussed more fully, without dominating a general overview article to which they are not central. And the new article does have enough notability to include in WP. Rather the other way round, this subject is messed into White Brazilian, where it does not belong, due to POV issues in that article, cramming it with material on immigration and preventing it from discussing relevant topics concerning racial relations in Brazil. Now if you can point to some POV in this article in its own merits, it is a different discussion. Ninguém (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that user Ninguem is continously REMOVING several sourced informations from several articles of Wikipedia. It seems that when he doesn't like an information, he removed it to hide it from readers. Somebody see his editions and will find that he is removing everything he deslikes. Somebody stop this user or he's going to destroy more and more articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.62.216.172 (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranging the presentation of information between different articles isn't equivalent to "vandalism" or "destruction". I'm not sure I agree with all of Ninguém's rearrangement, but his basic assessment is right: there are a large number of articles which problematically conflate the two separate issues of immigration and racial identity. The Portuguese Brazilian article is quite a good example of this, mixing up colonisation and immigration, and imputing a hyphenated binational identity onto millions of people ("Brazilians with Portuguese ancestors") who wouldn't in the slightest identify as "Portuguese Brazilians". This is hardly the first time this problem came up --- last year we had an "Angolan Brazilian" article which tried to claim this was a notable identity because Portuguese West Africa was a major source of slaves in Brazil (despite the fact that their descendants haven't got the slightest identification with today's Republic of Angola). What's next, do we plan to rename the indigenous peoples of Brazil as "Mongolian Brazilians"? cab (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This version of Portuguese Brazilian will better exemplify what cab meant above. Complete with the sailors in Cabral's voyage being called "first settlers" in Brazil. Ninguém (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let me "vote" before it is deleted by 1-0 - discussion apparently stalled. Ninguém (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The intention is to split a long page into smaller sub pages and allow those pages to evolve without the original becoming unwieldy. That is standard practise. It hasn't been done very well, the original page hasn't been cut down and there isn't a proper link to the new page. These are matters for cleanup not deletion. Szzuk (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this really doesn't seem an unreasonable way, in theory, to break down the topic of immigration into Brazil. I haven't looked deep into it enough to !vote "keep", but I can see that in theory this page can be made to work. TheGrappler (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I realize that this will be controversial. But verifiability is an important issue here. This article appears to have been constructed by defining a genre or style and then finding things that fit that definition. For instance, I don't believe any of the games in "Dieselpunk and the gaming industry" have in fact been classified as dieselpunk by their creators or by reviewers writing in reliable sources. The same is true for many of the movies mentioned (Inglourious Basterds?). This is textbook OR/SYNTH. Moreover, while there are a large number of citations, the ones that support the 'dieselpunk' usage are not reliable sources, and the ones that are reliable sources do not support the 'dieselpunk' usage. Lacking reliable sources for defining the subject of the article, keeping the article is not a viable option. Shimeru 06:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dieselpunk[edit]

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

This article has been deleted before, but this version is different enough to deserve its own discussion. It does exhibit the same flaws as earlier attempts. Like previous versions, it has major problems with original research, verifiability, and notability. It attempts to retroactively place creative works into a genre when their creators had no intent to do so, or likely any knowledge of it. Unlike former versions, this article cites many sources. However, very few of them qualify as reliable sources. Most are blogs, journals, forums, or other self-published sources. One of them even relies on a deleted version of the nominated article. - Eureka Lott 15:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see this thread for off-wiki discussion of the article. - Eureka Lott 16:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't had a chance to read the article in too much detail or look through the sources so I'm holding off on a !vote for now. I am wondering if merging this into the more established steampunk genre may work. If one or two decent sources are found for dieselpunk as a genre, but not enough to warrant a whole article, we can jettison the original research and retroactive application of the term on earlier, unaffiliated works, and just keep a paragraph indicating that this is an offshoot of steampunk, which it clearly is. freshacconci talktalk 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a paragraph on the subject at Cyberpunk derivatives. It was rewritten at the same time that the article was posted. - Eureka Lott 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the article does not reference the previously deleted version. When I first started editing this page, that is one of the first things I noticed and corrected.

I personally feel that there is enough new information in this page and enough references that it is warranted that it stays. The biggest drawback that the original version(s) of this topic had was that there were absolutely no references at all. This article attempts to correct that, insofar as possible, and that there are a significant amount of reliable sources to allow it to stand. Keep. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there are no reliable source references that verify any of the key information in the article. It remains completely unsourced.- Wolfkeeper 19:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with respect, one of the major focuses of this article is to establish that, while it shares the same -punk suffix as steampunk, and while a lot of steampunk LARPers also dress in a dieselpunk style, dieselpunk itself is not "clearly" just an offshoot of steampunk. While steampunk is a subculture that was spawned from a genre of science fiction, dieselpunk is, conversely, a pervasive genre of lowbrow art which has recently spawned a subculture. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now) Term is clearly in use, & must mean something. Whether everything in the article belongs there is a different matter. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Issues with original research, verifiability, and notability are best handled by editing adding tags, removing uncited/poorly cited material. If that leaves a stub or something that needs merging or deleting it can be brought up then. The claim that "It attempts to retroactively place creative works into a genre when their creators had no intent to do so, or likely any knowledge of it" is confusing intent & result. If citable experts say that something was "the beginings of" a genre, "show signs of what was to become" a genre or are "proto"-genre then add them. Creators often refuse labels because they like to see themselves as unique or are too close to their own work. Deletion is not the answer, work is. If you think this article needs deletion, remove bad citation, add cite tags, remove bad content, if you think it needs keeping find better citations. Once that's been done we will be in a better position to decide what to do with it. Duggy 1138 (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Very regrettably after checking the references I am unable to convince myself that this is currently notable, there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources attesting to its notability. The article is apparently, superficially, very, very good, but when you look into the details it comes apart like a wet paper bag, it references blogs and wikis and other self-published and user-supplied information sources far, far too much, to the extent that I was unable to find a single reliable source for this topic in the article. Lack of Notability from reliable sources = gone. Sorry.- Wolfkeeper 02:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When Hollywood has been spending their size of budgets to make films like "Sky Captain" for some years now, I wonder how one can avoid seeing the currently widespread imagery of dieselpunk. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, so far as I can tell some of the references for this article are actually fabricated. The reference that "Sky Captain" is a dieselpunk movie it's just not there. Is it really dieselpunk? Perhaps it is, I don't know, but it's not referenced, well, there is a reference, but it doesn't match what the text says.- Wolfkeeper 23:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another movie they link to right after that is Brazil (film) (actually they link to the country Brazil), but Brazil far predates the idea of Dieselpunk. That's what I'm saying, every time I check something here, it fails to verify. IMO the article just isn't suitable for inclusion at the moment.- Wolfkeeper 23:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to Sky Captain exactly matches what the text says. Fifteenth paragraph on the page. And that exactly matches with the most generic description of the genre, as stated in the lede, which is that it "combines the aesthetics of the interbellum period... with postmodern technology." (I didn't notice the Brazil link mix-up, I've changed that, thx.) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make Sky Captain a dieselpunk movie; at best that's OR. And Brazil isn't dieselpunk. In fact, I can find no reliable source that any of the movies mentioned are dieselpunk. I've seen a lot of shoddy, or stub articles in my time, but this is something else.- Wolfkeeper 00:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Captain isn't "dieselpunk"; it's pan-genre retro-pulp, with some retro-futuristic elements reminiscient of late '30s sf pulps, plus stuff from aviation pulps, oriental adventure pulps, etc., in which respect it's really in the same class as Raiders of the Lost Ark. "Dieselpunk" may be a valid subgenre of retro, but it's not a distinct genre in itself. RandomCritic (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The desire to delete this article seems to be under bias by those who have not taken the time to either 1: Research and improve, or 2: ask someone to research and improve. If you're not helping you just might as well be doing nothing. Have a nice day :) Xx IzzyReal xX (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy are you referring to with your above comments? This is not a vote. - Wolfkeeper 19:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term -punk for this makes about as much sense as the -gate suffix for any scandal or -core for noisy music. But there's a certainly a topic here as there are numerous examples of retrospective nostalgia for the modernist era and it just requires work to refine and develop it in accordance with our editing policy. Consideration should be given to merger with similar topics such as Retro-futurism. That has a better title for the concept with more usage in scholary works. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retro-futurism is certainly related, but it's broader than Dieselpunk (and thus not a good merge). Retro-futurists are usually cleaner and far less oily than Dieselpunks (personal jet pack exhaust being much less sooty) - there's a huge genre of A*n R*nd-inspired "glistening city spires" stuff that's clearly retro-futurist, but has little to do with Dieselpunk. The practical aspects of the two scenes are also different: retro-futurism is mostly literary and artistic, with very few of the large-scale physical artefact and vehicle Maker groups that characterise both Dieselpunk and Steampunk. Mutoid Waste Company (and others) began with the post-Mad Margaret apocalyptic vibe, but are now lovable Dieselpunk crusties. Arcadia Spectacular are another group that are distinctly Dieselpunk, with almost nothing in common with retro-futurism. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dieselpunk is broader than the Mad Max types; a lot of the diesels I know are more the swing/deco/noir types. And more into the arts than into the maker scene. (Hence the two "flavors" of dieselpunk, "Ottensian" and "Piecraftian".) Hard to tell where to fold this into if it were to be folded in somewhere; it's clearly retro-futurist, yet clearly an art movement, and also has some relation to it's "cousin" Steampunk (although that's based on a literary genre and has become largely a costume-fest in recent years...) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of why the article should be deleted. The material about the two flavors is based on this source, which is a conversation between User:Piecraft and User:Ottens, the primary authors of the first and second deleted versions of this very article. It's like Wolfkeeper pointed out - the entire article is a house of cards. - Eureka Lott 01:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more narrowly "dieselpunk" is defined, the less likely it is to warrant a Wikipedia article. And the more focused it is on the ephemeral this-year discussions on blogs and wikis, the more it's going to give the impression of something made up in school.

Therefore I recommend: focus on the historical development of the genre and long-term stable elements (what has continuously characterized the genre for the last 10 years?). Avoid neologisms like "Ottensian" and "Piecruftian". Don't bring technical squabbles between ephemeral fan groups into the article at all. Don't characterize something as "dieselpunk" unless you can find an independently verifiable (preferably published hard-copy) source that calls it that. Anything else, either cut, or put into a section "Sources and Inspirations".

And if you really feel there's a strong distinction to be made between dieselpunk and retro-futurism, put that into the article -- with the verifiable evidence to back it up. It can't be just that you _feel_ there's a difference; there has to be a consensus among students of the genre (if any) that there is a difference. RandomCritic (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Time to stop sending it to afd. Szzuk (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first discussion about this version of the article. Both earlier attempts were deleted. - Eureka Lott 11:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know that it is really worthy of having a full page, for the time being, however I do believe it warrants more than a paragraph on the Cyberpunk derivatives. If there were a full heading on the Steampunk page about this subgenre, however, I would be willing to argue against the inclusion of this page. Ophiucha (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any internet search with the keyword "dieselpunk" will result in numerous hits, which indicates that it's an existing cultural phenomenon apart from steampunk and the other -punk genres. Because dieselpunk is young it does indeed create a challenge for notability. But this problem can be resolved over time as dieselpunk matures. One possible solution would be to keep the page but add a disclaimer that further improvement is needed for reliable sources. Larry442010 (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above keep votes are unfortunately not getting it. I think it needs to be deleted one more time, or preferably moved to user space. The topic is true but not verifiable. The wikipedia is Verifiability over truth. So we should not have this article right now until it becomes verfiable with reliable sources.- Wolfkeeper 14:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any verifiable elements into Retro-futurism, perhaps under a distinctive "dieselpunk" subheader, cross-ref to Steampunk et al. RandomCritic (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus relisted and still no clear consensus to keep or delete.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iodine (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. No sign this has ever had a theatrical release or TV airing. There seems to have been a single festival showing, with no other reason to think it's notable. Hairhorn (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Incubate Article is sourced and sneaking up on WP:GNG. Since the film is still making festival rounds, I would expect even more sources to become available over the next few months. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it becomes notable in the future, it can be recreated; it isn't notable now. The film's own webpage mentions only the Montreal festival appearance, which was last August. Hairhorn (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to delete and then recreate a topic already notable per guideline, as ANY topic's notability, and this includes films, can be determined by its meeting the general notability guide... as this one does in its receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, thus allowing a reasonble presumption of it satisfying the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Wikipedia is a work in progress and guideline does not demand that articles be immediately perfect. Guideline does encourage improvable articles might remain and be improved over time and through the course of regular editing. The film's common name has made a search for sources difficult and the provided Find sources above is nearly useless. However, and in looking beyond the current article in my own research per WP:AFTER, I find that the film has indeed been sceened at more than only a "single festival showing". And while the film's own website is apparently incomplete as to its coverage, it is not used to cite the article, as it is unsuitable as a reference, being a self-published source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The official website of a film is a pretty standard reference, even if it's not RS. I don't see that this film meets GNG and I don't see much hope for it in the future either... Hairhorn (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry... though allowed as an external link, a film's official website is a self-published website not independent of the subject. It is not a "pretty standard reference", and never used to cite notability or lack. I'm also sorry that you disagree that the topic is covered in WP:RS that meet WP:GNG. Editors are allowed to compare the article as created two weeks ago to its current state in judging whether or not it might serve the project. With respects, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:WIP, WP:POTENTIAL, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:IMPROVE, WP:ATD, WP:DEADLINE and other relevant guidelines and essays are all allowed to be considered by others in determining notability and potential for any article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I consulted the website for news about screenings, not for notability... but it's all moot anyhow, I don't see any notability (actual or potential) in here at all, through GNG or otherwise. Hairhorn (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No... not moot at all, as that's why we're here. While some might opine delete... others might look at the article, factor in improvements and potential, and opine keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage does not appear to be significant. Perhaps merge into Michael Stasko until notability is clearly established for a stand-alone article.--Pink Bull 02:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A brief look at the sources indicates that the film was shown at the Montreal Film Festival, however this alone isn't enough for notability. Recreate the article if the film ever passes any of the general notability guidelines for films. SnottyWong talk 22:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More than a "brief" look shows the the film is receiving coverage for its festival screenings, and is slated for more festivals. Not at all surprising that a film in the festival circuit is receiving coverage for being in the festival circuit. We have more options open to us at AFD than just delete or keep. Why force recreation if it might better serve the project to incubate this for a while and allow its continued improvement while at incubation? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its being shown at film festivals and getting coverage for that. Nothing gained by deleting it, then making it appear again in a week or two after another scheduled festival plays and reviews it. Dream Focus 05:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see two keep votes that are based on possible future notability - not even "likely" notability, just possible notability - that's not really enough to keep. Third party coverage of this film is scant. Hairhorn (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete appears to be a very minor character at this point with no major significance. This does not mean that the character will always be non-notable, it is very possible that in the future this character may be notable, just not now. Also, I should not, that swearing at a person with a different opinion than you, does not say much for the person making an argument, even if it is done in funky characters.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Tubbs[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for notability since last year. This The Cleveland Show character fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - A strong argument about the notability guideline on point could easily convince me otherwise. But this is a pretty good character article on a major character. Shadowjams (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - Concensus at the AfD for Rallo Tubbs was that the character is not sufficiently notable to justify its own article. There is no indication that Roberta Tubbs is any more notable than her brother. The only source cited on the article is a primary source; there is simply no significant coverage of Roberta Tubbs in reliable secondary sources. Neelix (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I easily added three sources, I could go on. This is a major character, fourth on the bill, for a major, current, regularly scheduled, prime-time, broadcast network series. The only reason you couldn't find sources on the character is because you didn't want to in order to delete the article. Shame on you @%#'$.OsamaPJ (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of the three sources mentioned, two are primary sources (one from the television network and one from a television channel hosting the series). The remaining source does not demonstrate the individual notability of the character.

On a separate note, please comment on the articles and not the editors. I do not appreciate accusations, nor do I appreciate being sworn at, whether the profanity is presented in grawlixes or otherwise. Neelix (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think that by deleting sources I added, then challenging them as suspicious, that it would any way change the facts reported? Ignoring the numerous blog mentions of this character, there are still sufficient sources to justify this under WP:GNG. I added more. The fact that you point to previous sources as being supplied by the network and an affiliate emphasized that this character is on a major, current TV show. Do you think that by ignoring this information justifies your unjustified assault on this article? I didn't know this character or this show from adam, I'm concerned with the principle here. I can see from reviews that the writers are struggling with the character. But its still a front line character getting title credits. Its just too obvious a keep. Acting stupid, by being ignorant to or denying this many sources is just not a good policy when deciding the information that gets deleted from Wikipedia and taken from public view. The world looks here first. This trend could turn into a cancer that will remove other significant characters from our entertainment history. Are we going to delete Pugsley Addams because he was poorly developed by the writers? These malicious efforts to delete anything at all costs really pisses me off. Please, please show some good faith in you nominations for AfD. I'd much rather assume that I could.OsamaPJ (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have accused me of deleting sources you added. I have not done so. I have nominated this article for deletion in good faith, believing the character to be insufficiently notable for its own article. That assessment continues to appear correct to me. Again, please stop making false accusations. Neelix (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to Neelix as an individual. Another editor made this edit. The effect is the same, which frustrates me no end. Forces gang up in a deliberate attempt to delete articles. An article is under challenge--gee, lets make it look bad. Entertainment articles are the worst: The most universal source is IMDB. But some group of WP people have found "excuses" that IMDB is not a valid source. All of a sudden thousands of articles are unreferenced, unsourced, unreliable BLP whatever the semantics you choose to use. That then makes all those articles deletable. I have a serious problem with deleting information. If you don't like the source, get off your butt and find another source. If you are going to discredit IMDB, show me a reliable alternative to IMDB. Don't take the lazy route and delete articles. I do not understand why article deletion is so popular a hobby for you people. The only articles we should be deleting are fraudulent material and true garbage. Does anybody dare to claim this article is fraud? They better not with all the sources that are out there. Or just turn on your TV. So we have to define garbage, an opinion. And the same people who discredit IMDB and want to delete articles have ganged up to make that definition hard. And even at that, it still doesn't make this article non-notable.OsamaPJ (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Welcome to the never-ending debate: deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Some come down on one side, some come down on the other. In case you don't know the name for your people, you belong to the inclusionists. I mostly agree with inclusionism; my own feeling is that deletionists "won the war" and have a deletionist-supportive rule system fairly well-constructed now, to the point where I feel it has created systemic problems that affect Wikipedia's credibility. That's not anything against Neelix personally; I'm just saying in the "grand scale of movers and shakers," that's what I feel's happened in that conflict. But if you examine his history, Neelix seems to have a fairly good metapedian-exopedian mix in his contributions, and so I don't think he deserves being told to "get off [his] butt" or being called lazy -- both of which are not kind. I'd take a deep breath and remember, you're just playing World of Wikipedia. WCityMike 23:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Finally got around to it but could not find enough sources. Sources are trivial mentions that she's a character in the show played by a certain actress. No reception to meet WP:N. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Erik Rogers. Shimeru 06:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soundevice[edit]

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

Unsigned band that has not been on one chart and the whole article is unreferenced. There isn't even third party sources about these guys, except for an interview they did in 2003. The interview was done by a website that I don't think anyone has been too. Link here [7] Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, no significant third party coverage that I could find. Jminthorne (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Erik Rogers, no independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why redirect to him. He isn't the only person in the band. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Erik Rogers is the only member of the band with an article on Wikipedia. The only other 'article' is for Ryan Vikedal which redirects to Nickelback-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:18, 7 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digestion of the protein[edit]

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

Unnecessary split from Protein (nutrient)#Digestion as per CFORK. PROD removed so raising for further discussion. Fæ (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protein metabolism. There is some potentially good information here once it is sourced and moved from its current awkward location. Jminthorne (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge - concur with Jminthorne. This is not an article, but a section of one. Protein metablolism looks like a viable home for merger. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Who would ever use this as a search term? What part of this isn't covered in the appropriate articles? As for a redirect target, digestion seems like a good choice. Shadowjams (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Proteolysis. Not exactly a content fork to Digestion#Human_digestion_process. Check other articles created by the same user (someone transformed them to redirects).Biophys (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have relisted this as there is more than 1 choice for merging outcome, plus deletion !votes - maybe a further week's discussion will reach a consensus on whether it should be deleted, or where it should be merged to-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uncited and poor choice of article name anyway.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protein catabolism. The article content is currently at Protein digestion, which is clearly a better title (watch out for that doube redirect, closing admin). The content is most appropriate for Protein catabolism, which deals specifically with the breakdown of proteins via intra- and extra-cellular processes.— Scientizzle 22:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The quantity of info in "Protein catabolism" is small. "Protein catabolism" could reasonably be regarded as a spinout article from "Protein metabolism". Given the lack of info in "Protein catabolism", it would be better to merge the info into "Protein metabolism". Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. If the content was better, it could have been merged to Protein catabolism or Proteolysis, but definitely not to Protein metabolism, since that article covers synthesis as well as digestion. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing worth merging.I would have speedy deleted this as A10. This is a very weak article that simply naïvely duplicated existing good content. The actual term is notreally English, and does not need a redirect either. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010 Kepulauan Obi earthquake[edit]

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

Non-notable 6.0 magnitude earthquake causing very little effect. Quakes like this are very common to this part of the world and this one was nothing out of the ordinary. Justmeagain83 (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Mandsford 21:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIR.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already merged in the 2010 earthquakes article. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet proposed WP Earthquakes notability guidelines. Mikenorton (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Jr. Pirates[edit]

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

Non-notable junior hockey team. That goes for all the other similar articles this user has created. Marcus Qwertius (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Bhockey10 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jr. A Hockey teams are considered notable. Esp with outside verifiable sources. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Junior hockey in the US isn't organized quite the same as it is in Canada. A Tier III team in the US would probably be roughly equivalent to Junior B in Canada, which really stradles the line of notability. Reso lute 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its pretty organized, not quite in the same way as in Canada, but its hard to compare the levels of play across countries, many Jr. A artices for US and Canadian teams (and a number of Canadian Jr B teams) have articles that don't have as many sources that have been added to this article. As a whole AJHL is one of the top Jr. leagues in the US and heavily scouted despite being fairly new (2003). Bhockey10 (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Junior hockey club. DMighton (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Teams at this level are considered notable. -DJSasso (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable team. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panbrdian theory[edit]

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

Hardly any context, no sources, very questionable notability and to be honest I can't make any sense of it at all. The corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is basically an unsourced dicdef. - filelake shoe 20:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Absolutely not notable, makes no sense at all. - Darwinek (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A campfire joke. No sources indicating notability of this theory. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 22:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obscure joke, possibly made up in one day. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Oswego Community Unit School District 308. Shimeru 07:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson junior high[edit]

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

No evidence this junior high is any more able to satisfy the notability standard applicable to schools, WP:ORG, than countless others which have previously been replaced by redirects to their school district, in this case Oswego Community Unit School District 308 in Kendall County, Illinois. This is unlike high schools, which have typically been kept in AFDs. Edison (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the district article, per usual practice. Mandsford 21:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are other Thompson Junior High Schools, in California, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Nova Scotia and formerly in Texas. Abductive (reasoning) 22:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then disambiguate to Oswego Community Unit School District 308 and other relevant districts. --Closeapple (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DIR. Abductive (reasoning) 18:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then disambiguate to Oswego Community Unit School District 308 per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Knuckles[edit]

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

No indication that this game is notable. brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is complete WP:OR and fails WP:N. Reference says that it's in the Urban Dictionary... let it stay there. Besides, I remember the game as being a card game where part of the game is using the deck to rake and smack the other persons hand on the table... Ohhhh....GOOD times!!! Pmedema (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a variant of slapsies but it's unreferenced.- Wolfkeeper 00:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - Nominator withdrew nomination Pparazorback (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Devils[edit]

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

Speculatory. No references officially confirming that the Lowell Devils are indeed moving. There's references implying that they'll move, but nothing concrete. Furthermore: the name "Albany Devils" is pure assumption. ccwaters (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~Keep to Lowell Devils for now and the redirect can be undone if it is officially announced. I say redirect rather than delete as its been deleted twice. (once by me) But keeps getting created so its clearly something that is getting searched so might as well make it a useful redirect rather than just outright delete. However it might be getting recreated by the same person over and over. -DJSasso (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete, G3~~ The author, MrBradJones044 (talk · contribs), is an obvious sock of BradRJones06 (talk · contribs). The latter account went on a massive three-day spree of hoaxing and pagemove vandalism after being inactive since December 2009. Looking at MrBradJones044, this user is exhibiting the same behavior. I'm opening an SPI case to find any other accounts this guy may have. Blueboy 96 20:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as move is official. Blueboy 96 21:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] doing a quick search there seems to be a number of articles, however I havent seen anything offical from the Lowell Devils or New Jersey Devils. If real- wouldn't an Albany Devils article be the Lowell Devils with a move to change the name to Albany Devils, since the franchise and ownership are the same, for that reason I support a merge/redirect per -DJSasso's comment above.Bhockey10 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, definitely two different articles because of the move(See Philadelphia Phantoms/Adirondack Phantoms for a recent example). Your reference states that a move is "possible" just like every other article. Even Lou's letter to Lowell fans just states that hockey in Lowell is financially unfeasible, the destination is just implied by Albany area reporters. Yeah, everything points to it probably happening, but Wikipedia isn't here to record the maybes. Just wait, there will be indisputable articles to reference in the Times Union/etc if they pull the trigger. And again the "Albany Devils" name itself is pure speculation. ccwaters (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"but Wikipedia isn't here to record the maybes." That's a good point, it goes back to Wikipedia:Crystal. One note about the Phantoms there was an ownership change, but I'm sure that'll be a debate for later. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When teams move towns we always create a new article, its a standard used in the hockey project. We only move the page if its a simple name change but the team stayed put. -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Which is why there shouldn't be separate Lowell Devils and Lowell Lock Monsters articles, as the team didn't move then, but I digress). As for this, redirect unless/until an official announcement is made. oknazevad (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Officially announced by the AHL today. [8] Tom Danson (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I, the original nominator, withdraw the AFD.ccwaters (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the move is now official.Kjscotte34 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Shimeru 07:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferret Music[edit]

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

Contested CSD - Fails WP:ORG is promotional as it is just a list of current or past clients. Codf1977 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as CSD contester. A list of "current or past clients" - that is, bands signed to the label - is encyclopedic and essential information for a properly robust article about a record label. The label is one that, in terms of WP:MUSIC, has been around for more than a few years and has a significant roster of notable artists. Some of the most successful of those artists are Chimaira, Every Time I Die, Funeral For a Friend, Blessthefall, and The Bronx. Google News has plenty of hits. Chubbles (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:ORG :

“

No inherited notability

An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. If the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable. For example, if a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner.

”

So just because a notable band is a client does not make Ferret Music notable. I have been through the first two pages of the GNews hits and the only references to Ferret Music are mealy incidental of the type Ferret Music signs Band x or Band Y is recording a new album for Ferret Music or 'Song Z is released by Ferret Music. Codf1977 (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When Ferret Music signs Band X, and a news agency reports on it, that is substantial coverage of the label as well as the band. It is not incidental. When press agencies review records put out by the label, that is substantial coverage of the label as well as the band. When Billboard magazine publishes chart positions for songs and albums released by the label, that is substantial coverage of the label as well as the songs and albums. Ferret has repeatedly done all three of these things. Ferret has also had articles written about it in magazines, but as far as I'm concerned that's beside the point. Its roster demonstrates clear cultural importance, and the encyclopedia would suffer were it to be removed, because it is an encyclopedic subject. Labels make cultural products and are thus different from, say, an investment bank or a supermarket chain; they should no more be judged as corporations than bands themselves should be (and we don't use WP:CORP to determine a band's notability, even though bands are businesses). The best and most specific criterion for determining a label's encyclopedic worth is given in WP:MUSIC, where it states a band is notable if it is on an important label - one that has been around for more than a few years and has a roster with many notable acts. Ferret passes this test by a whale. Chubbles (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you may misunderstand what Significant coverage is, The General notability guideline define it as:

“

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

”

and as such none of the sources I have looked at can be said to show "Significant coverage" of Ferret Music. I am sorry you feel that Ferret Music should not be held to WP:CORP or WP:ORG but they unquestionably apply here and Ferret Music does not IMO meet them. Codf1977 (talk)

This is good, these are good test cases, because never before, so far as I know, has an independent record label of serious importance been held to deletion as a corporation (except maybe File 13 Records). Eulogy and Ferret are both actually culturally significant labels, far more than File 13, and if the community decides that they are to be judged as businesses, it will set a precedent which, if employed, will result in there being a comparatively small number of articles on independent record labels, and will by extension shrink the number of band articles on the site. Naturally, there are many who think this can only help the encyclopedia, and it would be fascinating to watch the unfolding of events after such a decision. I'm excited to see how this plays out. Chubbles (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is saying that they are "culturally significant labels" ? - The reason I ask is that will show the coverage that means they meet WP:GNG, WP:ORG and/or WP:CORP Codf1977 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's just me, just me saying that, based on the roster and my expertise in the subject. There are no major news agencies or critics saying that, as far as I know. Chubbles (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The musicians are notable, but the record label isn't. Joe Chill (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A label that has multiple notable bands is notable. the artists distributed are what makes a publisher of any sort of genre notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Shimeru 07:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eulogy Recordings[edit]

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

Contested CSD - Fails WP:ORG is promotional as it is just a list of current or past clients. Codf1977 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as CSD contester. A list of "current or past clients" - that is, bands signed to the label - is encyclopedic and essential information for a properly robust article about a record label. The label is one that, in terms of WP:MUSIC, has been around for more than a few years and has a significant roster of notable artists. Some of the most successful of those artists are Dashboard Confessional, Set Your Goals (band), New Found Glory, Evergreen Terrace (band), and A Day To Remember. Google News has plenty of hits. Chubbles (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:ORG :

“

No inherited notability

An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. If the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable. For example, if a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner.

”

So just because a notable band is a client does not make Eulogy Recordings notable. I have been through the first two pages of the GNews hits and the only references to Eulogy Recordings are mearly incidental of the type Band X has signed for Eulogy Recordings or Band Y has signed for Record company Z and wishes all it friends at Eulogy Recordings well. Codf1977 (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of "Eulogy Recordings signs band X" articles out there - Punk magazines report it almost every time it happens. That's coverage of the label; it states that what the label does is newsworthy enough to report on. So is the releasing of an album on the label. There's coverage of that for Eulogy all the time, in addition to the full-page article published on the label that I found. This is a long-running punk label of clear cultural importance, and thus of encyclopedic worth. Chubbles (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post a link to the "full-page article published on the label" that you found ? Codf1977 (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in a magazine, which is available at your local library. Chubbles (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which one ?, who was the author ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ref's in the article. It's an interview. Chubbles (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well that is probably one source - are there any others as the WP:GNG say multiple. Codf1977 (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The bands are notable, but the record label isn't. Joe Chill (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A label that has multiple notable bands is notable. the artists distributed are what makes a publisher of any sort of genre notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tetrasil[edit]

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

Tetrasil is a non-notable commercial product. The article itself is difficult to evaluate because it is so poorly written. The product is described as "Tetra-Silver Tetra-Oxide", but the active ingredient is described as colloidal silver. From a chemist's perspective, I'm not sure these two things are even necessarily the same thing. The two sources listed do not refer to "Tetrasil" or to "Tetra-Silver Tetra-Oxide", but only to colloidal silver. The appeal to watch a Google video for additional information does not inspire further confidence. In short, there doesn't appear to be anything of value to this article beyond content that is already at the existing articles on medical uses of silver. ChemNerd (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Commercial alternative remedy and is not notable.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A google search for "tetrasil" provides about 13,700 results. It does appear to be a valid product that's available on the market, but also appears to be a scam and not an FDA-approved drug. Some of the links are to a similarly-named product known as terrasil. Either way, the article in its present state is a poorly-written piece of garbage, and most likely a promotional piece for the product's inventor. If it is kept, it needs serious revision. WTF? (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Colloidal silver is not the same as Ag₄O₄^4– (CID 44150047 from PubChem). The article is promotional and cites no reliable sources. If it is retained, it would have to be rewritten completely (including a discussion on the off-worldish claims that it could cure AIDS and cancer) and moved to Tetrasilver tetraoxide. However, I could find no evidence that this substance is notable. One possibly relible source is http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1517/13543776.15.2.125, but I don't have access to this article. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to access the article that you link. Thanks for finding it. There is a section titled "Multivalent silver compounds" in this review that does mention Ag4O4 and related oxides. However, it does not mention Tetrasil. From reading this section, I feel there might be an article to be written about tetrasilver tetraoxide as you suggest, or at least something that could be added about it to the article medical uses of silver, but I still don't see anything notable about Tetrasil itself. ChemNerd (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising. JFW | T@lk 22:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly advertising --Orange Mike | Talk 13:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dishonest advertising; claims cannot be traced to or run counter to sources; recommend applying the WP:Snowball clause. Novangelis (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 02:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idong Ibok[edit]

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

College athlete, fails WP:ATHLETE. No indication of meeting either the general or athlete specific notability requirements. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting the general notability guideline (substantial coverage received in multiple reliable sources): here's a US News interview with him as one of "The NCAA Tournament's Best Students"; a piece from CBS MaxPreps calling him a "major-college success story", a couple of dedicated pieces on ESPN, and significant local (Michigan) coverage too.

That said, I'm no basketball expert - if earlier AfDs have set a precedent for overriding GNG as the principal concern for college basketball biographies, please let me know. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on references found by Gonzonoir, which show the subject meets general notability guidelines. Edward321 (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant third party coverage has been established. Gigs (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Advantage West Midlands. No standing arguments to keep. Verifiable material can be merged from the article history. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central technology belt[edit]

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

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

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

Upgrading from a speedy deletion. Let's see if we can save this article. Previous complaints were that it was advertising and that the company is not notable enough. I did not make the nominations for speedy deletion. -- Rick Van Tassel ^{user|talk|contribs} 18:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. This looks like a Government-backed agency with quite a wide scope in activity and a good deal of coverage on GNews. I must admit it doesn't help that the article doesn't actually state what the Central Technology Belt is. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I was having some issues deciding what to do because of that problem. Thanks for the explanation. -- Rick Van Tassel ^{user|talk|contribs} 11:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been talked over to Merge, mostly because of the lack of content. If someone finds enough material to write a full article, it can always be split off later. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Advantage West Midlands. I see no need at present for a separate article on each of their schemes. Qwfp (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Advantage West Midlands Codf1977 (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Advantage West Midlands. Advantage's efforts should be in the same article, but perhaps described in different sections, if they are unique enough. -- Rick Van Tassel ^{user|talk|contribs} 11:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nicholson[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Contested proposed deletion. Claritas § 17:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable academy footballer. Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. Mo ainm~Talk 17:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mo ainm~Talk 17:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability requirements for footballers. Wikipedia is not an archive listing all football players in the world. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 01:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-pro level and WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 16:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 02:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chastity piercing[edit]

Chastity_piercing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

It's one of those articles describing the most absurd kinds of sexual behaviour without the least trace of references. Unless we have a drove of people come forward and exhibit their chastity piercings, I say it's a hoax and should be deleted. I know it's in the body piercing template, but have it reffed or removed. Trigaranus (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - BMEzine, the leader in online piercing information, has a whole page devoted to it, along with four photos of it. Link (don't click if you don't want to see genitals). A hoax, it most certainly is not. Aside from that source, I've found several more through Google Scholar [9], [10], and [11](last two are from the same location, but written by different authors). All on the first page. The BMEzine link is the first hit on Google. It took me three minutes. I'll add the references in now. --13² 00:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will mention that the BMEzine link is to their Wiki, which does prove problematic for reliability if anyone can edit it with an account (though that doesn't discount the other three sources). I mostly mentioned it as the nominator asked for "a drove of people [to] come forward and exhibit their chastity piercings" and this actually does have images. --13² 01:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep: — It exists; it's documented; it's ugly. --O'Dea (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 13²; clearly not a hoax. 94,000+ g-hits supports notability. Matt Deres (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Choo-Choo Coleman. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Choo_Choo_Coleman[edit]

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

This page is a duplicate of Choo-Choo_Coleman. Although that one was a stub, I chose this one for deletion because the nickname seemed more correct when hyphenated. I've copied the contents of this page to the Choo-Choo_Coleman page in order to flesh it out more... Mike (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbmas01 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the other, since it's a plausible way to spell his name. Zagalejo^^^ 17:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems that the name was most commonly spelled without a hyphen: [12] So the article should really remain at Choo Choo Coleman, with the other article becoming a redirect. Zagalejo^^^ 17:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Nagy (fighter)[edit]

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

Why I made this article, I don't know. It is an article that should have never been made. Poor record, poor fighter, poor notability. Easy deletion. RapidSpin33 (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has four career fights of which only the first was a win and three of which are for a regional promotion. Most Google hits are either fight records/fighter profiles or coverage of his only notable fight (a loss to Herschel Walker). IMO, subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ATH. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fighter. Only notability seems to be he was Herschel Walker's opponent. His fights have been in minor events and with little success. Fails WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 1 fight received any coverage and that was because of his opponent and notability is not inherited. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ATH, and MMA notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. OBVIOUSLY. WP:SNOW. — Scientizzle 20:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HOW FAR WOULD YOU GO TO HOLDON TO A RELATIONSHIP[edit]

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

Original research. Moocha (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:SNOW - WP:NOTESSAY --Triwbe (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have tagged it with {{db-nocontent}}, myself: sort of falls under the definition of "chat-like comments". HalfShadow 19:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, Wikipedia is not an advice column. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A1: the title is a question, which the entry barely addresses. Hairhorn (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ALSO IT'S ALL IN CAPS. THIS IS BAD. VERY VERY BAD. HALFSHADOW 19:59, 6 JUNE 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha... Hairhorn (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not gone yet? WP:OR and a hou to essay. GregJackP (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete. Completely unsourced and a blatant example of what Wikipedia is not. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: — This is so blatant that no reason is required. --O'Dea (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; should have been tagged as such also. GSMR (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; This probably could have been speedied as something. Nocontext, perhaps? Anyways, maybe we could close as WP:SNOW? --Pstanton (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Alas, there is no speedy criterion for essays. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an advice columnist. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. WP:SNOW — Scientizzle 20:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HOW TO IMPRESS A GUY TO MAKE HIM YOURS[edit]

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

Original research. Moocha (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely original research; Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pointless how-to. Hairhorn (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. GregJackP (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete. Completely unsourced and a blatant example of what Wikipedia is not. Looking at the article's revision history, this definitely could have been PRODed. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — This is so blatant that no reason is required. --O'Dea (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW. --Pstanton (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone get out the winter coats; it's snowing. But on a serious note, given by this editor's previous contributions, I get the feeling s/he doesn't quite understand what Wikipedia is for, so I'll leave a message on his/her talk page. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an advice columnist. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:23, 7 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 Langley Event Centre. JForget 02:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Langley Events Center[edit]

Langley_Events_Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

This article should be deleted. It is a duplicate article to the Langley Event Centre, but it is so inaccurate and poorly written there is no need to merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Salter (talk • contribs) 2010/06/04 15:10:34

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Dewritech (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect Duplicative content but the title should be redirected as it is possible that the extraneous "S" is usually added to searches for the article. Nate • (chatter) 00:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Langley Event Centre as a possible search term. ({{R from misspelling}}) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith Content Management System[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable software - no independent references in the article per WP:RS and nothing on Google either. This search yields 38 results and this search yields 39, none of them proving notability. andy (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith is a popular term used by a number of products, particularly in the software arena. As such, it is difficult to locate good quality references, and finding the initial reference is now proving tricky, especially since Wikipedia is now so popular, it's ripped off by many other companies! A search of just 40 results, therefore, is not statistically significant!

When I created the page, I was aware of the need to find references, and as such have duly added a number of them. I am currently seeking an article which discussed this CMS, and will add it in due course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolvidnetwork (talk • contribs) 21:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the point about the Google searches is that despite the obvious popularity of the word Zenith, when used in conjunction with "Content Management System" or "CMS" nobody seems to be paying it any attention. Coupled with the fact that the system "was deemed unsuitable for future development, and is currently only in an extended support phase" I think we can be confident that it is not and never has been notable in the sense required by wikipedia. Or indeed in any other sense. andy (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Content management systems" seem to be a dime a dozen. They're back-office software that no one outside the IT department or their supervisors ever interacts with. And every minor entry in this crowded field imagines itself an encyclopedia-worthy subject. Would that Heracles divert a river onto this mess! This article's commendable candor seems to indicate that its promoters are struggling to make it work, and have released multiple versions with completely different chassis. At any rate, nothing indicates that this product has any historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real product at the moment. Older version seem to be of no importance as well. Minimum coverage on the web. Limited encyclopedic value. Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pulasyam[edit]

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

Hoax/Defamation/Racism Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. It actually appears to be a real thing, but I don't know if that would make it notable, because when I Googled "Pulasyam" and "belt" I only got five hits, and that was the only non-Wikipedia one. (By the way, Suresh.Varma.123, how is the article racist?) Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. No "general" character. I don't think anyone will find any sources about this thing other than the books by S. N. Sadasivan. I am pretty sure than Nairs in general had no habit of using of anything by the name "pulasyam". The above mentioned book dares to say "a Nair will become a Nair only if he wears a Pulasyam" which is but ludicrous. Arjun^codename024 19:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Racist POV against Nair community. SN Sadasivan is a well known PDP extremist and I don't think his creations can be viewed as NPOV. Axxn (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete .Hoax pov and the source provided is not credible.sadasivan,writings of sadasivan are known for their slander against the upper castes of kerala particularly the Nair.Linguisticgeek (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This may well not be notable, and it's possible that the source may be inaccurate, but I can't for the life of me understand how saying that there was a tradition in a caste of wearing a particular type of belt is racist or defamatory. And the Sadasivan book is simply quoting an ancient ballad rather than asserting this fact itself, hence the words "it is said" in our article. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why it is so difficult to understand. A hoax that Nairs wore a dog collar as an emblem of servitude does not seem derogatory to you? If it was a truth, then people like me would have no problem. But since it is a hoax, I don't think any of the Nairs will be taking the article in good light. Also, being a native speaker of Malayalam myself, I have never heard any ballad containing these words. The so called "ballad" was Sadasivan's creation out of his inferiority complex. Axxn (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Why you people are hostile like this? If somebody says that Nairs are not Kshathriyas, then they are Ezhava vandals!! If someone like S.N. Sadasivan says Nairs used to wear a belt, then he is an extremist!! Go forward with your agenda and propaganda, but tell me what is the meaning of Malayalam word Pulasyam (പുലസ്യം) or will you say the word is coined by some extremists? LOL ★★★PROCEDAMUS IN PACE★★★ REPLY 10:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Racist POV pushing. I am a mother tongue speaker of Malayalam, and I have never heard of this word. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 101% hoax. Kshatriya.Knight (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hot europa[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence that this neologism is widely used; wikipedia is not a place to try to coin new terms. Renaming would not be useful, Extrasolar moon already exists. ErikHaugen (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirecting would also be inappropriate, since the existence of the redirect suggests that the term is legitimate, and it afaik is not, so that would be misleading. ErikHaugen (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Author of this page created this term. A google search finds it in one place - Wikipedia. This needs to go asap. Jusdafax 17:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Utterly un-notable term made up by the author. No evidence anyone besides the original author uses this term. Making up planet classification systems may be fun but it is not encyclopaedic. Icalanise (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I removed the prod because I believed the concept of an extra solar moon existing within a stars habitable zone was very important. But I have since added this singular point to extrasolar moon. Delete per nomination. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No evidence is cited that this neologism exists. One magazine article is linked but it can only be read by magazine subscribers, so it is unverifiable. The beginning of the article can be read but there is no mention of a Europa of any temperature. --O'Dea (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Original author claims to have made up the term, see talk:Hot europa. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure WP:OR and WP:NEO . The term is made up by the author as the author admits on the talk page. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The person who wrote the article admits at talk:Hot europa that he invented the term. He was asked, "Where did you get the term "hot europa?" Did you read that in an article or book? Did you make it up?" and his reply was, "short answer yes". Case closed. --O'Dea (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for all the reasons listed above. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting concept. I have to admire the creator for original thought. It's a shame we can't have an article on it :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. No rationale for deletion provided. Recommend Wikipedia:Proposed mergers per Pgallert (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmermann-Sassaman key-signing protocol[edit]

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

Suggesting merge with key signing party for this non-independently-notable protocol. Mgcsinc (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Proposed mergers might be the better place to discuss this. --Pgallert (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I think you can go ahead per WP:BOLD. -- intgr [talk] 17:51, 7 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 01:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan OS X[edit]

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

No sources. Google search reveals no significant reliable sources. May be notable some day, but is not notable now. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, non-notable operating system. In the absence of independent reliable sources, no need for an article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this operating system. Joe Chill (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable variant of Suse. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poison Ivy (Ivy League Gentrification)[edit]

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

neologism without common parlance, POV, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, even if it is a Pulitzer finalist Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

others where allowing this to stand that to give it some time to develop because it is a serious issue in the USA. Can you explain why they are letting it grow and you want to delete. --Happypixie (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. I think it can either be added to the Causes area of gentrification. Or could minus the Catch Phrase Poison Ivy and have it titled Ivy League Gentrification. I believe that I have enough proof of it not being neologism but a phraze a Pulitzer Finalist Graham Rayman of The Village Voice description in 2007 of Ivy League gentrification, shown in the attached ref. I think that the notability was established with he ref but can be expanded with time(stub right?). As far a being personal view...gentrification in general is a personal view depending on if you are a resident of the city or a developer that is removing said residents...that is why gentrification is hard to stop. As far as orphaned it has be attached to several articles. And can be used in many more article with similar topics. As an example. What are your thoughts??--Happypixie (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC) I am going to post this link on the discussion page and also forward it to a few other editors THIS IS NOT MADE UP I have verifiable proof! --Happypixie (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has reviewd this yet what does that mean???--Happypixie (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to move this without someones ok...can I move it to a new title??? "Ivy League Gentrification" So that it will not be "neologism. The info contained in the article is good info.--Happypixie (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Saved all the info I noticed that this has been voted by the guy that out it up 100& that is sad considering the info in the article is good...and the fact that NOT one other person has reviewed this. shamful but ifo is saved off line--71.235.86.242 (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)--71.235.86.242 (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)--71.235.86.242 (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current title and content. The article seems to overemphasize the fact that Ivy League universities are involved in gentrification of their neighborhoods. However, a university doesn't have to be a member of the Ivy League to support gentrification. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the article title has been changed from the original title, I still consider the title as revised to be unsatisfactory for the same reason described above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmm ok metropolotan so you are gentrifing my article base on the title and the fact that the content is not what you see to be a cause — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.86.242 (talk • contribs)

Look at EX in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification#Gentrifier_types Gentrification article under subtitle Genrifiers...this article should at least be moved to this section. Or you have to remove "gay men" and "artists" Because I see it as Ivy league Universitys or aka to put it more genericic Universitys in general are totally gentrifyers like gay men and artists....your thoughts --71.235.86.242 (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed any reference to Poison Ivy in title and article. This was what was in question as being Neologism. Now it is gone. So that is not an issue with the article anymore. And should be taken off the delete list--Happypixie (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to town and gown or gentrification. I don't see substantial evidence--except by the editorial choice of specific examples--that it's specific to Ivy League host cities. The discussed ideas sound common to many college-towns.. Heck, even the lede gives Berkley as a cited example--what Ivy is on the west coast? As written, article is hopelessly and intrinsically editorially biased. DMacks (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually, as DMacks notes, there is a shred of useful RS content mentioned in this article (about the impact of universities on the character of surrounding urban neighborhoods) that could be incorporated into town and gown and/or gentrification, but the current article is a mess of errors, original research, and POV that is not at all appropriate for merger into those other articles. If additional the topic is to be added to those other articles, it would be better to start from scratch to write the new content. My apologies to Happypixie -- I tried to help you avoid the confrontational situation of an AfD by userfying your page and offering some suggestions, but it didn't work out. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as stated in another area.. Gentrification is a matter of what side you stand on. Residents feel it is gentrification when a university takes all the cities property's (mainly tax exempt) putting the burden on the non tax exempt properties. Where developers feel it is urban renewal. So the term gentrification:the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents. Has its benefactors and its victims. Cities that have University's are transient at most and there for investor see them as areas that when developed the temporary residents have little or no choice but to pay inflated rental fees. So yes it is one sided in that sense. You can say that hitler was one sided, you can say Rwanda was one sided. Not that this even compares to them... but every story has two sides and two reasons. --Happypixie (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happypixie (talk • contribs)

Godwin's law? In an AfD? DMacks (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady thank you I know you did...but this is still kind of fun :) Hey I have the info saved here on my computer and worse case is I build on it over time and make a better case for it. I did change the Title and removed the Poison Ivy part. DMacks is right Ivy League not really a factor in SF but Birkley has had its toll on the community and yes it has other gentrification factors. I Personally work for a Developer in New Haven YALE and I am seeing it first hand. On the development side because I am getting paid to do it. But I live here to and I am watching familys that have lived here being pushed out by higher taxes as more and more tax exempt properties are erected, and the professional staff that fills them replacing the diverse community. Personally my property value is rising like crazy so I am making out big time. But it does not mean that standing up for the gentrified part of the population is not my duty... or my boss says, as long as our company's name is not brought into it what ever you do after work is your undertaking. So I fight for those who do not have a voice.--Happypixie (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:Original research and WP:SYNTHESIS.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SarelPfVblah I belive I have enough links to varifiable sources??? How many more do I need?? --Happypixie (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not how many sources you have, it's that you're putting them together to create a new topic. See my link to Sythesis above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good point I see, but then would it not also apply to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification#Gentrifier_types Understanding that Penn took over the city pushed out the diverse residents and even went as far as to rename the city to University City, or that Yale has bought up all avalible land and now is trying to shut down the highway so they can build on that land (link attached to story) or that Columbia is attempting eminent domine to just acquire West Harlem altogether (in court as we speak). Harvard and Brown did theres years ago but Brown's take over is a model for Yale which I was privy to a lecture on this and there development plans. This to me is all facts of the adverse effect of gentrification on city's that house university's. Again gentrification is one sided depending on which side you belong. As showen i the link I at the start Gaymen and artist are Gentrifier's should those be deleted to???? Because I am sure the gaymen and artist would say they where not Thoughts???--Happypixie (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looks like there is another term for this studenfication Here is a study on University host city's being gentrified. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eNrodEJwbqEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA72&dq=university+towns+and+gentrification&ots=eyuNjO3M9C&sig=KUS6Bjfs-V3JhmB_wfFuWgPWMrY#v=onepage&q=university%20towns%20and%20gentrification&f=false

So this may need to be moved to that page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studentization or it can be added to my page. As a "term used to discribe it" --Happypixie (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Studentization is a statistical technique that has nothing to do with this topic. --Orlady (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must be reading this study wrong Page 72 -73 http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eNrodEJwbqEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA72&dq=university+towns+and+gentrification&ots=eyuNjO3M9C&sig=KUS6Bjfs-V3JhmB_wfFuWgPWMrY#v=onepage&q=university%20towns%20and%20gentrification&f=false--Happypixie (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the chapter you are citing says "Studentification", not "Studentization". Studentification is already a disambiguation page which links the meaning you are talking about to College town. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

opps sorry ....yeah that....:) So then the question still is the info and refs in the article still notable and if so where.. so they can be edited appropriately....suggestions?--Happypixie (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearcut original research and synthesis, with a side order of WP:NEO in pushing the catchphrase "Poison Ivy". --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orange Mike did you even read it? NO! Because the title has been changed and any reference to Poison Ivy is gone...Nice and real honest criticism?--Happypixie (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion This article has already undergone community review. The new stub contained substantially the same content as the old; the changes in the content did not address the notability concerns that led to the deletion of the first. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Dex Award[edit]

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

Non Notable award. Codf1977 (talk) 14:15, 7 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 01:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UTM Choir[edit]

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

Unsourced since April 2009 - Fails WP:V and also fails WP:CLUB Codf1977 (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this choir. Joe Chill (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. --MicroX (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I find the deletion arguments more persuasive- especally WP:Notnews and WP:BLP1E, despite this being numerically even, hence I'm closing it in favour of deletion. Courcelles (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debrahlee Lorenzana[edit]

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

This woman, who claims to have been fired by Citibank for being too attractive, is very much known only for this single event (WP:EVENT) and is not notable in any other ways. The article is written in slightly POV-way, but the main problem is that she simply is not notable apart from her claim to have been too attractive Jeppiz (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Update to nomination After the article was nominated, it has degenerated even further, it now features a library of video links with videos such as[reply]

- Debrahlee “Too Hot For Citi” Lorenzana Explains Why She Wanted To Be “Tits On A Stick”

- Banking beauty Debrahlee Lorenzana had two boob jobs, wanted to be stacked like Playboy Playmate

At the same time, her original claim to fame remains completely unsourced. When I nominated the article, it was at least plausible to assume that there was some, albeit very small, controversy about her exit from Citibank. Now it looks like nothing more than a girl claiming she has been fired for being "too hot" while seeing to it that sexy pictures and videos of herself make it to the press. This is a non-notable person trying to be famous, and that's all there is too it. The quality of the article is extremely bad and POV, and the huge collection of videos of a kind rarely seen on Wikipedia doesn't exactly add to it.Jeppiz (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as she is part of a newsworthy event and most probably she will find a way to make fame and money out of this news-event. As such this article should stay so it can be updated and thus become a growing source of information. I agree this single POV should be editted so this article is a encyclopedia worth article --Erik van Luxzenburg 14:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanluxzenburg (talk • contribs)

Well, the Wikipedia policy for notability is very clear: being part of one newsworthy event is not enough to satisfy notability, please read WP:EVENT where the policy is explained. I would also like to point out that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:CRYSTAL). The possibility that someone might become famous is not an argument for having an article.

The policies are very clear, to have a Wikipedia page you should be notable and notable for more than just one single event. Ms Lorenzana does not satisfy that very basic requirement.Jeppiz (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the correct policies...WP:EVENT refers to events rather than individuals. The current article is meant to serve as a biography. The subject, Debrahlee Lorenzana, passes WP:BASIC due to the extensive mainstream media coverage over the past week. I would also like to point out that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which anyone can edit and I would like to encourage you to make revisions to the Debrahlee Lorenzana's article as you see fit.Smallman12q (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This is very small potatoes, an obscure office dispute. Article can be written if the event ever swells to notability. --O'Dea (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve this article! It is a watershed event for women in the corporate arena who are subjected to various forms of discrimination. Her pedigree to fame is comparable to an American Idol contestant. In South America, her case is being used (maybe falsely and maybe not) to illustrate American discrimination standards against hispanics. It has been said by my leadership that if a beautiful Latina can be discriminated against in the land of beautiful Americans, then no immigrant can succeed. We are aware she is a Puerto Rican, which is an American citizen, so her case has the possibility to expose those American double standards. She is not so much notable as her situation and, because the media has sniffed out a story and brought the case to light, she has become notable.Englishjames (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.223.85 (talk) [reply]

O'Dea: Without debating notability of the subject, I need to say that your standards of "small" must be gargantuan. On a slightly more serious note, 4 million g-hits on a very fresh case suggest either some organized PR campaign or an emerging meme-of-the-week. I wouldn't be surprised if the lady lands a high-profile career in the media. East of Borschov (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (delete): The mass media smell a sexy story with a spicy conjunction of multiple tittilating dimensions concerning power, money, dramatic curves (could I have some water, please?), and a well-tailored wardrobe, so they swarm on it for reasons of narrative juice for sales and ratings purposes, which are unreliable indicators of true importance (the Village Voice said "Lorenzana's story is made for TV", meaning she and her tight, tailored suits are so camera ready, baby). While the event is undetermined, it is impossible to establish notability just yet. For now, this remains an unresolved office dispute, where the employer counterargues work problems, the truth of which remains to be established by the arbitrator. In addition, this cannot become "a watershed event for women" as has been claimed, above, because no notable legal precedent can be established from this incident since Lorenzana is contractually bound to arbitration, so her complaint cannot be heard in court, because she was forced to surrender her legal right to sue her employer by signing a mandatory-arbitration clause as a condition of her employment: the fact that this employer's hiring condition is legal — ignored by business-friendly legislators — is the really big story everyone is missing; let's see a Wikipedia article about that! This is just a burning news story because Lorenzana is a red-hot babe; the mass media wouldn't pay much attention if she was plain because most of the public literally wouldn't look at the story. Sizzling beauty can confer many advantages but it is not yet a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. --O'Dea (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we have established guidelines here at Wikipedia. Both users above who want to keep it seem to be unaware of those guidelines, as their comments are nothing but crystalballing WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, she might land a high-profile career in media and this might have consequences for disrcimination in the workplace. At this stage, however, that is pure speculation. Wikipedia isn't a news service, we add notable events after they have become notable. The relevant question is not how notable this lady might be in the future, only how notable she is now. And she is a perfect example of a person notable for only one event.Jeppiz (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does not WP:HOTTIE indisputably apply here?--Milowent (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good one! :-) However, as one of the users who want to keep the article hasn't contributed anything else than the comment here and the other user also is very new, I'm afraid the irony might be lost - or that they cannot tell which guidelines are genuine :-) But yes, this is a very clear case of WP:HOTTIE, I'm the first to admit thatJeppiz (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who are we kidding, WP:RECENTism. (But I could be swayed by the arguments of WP:HOTTIE above) Padillah (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- As the article's original author I vote keep. Nonetheless, I would like to validate my stance as follows...
- WP:BASIC states that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. It is my understanding that as the person at hand, Debrahlee Lorenza, has indeed been the subject of of secondary source materials which qualify for WP:RS as this google news search would show.
- This article was nominated under the auspice that it fails WP:ONEEVENT. WP:ONEVENT states:

“

When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.

”

As she is the main focus of the event, she deserves her own article. In addition, I'd like to point out that there continues to be mainstream coverage on her as this CBS video from yesterday shows.

As for the slight POV...I tried to be neutral.Smallman12q (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole argument above builds on the assumption that this event is notable. Why would it be. Throughout the world, there are hundreds of similar cases each year, former employees suing the former employer. The only reason the yellow press has picked up this one is that the former employee not only looks great but also decided to pose for some sexy pictures to go with the store. So I argue that neither the event nor the individual is notable here, and I have yet to see an argument for why the opposite would be true, except for WP:HOTTIE.Jeppiz (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the press has decided to take notice of this individual is what makes her notable. Once again, I will reiterate what WP:BASIC states: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Debrahlee Lorenzana has indeed and continues to be a subject in published secondary source material which qualifies for WP:RS.Smallman12q (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're mistaken. If news coverage was the sole basis for judging if anyone is notable, there would be no point in having WP:ONEEVENT or WP:RECENT. What these policies explicitly states is that being mentioned in the news is not automatically enough.

I find it rather telling about this debate that you decide to pick an article about her having a boob-job to support her claim to fame. Once again, if she wasn't a WP:HOTTIE nobody would care about this, as there's nothing even remotely notable about the case itself.Jeppiz (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, WP:RECENT is not policy. The article entitled "Banking beauty Debrahlee Lorenzana had two boob jobs, wanted to be stacked like Playboy Playmate" was written by the Daily News (New York) which qualifies under WP:RS and is thus an applicable source. Here is what WP:EVENT states:

“

When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate...

”

As the coverage is focused primarily on the individual's role within the event, an article to cover the individual is appropriate.Smallman12q (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true - but that builds on the assumption that the event is notable. She isn't. She had her 15 minutes of fame around last weekend when the yellow press published her story and her juicy pictures. That's all there's to it. Due to her good looks and pictures she took she was briefly mentioned in the media. The buzz about her has already passed. Jeppiz (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have an aversion towards ambiguity...could you please explain what you mean by what you meant with "Yes, that's true"? I would also like to point out that there were articles published about her today, albeit fewer, but still there such as this one from fox and this one from CBS, both of which fall under WP:RS.Smallman12q (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you demonstrate that the few articles about her in the last days are all related to her breasts. There a LOT of relatively hot girls with implants that are mentioned more frequently in the media and over a longer period of time without having articles about them. The fact of the matter is that she was featured in the press for a few days due to her provocative pictures and her unconfirmed claim that she was fired for "being too hot". It looks very much like self-promotion and all interest in her case seems to be gone already, the only focus that remains is on her breasts, as your latest posts have all demonstrated.Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, this story never stops giving!!! Veoh comments: "4 days ago -- 0:12-0:29 is this Debrahlee Lorenzana???" "2 days ago - there goes the lawsuit." The notability of this woman keeps expanding!--Milowent (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Regardless of which section of the torso the media decides to focus its attention to, Debrahlee Lorenzana has thus far been subject to a minimum of 9 days of mainstream coverage and continues to be: 1, 2, 3. And as per WP:BASIC "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." As Debrahlee has been subjected to secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, she is thus notable enough for her own article.Smallman12q (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, she's nowhere close that notability. Compare with Claudia Lynx, who we recently deleted [13]. She is model for different brands, played the lead part in a film, has a music career and took part in a West Wing episode. And is much more of a WP:HOTTIE than Lorenzana, yet she was deleted. The yellow papers have a whole bunch of girls whose boobs they write about, we don't have articles for them all nor should we. Granted, if she does become regular in the media, for whatever reason, the story would change but that is just crytalballing. Your creating this article was very much premature - Wikipedia is not a news agency. Less than ten days after she went to the media with her juicy pictures and her unfounded claim, interest in her is gone. As it has not even been confirmed that she was fired for the reason she claims, quite the opposite, this looks like nothing more than a vain attempt for a girl to capture some headlines, and I don't understand why Wikipedia should help her. Explain again what is notable her, please.62.78.175.191 (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL concerns speculation, which does appear to be not relevant to this article. Rather, the nomination is based around the concern that Debrahlee Lorenzana is not notable and fails WP:EVENT. She is notable in that it is unusual for a Wall Street gender discrimination case to get attention as businessweek points out.

WP:BASIC states that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. You suggest that Claudi Lynx is far more notable than Lorenzana, yet a google news search returns 0 results. A google news search for Debrahlee Lorenzana shows a weeks worth of media coverage. As per WP:BASIC, Debrahlee Lorenzana is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If she has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, please point out your case.Smallman12q (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per great breakdown and policy interpretation by Smallman12q. I believe this indeed is a very significant event that must be recorded forever, that this happens in 2010 at a major bank. "Please quit coming to work because when we see you we are distracted and cannot work because we want to ...... you." What the heck is that?! Are these people orangutans? Do not delete this, leave on here for all time eternity. Thanks. Turqoise127 (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not? There's nothing even remotely significant here, former employees suing their former employers is very common. In this case, the former employee happens to look rather stunning and has posed for some provocative pictures so the media, the yellow press in particular, has jumped at it. That doesn't make the person notable in any sense.Jeppiz (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest userfying this article. That way we don't loose the pertinent information should this turn out to be significant at a later date. Padillah (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is notable because it received plenty of news coverage around the world. It doesn't matter that this happens with other cases all the time. This got worldwide media attention, and since it happened at such a major worldwide bank, other companies will now take notice and perhaps change their policies accordingly. Dream Focus 05:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again a user arguing for keep based on WP:CRYSTAL. You don't know if this will have any influence on companies or not, you're just speculating about what might happen in the future. I might be the prime minister of France, should we have an article about me?Jeppiz (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the keep arguments, ultimately, are holding up. I agree with deletion. 108.6.2.66 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hot girls easily are written about, so what? She was not famous ten days ago, she is forgotten after one week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.147.140 (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we explain Sarah Palin, then?--Milowent (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though the above remark is irrelevant to this discussion, there was a comparison of Sarah Palin and Debrahlee Lorenzana in this Village Voice blog today.Smallman12q (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I am going with a keep here because there is significant coverage of this person, actually unbelievable amounts of coverage of this person. I am surprised that no one has cited WP:BLP1E as why the article should not stay, but that would be the most appropriate policy reason to advocate for deletion. But I think she wants the attention, obviously, and would not object to this article existing. If deletion is the outcome, consider where, if anywhere, a short blurb on this event could be placed elsewhere on the project.--Milowent (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether this should be all over the news, it has been to the extent that it transcends WP:BLP1E. I wish it weren't so....Vartanza (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is widely searched for. We should keep it to present an neutral view on the discussion.

Delete I considered closing this as a delete, despite a few more !votes in favor of keeping, but think it would be better to cast an !vote and let somebody else act upon the rationale. Personally, I find this persons position to be nothing more than news. She is a momentary flash in the pan person who is trying to create something via a flash in the pan. If this person is truly notable, then there will be a court case/settlement that makes it so. She will only gain true lasting nobility if this actually materializes into something, otherwise she will be forgotten once the hupla is gone.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to OK Computer. T. Canens (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky (Radiohead song)[edit]

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

A non-notable song which does not meet the criteria at WP:NSONGS and is not covered in detail by multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. JD554 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Why don't you just redirect to OK Computer though?—indopug (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been redirected a number of times in the past, but keeps being reverted. --JD554 (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's always unfortunate. There are probably a number of other Radiohead songs that don't deserve their own articles too. Do you want to add them to this nomination?—indopug (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one has been reverted more often and recently. I've tried redirecting a couple of others, we'll see how that goes. --JD554 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the song has information and is notable, like the album OK Computer. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way exactly does the article meet WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG? The article has no reliable sources. --JD554 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OK Computer It has tenuous claims to notability due to it being covered by 3 notable acts. However, due to a lack of coverage of this song it should be redirected to its parent album as per the guidelines at WP:NSONG. If the redirect needs protecting then protect it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OK Computer and then protect the re-direct page to prevent further tampering. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OK Computer per Dylanfromthenorth. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OK Computer per Dylanfromthenorth. Geeky Randy (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top Shot[edit]

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

Non-Notable TV show. Only refs I can find are non favourable reviews - such as this one from tv.com "At some point you are probably pushing the boundaries of niche television, even in the reality competition genre, and History's Top Shot might be edging right up to the line. " - nothing else on Gnews. Codf1977 (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds unimaginably boring, but the precedent is very strong that primetime US television shows on major cable networks get articles. The (negative) reviews are sparse but they're from the LA Times and NPR, which are pretty solid sources by our standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of the participants are certainly notable in the shooting world and the show is on a major network as mentioned. The show combines elements of historically significant firearms and other weapons and despite the reality format, which some may find objectionable, it has historical value. National security geek (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The participants are well-known in that world, and it remains to be seen whether the show will be a hit or not. Even if it's not a hit, it's still notable for being on a major network. 96.60.13.125 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-promoted show on well-known network. Nomination is likely too fast also, as for now press releases, feature interviews and snap judgments (like those listed above) talk about the show. Near its premiere more of the critical reviews will begin to come out and be more apparent. Nate • (chatter) 00:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the show is only one episode into its premiere season, it is too soon to see whether it will become noteworthy. This show also falls into a similar vein as other shows like "Mail Call", "Weaponology", "Future Weapons", and reality shows like "Combat Missions" and "Special Ops Mission", which although have for the most part been cancelled or met with mixed success, all have entries here on Wikipedia. Unless there are plans to remove those entries, there does not appear to be a reasonable argument to delete this one. On a side note (if it matters),the person who nominated the show for deletion, while quoting a review, did not apparently actually read the review, as it was a favorable one. Unless I am somehow grossly mistaken, that would imply that he/she either didn't actually read the review and then quoted it, or was being deliberately deceitful, for reasons unknown.

"It's a surprisingly fun show, and watching the teams figure out how to face the challenges is far more interesting than you'd guess. It's also rather interesting to get a feel for these weapons, and how they are actually used. Plus, getting a glimpse at how difficult these things are to do adds quite a bit to the show. When these people miss a few times (or a lot), you get a bit of perspective. Then again, watching the rest of the participants watch someone miss a lot is rather entertaining as well." -this quote is from the exact same link that Codf1977 posted a link for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baumanrm (talk • contribs) 08:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice to recreation once reliable sources are found. Shimeru 07:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hokenshitsu no Shinigami[edit]

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

Non-notable manga that fails WP:BK and WP:NOTE. A search for reliable sources comes up with illegal scanlation and social media websites. Previously prodded. —Farix (t | c) 13:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 13:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any Shonen Jump manga is definitely notable. With a circulation around 3 million, SJ titles are at the absolute top of the industry. To put that number in perspective, a top-tier US comic title like X-Men might manage 80,000 or so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being serialized in a manga magazine does not make something notable and is not a criteria of WP:BK or WP:NOTE and entire are sells figures. There are plenty of Shōnen Jump serializations that aren't notable. —Farix (t | c) 17:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no coverage in reliable sources, and I'm not impressed by the WP:BIGNUMBER circulation figures argument.—S Marshall T/C 20:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If millions of people read the manga magazine it is featured in, then it is a notable manga, by rule of common sense, as I have stated many times before. Obviously the staff at that magazine are better judges of what is notable than any of us. If they didn't know what they were doing, they wouldn't have been around since July 2, 1968 with 2,809,362 million readers. And obviously other magazines are not going to review what their competition carries. Nor are the few books out there anyone has about manga, going to constantly release new updated versions, listing every notable manga series there is. Dream Focus 03:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BK and WP:N, lacking any actual significant coverage in reliable sources. What magazine it was serialized in does not make it notable by any stretch of the imagination, nor can anyone claim how many people have read it just because how many people have subscribed to it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but combine with several of the other pages on less notable Shonen Jump series to create a list, with links to the pages for series that are notable enough to have their own pages; it would rather absurd for something to be notable without its contents not being notable enough for such a page.174.98.43.150 (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CSE hits show nothing useful. --Gwern (contribs) 17:20 10 June 2010 (GMT)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. -DJSasso (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of family relations in the NHL[edit]

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

~~After reading WP:LISTCRUFT I'm convinced that the underlying principle of inclusion is not notable and neither is the article. Sandman888 (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep, the sources given seem to include enough about NHL family relations in general to make the topic a notable one. Polarpanda (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept of related players in the NHL is something discussed by RSes and other publications: [14], [15], [16], [17]. Reso lute 02:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per above. Would appreciate if refs where incorporated into lede. Sandman888 (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laasya Arts[edit]

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

Not notable. Advertisement. Algernon Moncrieff (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tagtool (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elf Only Inn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Webcomic which may fail WP:GNG. The Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards are not really "significant" awards. Claritas § 12:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - most recent AFD discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elf Only Inn 4, lead to no consensus. Claritas § 12:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - proposers OPINION about the WCCA notwithstanding, this is a wonderful, groundbreaking webcomic that has specific importance to the webcomic community. I would have you note that this is the fourth attempt to remove this comic, why must people persist in futility? Timmccloud (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, WP:N. Strongly suggest that closing admin be on the lookout for any WP:ILIKEIT votes or anyone who wants to keep it just because it's been AFDed before. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why does it appear that personal opinion nominations like this only ever make it to four nominations on topics like webcomics? There's no grounds to be challenging notability again. Also, the immediate accusation against anyone who votes "keep" is rather uncalled for. Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provide some significant coverage in reliable sources to support your claim of notability then. Claritas § 15:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provide some significant coverage in reliable sources to support your claim that the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards was not "significant" for 2004. That is your own personal claim, and the only thing that you have new to bring to the table for a 4th nomination. You want a 4th nomination? I suggest you give better reasoning than use the word significant in quotation marks. Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BURDEN. It is on those who support keeping or adding content which the burden of finding sources which indicate the notability of the subject (or the significance of the awards for that matter). I'm using the word "significant" in quotation marks, because I'm quoting policy blah which says that if awards are used as a justification of the notability on a subject, the award should be significant. Regards. Claritas § 16:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to be more specific: what has changed to warrant another nomination? As far as I can tell, the only change is likely less current readers as well as less people watching the article. Neither of which changes the notability of the comic, because the notability is not based on how many people are editing the article now. All of this was brought up in the last nomination (including the "significance" of the WCCA), which obviously did not pass, so you're going to have to excuse me when I say that the burden of bringing something new to this discussion is up to you. This is nothing but an absolutely frivolous nomination. Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't closed as keep, it was closed as no consensus. And there are in my view inherent problems with the article which I outlined in my nomination. Please be civil, and contribute positively to the discussion. Claritas § 16:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You outline one, making claim against the WCAA as a valid award. A claim which I have pointed out was used in previous nominations (on this and other pages) and was refuted. You wish for additional evidence to be used against additional unspecified claims of "inherent problems" which you will obviously get (when I have the time to gather them up, as I am currently doing). Be civil in turn and elaborate more than the one point, otherwise I will be forced to assume that is your only claim. Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comic also fails WP:GNG, Claritas § 16:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this is basically a rehash of the previous nomination, I'll simply quote the most pertinent bit.

"Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" (emphasis not mine). One of those criteria is: "2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6]" The footnote for this item is: "Examples of such awards: Eisner Awards, Bloggies, Webby Awards or Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards"

And as noted previously, this direct reference to WP:WEB covers both the validity of the award and that this award is sufficient to cover notability. In full disclosure, it should be noted that WP:WEB no longer lists specific examples like it did at the time of the previous nomination. This does not invalidate the WCCA, as it is not a specific removal of that award but a removal of all such awards. Human.v2.0 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're dealing with the current policy, not the historic policy. Claritas § 20:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how policy has changed, as opposed to WP:WEB simply not listing any examples. There is a difference. Human.v2.0 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The examples were removed because articles on content which won those awards was being regularly deleted here on the grounds of notability. Claritas § 20:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here's a precedent - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freefall (webcomic). Claritas § 20:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's on hiatus.RussianReversal (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, WP:N. No coverage at all in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards" are neither 1) well-known nor 2) independent. They 1) are of questionable notability themselves and 2) are hosted by the same site that hosted this webcomic. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Heather.RussianReversal (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WCCA has been determined to be a significant award in its last two deletion discussions. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not anymore. See WP:Articles for deletion/Freefall (webcomic) for a precedent and WP:CCC because consensus can change and has changed since the last 2 DD's.RussianReversal (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion of Freefall was a mistake and against the rules. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any "rules" on Wikipedia, per WP:IAR and WP:BURO. If you think that the decision was wrong, take it to deletion review. As it is, it stands as consensus. Claritas § 12:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This discussion seems to be entirely over whether the award is sufficiently notable or not, and no longer over specifically Elf Only Inn. I vote Keep this article until this discussion is resolved. I further vote that this discussion should be moved to a page related to WCCA (I don't know which one is relevant), and apply to ALL webcomics in similar circumstances (Since this discussion is no longer about EOI). Once this discussion is resolved, on THAT page, then this article can be deleted/kept without further reservation. -Terrafire123 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)— Terrafire123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- (Incidently, I personally believe that the award IS sufficiently notable, for reasons listed by others earlier, and therefore this article should be kept. But that is irrelevent to my other motion.) -Terrafire123 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the fifth deletion discussion and still nobody has been able to identify any significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, the primary requirement of the general notability guideline. The nomination comes down to whether winning a single Web Cartoonists' Choice Award is enough to be the basis of an encyclopaedia article or meet the provision in specific notability guideline for web content which states "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". Personally I do not think that one award of this type is enough when no reliable sources cover the fact that the award has been won. Effectively it means all the information in the article is sourced to primary sources - the information on the comic from the comic's website, the information on the award from the award's website. As a side note it has been four years since the last AfD (which ended in no consensus). Many things have changed on Wikipedia in that time, the consensus about this article could be one of them - I don't think the nominator deserves to be accused of any wrong doing for asking for the community's opinion on the matter. Guest9999 (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the WCCA is from the same company as EOI. That means that even if it is notable, you have to make sure it's not self-promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 19:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any third party coverage of this. Does not appear to meet the criteria. Enigma^msg 23:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article has existed for over 5 years, and still the only references for it are a 12-word blog post and a WCAA award site that simply lists the winners with no discussion about them? If there are any sources which are actually about the subject which might shed some light on why it's notable, then I think 5 years is a long enough time to find them. SnottyWong talk 01:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyu Chinen[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 29th April 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment This makes me sad: Kenyu Chinen is a 9th dan from a famous Okinawan family who has never taken the time to get his name in the news. Karate-Bushido Magazine October 2001 Number 294 [18] has an article but it is out-of-print. An Okinawan TV group did a video with him.[19] But he has neglected his publicity: he does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, he does not deserve to be in our encyclopedia. jmcw (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying there are sources that show he's notable, even if they're out of print? I assume not, based on your comment, but I'm not positive. The article doesn't make a good case for him being notable. Astudent0 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not exist - he is too young and there is little public press for Okinawan martial arts. I am frustrated at the world that an animated panda has good sources and a gentleman from an old Okinawan family does not. jmcw (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article that fails to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on previous comments. Article fails to make a case for notability. Astudent0 (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Railroader culture[edit]

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

"Railroader culture" as a term for ignorance of safety regulations for more efficiency lacks notability. The article claims that the term was coined by the investigating judge Foisy in the aftermath of the Hinton train collision in Canada, but I cannot see that the term has been used in this manner since. I have found no sources which make a big deal out of the phrase "railroader culture". I believe that in most cases the term is used in its neutral and literal meaning; i.e. the culture among people who work on the railway system. Only one Wikipedia article points at this article (Hinton train collision) and that one already covers the issue of lax safety far more comprehensively. I cannot see much use of a redirect or merge since "railroader culture" is not a plausible search term for any specific rail accident; it would also be an insult to rail employees, and a violation of NPOV, to equate "railroader culture" with "ignorance of safety regulations". Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. This [20] pretty well says it all. Why someone thought this merited its own article is beyond me. Mandsford 12:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd imagine there's a fascinating article to be written about railroad culture, but this isn't it or the start of it, this is a dicdef based on something someone said regarding an accident a quarter century ago. This sort of article is worse than nothing because it frustrates readers' expectations: there should be an article here, but there isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 7 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. T. Canens (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breanne Benson[edit]

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

Tagged with notability concerns. Possible failure of GNG & PORNBIO. EuroPride (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 13:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails each of the 4 points of Wikipedia:PORNBIO#Pornographic_actors_and_models. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 15:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The actress was already nominated in 2005 for an AVN Award right after she retired in 2004 after barely 2 years in business. In the middle of 2009 she came back and just 6 months later she was already featured by several sources like for example this and this in connection with advancements in 3D adult entertainement which seems about to become a new trend in that field and which very well could match point 3 of WP:PORNBIO. I found these points enough to justify the creation of an article about her. Moreover I am also convinced that the chances for her to be at least nominated a second time are very high, so also point 2 would be matched. Meanwhile serveral editors helped to get the article more neutral, encyclopedic and better referenced, this in just a few weeks. Currently she is shot (among others) for Penthouse and also appears in the latest Marc Dorcel movie which seems to get quite some coverage in French sources (e.g. here and here). As the article is not so terribly bad (i.e. compareable with some others in that category) and a lack of notabilitly is not clearly obvious, I do not see the point to already rush for deletion. The article about Jenna Jameson existed for nearly 2 years only as stub without any references, now it is a featured one. This article is only 6 weeks old and there may still be other sources that would add to notability. There were already gnews hits for her and even a small appearance in a mainstream news channel - aside from many interviews for adult news sites. Testales (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It doesn't matter if you find high the odds that she will be nominated a second time. She needs to be nominated in multiple years per point 2 of Wikipedia:PORNBIO#Pornographic_actors_and_models, so she is not notable per Wikipedia policies, as she has was nominated only once. Criterias are there to be met and she doesn't meet them. This article is just self-promoting the pornstar when she doesn't deserve to have an article. -_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 18:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to take it so very exactly, please also note thate it is NOT a policy but "only" a guideline (for a reason) and even a disputed one. That is quite a difference. I won't reply to the "self-promoting" argument in detail as that is very subjective and not helpful, especially as several users already edited the article in order to make it NOT promotional looking. Testales (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Virtually no BLP-reliable sourcing, either -- for example, the text accompanying a Hustler pictorial (as with most other porn mags) is typically fictive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I bascially I agree that text accompanying such pictorials is often fictive (for my defense: I took it from the predecessor of the article thinking it would be ok that way) actually only the sentence claiming her to be cheerleader in her youth is affected. Everything else should also be confirmed by the other sources which not fit your "Virtually no BLP-reliable sourcing" template. I also wonder why something apparently rather unimportant as a porn star needs to have a reference every 2 words. I think I also read here something about to prevent over-referencing and indeed most of the more "serious" (scientific/historical) articles have a much lower reference-frequency than it seems to be generally the case for porn related BLPs (and this only for about 2 years). Testales (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP. Potential harm to the reputation of living persons is considered much more significant than, say, potential harm to the reputation of molybdenum. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep- I think this is not promoting, serveral users edited so they where intrested!--Vinie007 14:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is the only albanian pornstar, so i don't mean she is unimportant to her job, for example: At the beginning of the year 2010 she was part of the promotion of a new 3D TV system at the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas.[8] In connection with this, she appeared in several films which are among the first pornographic 3D productions. --Vinie007 10:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources fails the notability guidelines. A single award nomination fails the pornbio guidelines. Neither keep entry addresses this adequately. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 01:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Cova[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO & GNG EuroPride (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 17:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes PORNBIO with multiple years of nominations. Seems to pass GNG with the amount of coverage XBIZ [21][22] and AVN[23] give her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Testales (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes PORNBIO. Agree with Morbidthoughts, also appears to pass general with room to spare.Horrorshowj (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close per meeting WP:PORNBIO through win and multiple nominations over multiple years. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Asha[edit]

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

backing singer; unreferenced article and stub since September 2008. WP is not MySpace Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoo Ye Eun[edit]

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

I believe this falls into the context of WP:ONEVENT. having an unusual ability is in itself not enough for notability. and she only gets coverage for this talent. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Nom. Codf1977 (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only notable for one thing. Joe Chill (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 no indication of notability Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MathZee[edit]

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

New company with no indication of meeting WP:ORG. noq (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as per nom; also as per WP:CSD#G11. Codf1977 (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 01:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atlético Peruano[edit]

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

Club played in the very first amateur leagues between 1912-1921 of Peruvian football;
Runner-up of 1915, despite no source;
Very few records exist of this era or club;
Lack of sources
Club most likely no longer exists MicroX (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - runner up of the national league shows notability in my eyes. Giant Snowman 01:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in the Peruvian top-level and finished runner up in one season. Have amended the article to focus the references relating to this. Eldumpo (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get Zephyr (Test Management System)[edit]

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

Fixed malformed nomination for Testmanagementwiki (talk · contribs). His statement in the edit summary was: "getzephyr, a small company, does not follow notability guidelines". No opinion from me. cab (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although the paid editor is doing it for cash, the article reads like spam to me. Rohedin ^TALK 16:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Jusdafax 17:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't read as spam to me (although the intention behind the placing of the article is possibly another matter...). I do fail to see the notability of the outfit being established. I am not quite sure what their product is actually supposed to do (even after reading the article four times), but wonder what the point is if MS Excel is a competitor. Maybe it is to save you the trouble of setting up a spreadsheet. Only one of the references seems to be from a reliable source (assuming the SD Times is such), and that reads like a press release rather than an independent review. I do wish Zephyr luck, but feel more needs to be done before their article finds a home here. Peridon (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Original poster — Testmanagementwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 7 07:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Dr. Sospeter Muhongo[edit]

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

Declined A7 nominee. Currently fails WP:BIO, and comments on the talk page seem to confirm this. Seems like a big resume rather than an article to me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC

Comment - A Professor should be notable, however the page is a mess and needs clearing up. Codf1977 (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD G11, as the "article" is purely promotional. SchuminWeb is right to say it is more of a resume than an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above comment. The guy may be notable but article would have to be retitled without "Professor Dr" and rewritten from scratch.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced BLP, and nn bio. I'm not sure it is blatant promotion. Promotion kind of implies that you might leave the page with a favorable impression, and that pile of text definitely doesn't do that. Syrthiss (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is because it a is poor attempt at promotion, not because promotion is not its aim. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear to me that there is some self-promotion going on somewhere here, but it's not obvious to me that there's any self-promotional intent in our article itself. It could merely be attempting to document in an unbiased way the self-promotion that the subject has performed in his academic circles. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unreferenced BLP Jusdafax 16:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GregJackP (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable person. I searched Google and Google News for refs, found nothing but blogs and promotional pages, absolutely nothing on Google News. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This comment seems bizarre to me, as I had no difficulty locating several news stories about him on Google news archive (mostly ones such as this about his failed candidacy to be the head of UNESCO). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As editor-in-chief of the Journal of African Earth Sciences [24] he passes WP:PROF #8. Several of the claims on his article are verifiable and seem to indicate passes of WP:PROF #2, #3, and #6. His failed candidacy for Director General of UNESCO may be enough for WP:GNG (though it may not, as WP:POLITICIAN usually considers failed candidates to be insufficiently notable). The article needs a lot of work but AfD is not cleanup. And the long list of titles carries a whiff of self-promotion (as Syrthiss hints) but we should be basing our decisions on what can actually be documented about him not on our opinions of his style. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, we should probably speedy delete the subject's resume and clear the way for a well-written, well-sourced, neutral article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USniff[edit]

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

Non-notable website that has made no impact on it's field. I can find one newsarticle from 2008 announcing this site, but other than that I suspect this wiki is being used solely as an advertisement. Renox (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a speedy deletion candidate per G11 but not a notable search engine. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like spam to me. USniff gives priority to a bunch of paid-subscriber-only websites (cineble, filmlush, flixaddict, itshd, pushplay & reelhd) that look the same to me and all the ones I checked use a whois privacy service (USniff uses same whois privacy service as most of ones I listed). --EarthFurst (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Every engine provides paid-subscriber links, so that should not be detrimental to USniff. In the same vein, the implication that domain registry privacy services are a negative feature is incorrect. In fact, PushPlay, reelhd, cineble, filmlush, flixaddict, itshd are all partnered with film studios and are therefore feeding revenue into the industry. Based on its Alexa growth over the last 7 months, USniff has grown 500% in that period. It is also listed in the yahoo directory. As for the engine itself, it is one of the leading AJAX-based engines. As noted above regarding significant coverage, that is the nature of the niche, there is not significant coverage on many major engines, more often than not there are simply primarily reports from statistical sites. I would suggest not deleting this entry and allowing USniff to prove it's continuing growth pattern. --Dannyplus (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no arguments for deletion aside from nom JForget 01:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ketab Sara Co.[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plenty of WP:ITEXISTS hits showing them as a publisher, but nothing actually about them. Therefore fails WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Assuming good faith on offline foreign-language sources added to article - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Ketab Sara Co., an Iranian established, locally notorious publisher doing an outstanding cultural job under duress, does not qualify as notable, I am afraid no Iranian publisher would do. Wikipedia should not take an ethnocentric view of notability--we do not want Wikipedia to include article about publishers based only in developed countries (with web-evident notability). Note that Amir Kabir (still active) and Caravan (no more active) are the only Iranian publishers that have Wiki articles, and no 'Publishing companies of Iran' category has yet been created. This mean a serious problem, disregard or neglect of cultural diversity. Suggestions are most welcome to find a solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brotons (talk • contribs) 09:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why any Iranian publisher should necessarily be notable. The test is the same for everyone; significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Either you have it or you don't. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the three references already included in the article, a dozen of news media coverage references will be added with the next 24 or 72 hours. Note that the Amirkabir (publisher) article (corresponding to the only other active Iranian publisher in the English Wikipedia) includes no references. Brotons (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eight references added, Ketab Sara Co. meets Wikipedia notability criteria for organisations and corp. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP)

1. Added references indicate substantial international, and national news media coverage. These were selected out of a file of about sixty news media references. More references will be added if needed, yet according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP "Notability requires only that ... necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article."

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP points out, and asks for avoiding, the kind of bias that has led Alan Liefting to propose deletion. Indeed, it says: "Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations."

3. Contrary to Alan Liefting's reactions to my comments on his talk page, Ketab Sara Co.'s cultural role in the Iranian context is a factor in evaluating its notability. Indeed, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP: "When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."

Brotons (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most added references given to internationally distributed Iranian newspapers or magazines in English, so easily verifiable (at least 6 of them) Brotons (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to now be a plethora of references, and although I am unable to evaluate them myself I assume they are valid. They need to be formatted correctly as refs, though. Herostratus (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 15:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Higgs[edit]

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

BLP with no sources, only with a link to what is supposedly this guy's official website (oddly, all in Spanish despite the fact that he is American according to this article). Also, most of the links on the website lead to blank pages. How much of this is real, and how much is made up? I can't tell. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - Was verifiably a professional basketballer for the Seattle Supersonics (a National Basketball Association team) (as here) which entitles him to a presumption of notability per WP:ATHLETE and Wikipedia:NSPORT#Basketball. News searches here suggest significant coverage sufficient to pass WP:N in any case. Were good faith searches performed before this nomination was made? - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete - the nom is based on the fact that this is a WP:BLP without any refs, if refs can be found then will reconsider. No comment on the issue of WP:N Codf1977 (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is ref'ed Codf1977 (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The test per WP:V and WP:N is not whether the page is referenced, but whether the page could be referenced. There's no controversial information in this article capable of raising BLP concerns. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As of this comment, the article is no longer unreferenced. Although it could still use a lot of work, preferably from someone who knows and/or cares about the world of college and professional basketball. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Higgs never played a regular season game for the Sonics. Based on the date (October 27) of this article, he was probably waived before the regular season began. Still, he came close to being an NBA player, and he may be notable for his overseas career. This would be a good one-stop source for info on his years in basketball, but I don't subscribe to the site, and I'm not aware of any Wikipedians who do. Zagalejo^^^ 05:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Looks like this guy is notable, and real, after all. When I first saw the article, I didn't know; I thought the article and the accompanying website might be someone's idea of a tasteless joke, since the name "Nate Higgs" (or "Nate Higgers") is frequently used by Internet trolls as a racist gag name/spoonerism. However, the article now clarifies (with multiple reliable sources) that that is not the case and that this person is definitely real, and notable. As a result, I am withdrawing my AFD nomination effective immediately. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herocore[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY - I cannot locate significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Airplaneman ✈ 02:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources in article (which were added after this nomination was made). IGN and Rock Paper Shotgun are both reliable sources for videogames and both have given the game significant coverage. It therefore passes WP:N. (It could use a tidy and rewrite, though.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom or userfy Codf1977 (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Minor coverage in blogs seems to be about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The coverage in IGN and Rock Paper Shotgun above is not minor (dedicated articles) and while both sites bill themselves as blogs they are nevertheless reliable news outlets with an editorial staff. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's already there would be pretty minimal alone, but there's a dirty great dump of a source on Big Download (AOL), as well as a smidgeon on Jay is Games. Passes notability IMO due to cumulative weight of sourcing. Someone another 20:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exclusive coverage in RS such as IGN, and by subject matter expert Kieron Gillen. The game Iji by the same creator also received significant attention. decltype (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The IGN, RPS and Big Download sources are reliable and significant. Marasmusine (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and please ask next time. Jumping straight to the last-ditch option causes all sorts of avoidable unpleasantness. --Kiz o r 22:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fun management[edit]

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

POV essay, original research, referenced almost entirely with unreliable sources. Creator removed PROD tag without explanation. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the original author says it best. There are no sources or any real definition of this management style. Nothing to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per article text: "there is no exact definition or sources about it". Article topic does not have sufficient coverage to pass WP:N and may also lack sufficient context for other editors to meaningfully improve the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom, GB fan & DustFormsWords. Codf1977 (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not encyclopedic. Jusdafax 17:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Essay, OR, speculation, errors, etc. Hairhorn (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CONCACAF club coefficients[edit]

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

CONCACAF does not use club coefficients. The sources used are from 2 blogs and 1 forum. This qualifies as original research. MicroX (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research on something which doesn't actually exist...Giant Snowman 01:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not a sports guy so this article is gibberish to me. But in any case, even if the article topic did exist, there would be no good reason it couldn't be covered on the main CONCACAF article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources that such a formula exists. -Koppapa (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a very clear cas of WP:OR and a clear cut deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms using the words "latent" or "latency"[edit]

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

This is a partial duplication of Latency and most of the other entries are rather iffy IMO (latent geologic fault?). SDRAM latency (as well as CAS latency) could be mentioned in Latency (engineering). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an appropriate use of a disambiguation page per WP:DISAMBIG. ("A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion.") Also not an appropriate topic for a list per WP:SALAT. Unencyclopedic content. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate and pointless list. I don't see how having the word "latent" or "latency" in a concept's name is somehow a defining criterion. JIP | Talk 05:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:SALAT by miles. Maybe this be placed at WP:DAFT once deleted? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:IINFO. This is really indiscriminate. Claritas § 10:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (vf|M☯ 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:NALBUMS -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. -Reconsider ! 11:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't understand this nomination. Knowing that Justin/Koavf nominates a lot of demo articles for deletion, I'm assuming that he mistook this for a demo. However, it's not - it's a full album by a notable band which is (arguably) sourced and contains more information than merely a track listing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources are not reliable, much of the text is still unsourced and has {{tone}} problems, and it appears to be a demo album--if not, it was released on two redlink record labels. It may well be notable, but that's not clear from the article as it stands. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It's described both in the article and at Dark Domination as a debut album, which gives it a rebuttable presumption of notability per WP:NALBUMS as an album of a notable band consisting of more than simply a track listing (which is to say that, even were it not to have independent notability, it would warrant an article as a spun-out section of the band's article). Lack of reliable sources isn't a reason to delete (see WP:STUB) unless notability is in doubt or WP:HOAX is invoked. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band itself has no claim of noability, so the album does not b definition. No reliable sources providing significant coveage whatsoever. The authors need to ad WP:GARAGEBAND. 13:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

See here —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An AfD for Dark Domination having been opened, the band should be presumed notable pending the outcome there. Re my keep vote above, that should be interpreted as Keep if Dark Domination survives AfD, delete if it doesn't. The album should stand or fall with the band. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 01:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting whilst the AfD for the band continues. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Domination has been closed as "keep" --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Horror[edit]

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

"Experimental film" with no notability and that has not been released, and it's unclear as to whether it has been made yet. PROD declined. Propose delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The director of the film is apparently only 12 years old. If a film directed by a pre-teen warranted an article, there would be plenty of reliable sources available for citing. There aren't, and it isn't. —C.Fred (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I agree with C.Fred, and add that the director of this film created the page, so there may be a conflict of interest as well. Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 01:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable film , I coulnd not find enough reliable, independent sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and well everyone else above ! Codf1977 (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete since this is a youtube video extremely unlikely to get a physical release it can be safely deleted as non-notable web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this does get released and gets some decent coverage, we might consider its return... but for now, it's simply TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete: Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The relist seems to have given sufficient time to find sufficient good sources DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apple (automobile)[edit]

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

Declined prod and speedy about what appears to be a hoax. It's hard to search because of the common name, but I did a comprehensive search and I can find no information about this car ever being in existence. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the creator made the article in July 2004 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It wasn't a hoax [25]. However, the article's author was one of those people who didn't worry about such inconveniences as proof, and in 2004, Wikipedia was in its days where sourcing was as optional. There may be some automobile afficionados who want to write a real article about this one, from early 20th century when everyone wanted to be a car manufacturer. For now, I see no reason to keep. Mandsford 21:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep The page on the Ohio state inspection reports proves that the company existed. While the actual article needs work, I think the underlying topic is notable. But, on the other side, somebody could create a better article later.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mild~~ Keep I once thought this article was a hoax, but I've found several references to it in the last few years. None of them make a good reference for the article, but show that the company was real. It looks like it was one of several automobile companies in Dayton around this time (see Speedwell Motor Car Company and Dayton Electric). The articles on these companies are all very brief. I think a good article on this company is possible, but it will take someone who is interested in Dayton history, and is willing to track down some of the references linked to above. Unfortunately, given the state of the other Dayton automobile company pages, I don't think we have that person on Wikipedia yet.HornColumbia (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article really should have had an orphan tag, but I was able to add a few links to it.HornColumbia (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm glad to see the information that's added, but the links to your source appear to have been overlooked. It's actually very easy to cite information. One can either put brackets around the url link, or, even better, highlight a link or book reference, then go down to the ref-slashref command next to "Cite your sources" and click on it. It took me more than a year to realize that shortcut. Throw in the word reflist in curly brackets and it's done. Mandsford 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These were internal page to page links, not links to external sources.HornColumbia (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and, although it apparently existed, no actual proof of notability. Dayton, Ohio, appears to have had two automobile manufacturers that have articles, so this doesn't even seem to be more than a bit of trivia in Dayton history. I'll admit that the idea of an automobile called an Apple is interesting, and without more, one can only speculate about why it was called that-- perhaps it was red in color, perhaps it was a surname, perhaps it was a small car, or perhaps it wasn't a lemon. Mandsford 02:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, company can be proved to have existed. Sources will exist (e.g. contemporary newspapers) that can be used to back up info in the article. Needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It did in fact exist as demonstrated by Mandsford. The lack of sources found on the internet is most likely due to the historic nature of the subject, not its lack of notability. --Pink Bull 01:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep precedent is to keep automobile brands regardless of age or level of success. I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt that sources do exist, although being an unsuccessful product from the 1910s it's not wholly surprising that the sources may not be readily available online. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NRVE. I can't find any evidence of it meeting the general notability guideline, although it may well do, but I'm !voting delete until someone can find a reliable source to back the article's content up. Claritas §

Revised !vote to Keep - clearly meets notability guidelines. Claritas § 14:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reference added to article. I found this reference and added it to the article. I consider any early 20th century manufacturer of automobiles to be notable because of the difficulties in making such a product. Since the subject is now verifiable by a published secondary source, the article should be kept. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work ¢Spender1983. Now who's going to go dig up a photo??? HornColumbia (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert College International Model United Nations[edit]

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

I believe the consensus has been that individual college model UNs are not notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Individual examples of Model United Nations are presumptively not notable. (Due to the variation in the use of the word "college", this is actually a model UN sponsored by a high school.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MicroX (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Codf1977 (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 7 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 01:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everette Minchew[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this musician. Also does not appear to meet any of the specific notability requirements for musicians. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and DustFormsWords.Codf1977 (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but wishing subject the best of luck Vartanza (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Road[edit]

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

I cannot find any reliable sources that even briefly mention this road. - EdoDodo ^talk 17:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this is actually a neighborhood of Dhaka, not a road. Either way it's completely unverified, and I can't find any reliable sources to even verify its existence, much less its notability. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a plethora of sources mentioning the subject and verifying its existence here and here, so the arguments above don't hold water. I have to go to bed now so I'll leave it to others to go through those sources to check for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources mention the subject, but most of them only do so as part of an address on the road itself (which isn't even the subject of the article), and there don't appear to be any sources which meet the GNG, which is necessary for neighborhoods. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so those sources prove its existence, but they're only brief mentions, that do not establish notability. - EdoDodo ^talk 15:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. Sources demonstrate coverage sufficient to found a presumption of notability per WP:N; however that presumption is rebutted by the road, and its coverage, being "common, everyday, ordinary" and of a kind that "does not stand out from all the rest". In short, no evidence that this road is more notable than any other road. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:02, 7 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 01:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fremont Police Department (Nebraska)[edit]

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

Police department of city of only 26,000. Nothing significant is asserted. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to merge to Fremont, Nebraska. I can't find significant coverage outside of local coverage every local police department will have. No indication it is notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MicroX (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Recent reliable citations have been added to the article with a lede paragraph improvement that demonstrates notability. Other citations are available if you do a "YTriKc_search" as listed on my userpage. I apologize but I have a major league headache and need to lie down. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This does not meet any of the criteria of speedy keep. Two primary sources and a local news story about the department getting new rifles does not establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm surprised user:Joe Chill didn't make a comment. If it was not Speedy Keep before, it will be in about two hours. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work, but I still don't think that notability is shown. At least at the moment. Joe Chill (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'd like to see evidence that this is the largest police agency in the area, but I'm not sure that is possible to prove. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. Local police agencies can be notable; see Genesee_County_Sheriff's_Office_(New_York) for an example. However, I do not see much for this article. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Domination[edit]

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

Essentially unsourced--as the sources provided are not reliable--and only the most tenuous assertion of notability--"Dark Domination is the only black metal band of Latvian origin that is a part of the Second Wave black metal." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Relevant coverage here and here. It's marginal, and everything I read about the band makes them sound more ridiculous, but given two English language sources and the presumption of additional non-English sources it should be enough to pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources uncovered by DustFormsWords. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Benjamin Taylor[edit]

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

This appears to be a combination of two Hugh Taylors. Per resume on http://www.hughtaylorsite.com/, there is no evidence this Taylor is associated with the TV or film industry. The non-entertainment industry individual appears to lack notability per WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They are actually the same person. See http://www.hughtaylor.com - He worked in the film and TV industry, and continues to do so on small documentary projects, while working in technology and serving on the faculty of UC Berkeley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvingfeld (talk • contribs) Note: User:Irvingfeld is the author of the article.
Delete on the grounds of non-notability - plus a kind of fishy feeling I get about the article. For example, the article says he is "on the faculty of the University of California’s School of Information and Law School (Boalt Hall,)" but the current faculty profile page for Boalt Hall [26] does not list him and neither does the faculty profile page for UC Berkeley School of Information [27]. The article supplies a link to a UC Boalt page that describes him as a lecturer, but it also mentions an "upcoming" book in 2008, so my hunch is that is an old page and he is no longer with them. One of his books is published by a major publisher, Wylie, but I can't find any reviews or other sources to support WP:AUTHOR. The other is from Lone Eagle Publishing Company which appears to publish mostly directories and catalogs [28]. Clearly some of the information on the page is incorrect or outdated, but even taking it all at face value, it's hard to see what criterion for notability he satisfies. Certainly not WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not clear to me that all of the information in this article refers to the same person. In particular, http://www.hughtaylor.com/About_Hugh_Taylor.html mentions nothing about the subject's alleged career as a television producer. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 7 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) 00:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbot[edit]

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

Non-notable subject. 11.5 minute pilot episode is covered in the ATHF article. No references given. Mostly subjective information a large amount of which is in an unsourced "Trivia" section. Mjpresson (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge At the worst, mergeable. No need to come here to do it. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 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. T. Canens (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Anna Everhard[edit]

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

Young actress who has two one-episode appearances, ~~once~~ twice appeared on a daytime talk show, and had a part in The Clique, a minor direct-to-video movie. (Tyra Banks executive produced The Clique, which is why she appeared on the Tyra Banks show.) Fails WP:ENT, lacks "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This young actress has played the major and significant role of Dylan Marvil in the notable The Clique (film). Her credits also include several other television and film roles. This is enough to satisfy the minimum requirements for notability. Moorsmur (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason The Clique seems to have an especially rabid Wikipedia fanbase. At any rate, although you mention "several other television and film roles," IMDb is not aware of any TV role except as "Callie" on one episode of Lincoln Heights and "9th Grade Girl #1" on one episode of Zoey 101, or any film role at all beyond the straight-to-video The Clique. I'm not seeing anything of encyclopedic significance there. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per actual notability.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to provide any explanation of your concept of "actual notability" and how this actress could possibly satisfy it, or is this WP:JUSTAVOTE? Glenfarclas (talk) 00:22, 4 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, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources and no significant roles. Can find nothing to support notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Miserably fails WP:ENT. SnottyWong talk 22:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no evidence of notability; not even a half-way convincing assertion. Reyk _YO! 06:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's played a notable role in a major film, plus has done roles on television shows. Dream Focus 04:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so The Clique was a "major film" despite being sent straight to video . . . which of her single-episode TV parts counts as a second "significant role" -- Callie or 9th Grade Girl #1? Glenfarclas (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru 07:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once a Ranger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable sources, and also arguably WP:NOTGUIDE. It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to document television episodes unless they have genuine notability. Claritas § 14:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm genuinely not seeing a reason for a third AfD on this. Arguments in favor of keeping in the past two AfDs are still valid. Note that there's an exceptionally large number of false positives for this terms, so Google is particularly difficult to use. Jclemens (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last two AFDs did not end in a consensus to keep or delete, so it would be appropriate to state the arguments you consider relevant here. False positives may be a problem, but WP:BURDEN applies. Thanks. Claritas § 17:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my reasons at the last AfD and Claritas's clear reasoning. I find the sources either not independent (rangercentral), extremely run-of-the-mill (Tv guides and IMDB) or of dubious reliability (the angelfire website and Cynopsis). Using sources like this reeks of desperate barrel-scraping, and is arguably evidence of non-notability. Reyk _YO! 02:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be merged to List of Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive episodes the fansites such as Rangers Central aren't considered reliable sources of information. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to the episode list. I agree with Reyk about the 'sources', and feel that if real sources actually existed someone would surely have found them by now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 7 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 to delete besides nominator. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deno Andrews[edit]

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

doesn't meet basic wp:N criteria for biographies. Maashatra11 (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person is notable as a former professional billiards player. Moorsmur (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources for this claim. The only sources you added to the articles indicate that he is Tour director of the International Pool Tour. I don't think it's enough to be considered notable. Thanks, Maashatra11 (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles concerning his playing days are mostly found in old billiard magazines (hard copies), and are not easily found on the internet. The Inside Pool Interview [29] helps to establish notability. Notability concerning his current position as Tour Director is easily verifiable by on-line sources. Moorsmur (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found and added a source that shows he played professional pool. I believe there is enough to indicate he is notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He gets news coverage. Even if its just him being quoted as the director of that major tournament, doesn't matter, he gets coverage, the news people thinking him notable enough to question and quote from. Dream Focus 03:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Twist[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSICIAN and WP:CREATIVE. for all the claims made in the article, he does not seem to get any real third party coverage. [30]. looks too much like a resume. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - sources already in the article and from a Google search show some notability for this composer from Australia. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 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. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. More participation would have been helpful but I don't see any serious WP:BLP issues. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Leach[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE. can't find significant coverage of this individual. [31]. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Winner of the 2008 Manchester Evening News Theatre Award for Best Studio Production as director of Dr. Korczak's Example. (The director accepts the award in this category.) Winners of notable awards are generally considered notable, although it's not a specific criterion of WP:CREATIVE. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In addition to the award mentioned above, she has a full-length interview in the Blackpool Citizen. Not a lot of notability, but possibly enough to qualify per Wikipedia guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree that winners of major awards in the arts cross a notability threshold. Vartanza (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaiming Patriotism[edit]

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

Fails WP:BK. I can't find any reliable sources to prove notability. There are several ghits for the book, but almost none of them are about the book itself - they're all about the author (mostly the footers of articles he's written). Further, the article is fairly POV and reads like a fan-site of sorts. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. The author is notable, as the wikipedia page about him indicates, and that page is not proposed for deletion. Furthermore, it is the author's first and so far only book, as well as his most substantial work, which his newspaper articles are informed on. Also, the article does not read like a 'fan site': nowhere is there an endorsement of the views expressed in the book and in fact notable criticisms of the book are found after the summary of the book's contents. Apollo1986 1832:26, 5 Jun 2010 (Aust time)
- Comment: Just because the author is notable does not mean the book is notable as well; notability is not inherited. Books have their own notability criteria, and I couldn't find any articles to match that. We could choose to redirect this article to the author's page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Again, this is the author's only book to date, and what he is most famous for. The book hence deserves a post of its own. Apollo1986 19:22, 6 Jun 2010 (Aust time)

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, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because a notable author wrote the book does not mean it is notable. I can not find any significant coverage of the book to establish it is independently notable. Information about the book should be included in the author's article until such time that independent sources have written about the book. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:11, 7 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 01:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kang (activist)[edit]

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

No significant claim of notability in my opinion, but speedy was previously declined. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N - I am unable to find significant coverage for this individual and the article does not provide any. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dipankar Home[edit]

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

No indication (after examing his variuous homepages) that the subject satisfies WP:PROF. The fact that the article is still an oprhan does not help bu to suspect that he doesn't. TimothyRias (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, [32], lists some of the award the subject has been granted. I'm not really at home at Indian research awards, but as far as I can tell they are just standard research grants, and not really anything that would satisfy the WP:PROF criteria. TimothyRias (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 - not a notable person. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:AUTHOR criterion 3: he has "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of … multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" as evidenced by the press cuttings on his website that include full-length, positive reviews of his books in The Times Higher Education Supplement, Physics Today and Foundations of Physics. In addition, Google finds reviews of both the hardback and paperback editions of his book Riddles in your Teacup - Fun with Everyday Scientific Puzzles in New Scientist, although these aren't mentioned on his webpage (possibly they weren't so positive, but that's not relevant to the criterion). The fact that Forewards to his books have been written by Anthony Leggett, Roger Penrose and Paul Davies should surely count for something too. I did also check citations counts for his journal articles in Web of Science: it reckons his h-index is 13, with top 5 articles cited 95, 50, 43, 38, 33 times, which doesn't seem all that impressive in absolute terms, but I'm not sure how that compares to others working on theoretical foundations of physics. Should take into account that his papers only have two or three authors, fewer than typical in many areas of science and medicine. Qwfp (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think to check WP:AUTHOR, I think Qwfp is right in that the subject meets the criteria as an author. Change nom to Keep. TimothyRias (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The popular-press book looks like it's sufficiently notable per Qwfp, and his citation record, though weak as evidence for WP:PROF #1, is enough to convince me that he's not known only one thing and that we should have a separate article on him rather than just merging into an article on the book. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep . The article list is impressively long, but the citations not so greatly impressive: the detailed Scopus results are similar to those above from WoS 81 papers, highest cites 104, 51,31,25,22, h=12. More than half have 2 citations or fewer. But with even one paper with over 100 cites, over the bar. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Public Access Network Association[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [33]. LibStar (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 16:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this Australian not-for-profit organisation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - within its own sphere, a well-known and highly-regarded organisation, but one without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? - No Way!! I've known about APANA for decades! Keep it! otherwise wikipedial loses its aim of completeness. Also, this organisation has cyber-historical significance as well as being a launching pad to many famous hacktivism.It probably has more references in books than online. adinov (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT should be avoided. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have taken the liberty to slightly tweak adinov's !vote so that it more properly reflect what I understand their intention to have been. There do appear to be some Google Books hits... but, it would seem to me, not enough. And WP:Back when we were kids, remember how super-cool it was if one of your mates had an APANA account?!? isn't even even an AfD argument to be avoided :-( --Shirt58 (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to pass WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 7 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.

^ http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2010/03/29/sports/doc4bb01d16ba79f685062983.txt

[1] ttp://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2010/03/29/sports/doc4bb01d16ba79f685062983.txt

[1]