Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 2

< 1 August	3 August >

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. v/r - T P 17:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher R. Wight[edit]

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

Promotional article for a not-yet notable individual. As the article says, "he has not yet announced his candidacy." WP:TOOSOON. Not yet held any elected office, non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. Gurt Posh (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in searches about him except his supposed candidacy. Even if he was a candidate, he wouldn't be inherently notable per WP:POLITICIAN Bgwhite (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Bgwhite. Ground Zero | t 13:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything beyond his own websites. Not notable per WP:POLITICIAN.... at least not yet. HeartSWild (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, WP:INDY, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:TOOSOON. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party sourcesCurb Chain (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Enforcer[edit]

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

Created over 3 years ago and still has no sources to meet WP:NOTFILM. Prod removed without either comment or notification. TerriersFan (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Non-English - way before the internet, so (non-trivial) sources via google will be hard to come by. Enough sources so to verify the existance. But a German source proves that those sources must exist, even if we can't google them. a) it refers to interviews, production details and boxoffice data (19th of 1972 - presumably in Hong Kong). In my view there is enaugh indication that sources *must* exist even if we can't put our finger on them (yet) - Maybe get our chinese friends to help. Agathoclea (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, I see no basis, as yet, for this keep !vote. The German source that you quote states (unless my German translation is fundamentally inaccurate which, of course, it may well be) that there is "no legal, licensed publication of "The Black Enforcer" - either regionally or internationally.". Consequently, we can't say "that sources *must* exist". If they exist, and they meet our notability requirements, that's fine but all we know, so far, is that the film is verified to have been made (as are thousands of non-notable films) but that is not enough. TerriersFan (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep Non-English, pre-internet title. I am in agreement that the link offered by Agathoclea above indicates that the film by The Shaw Brothers was at one time the subject of critical commentary and review long before the internet.[1] This allows a resonable presumption that the film met WP:NF way-back-then, and does not mean we delete simply because the alluded sources predate the internet or are difficult to find. In agreement with User:Agathoclea, it's time to enlist the assistance of the Mandarin and Cantonese speakers/readers with access to sources not available here in the West forty years later. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shaw Brothers films are notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A film that was most likely notable pre-internet. I am a deletionist at heart, but this is a 1972 Asian film. This is an English language based encyclopedia. Does it really come as a surprise that we can't find any good sources? Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Capecci[edit]

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

Apparently exists (USPTO lists two of the claimed patents, see note on Talk page), but I was unable to find reliable, secondary sources which clearly refer to this inventor/architect/dean/board director and which provide in-depth coverage of him. There are individuals with the same name who don't appear to be this fellow, it's possible I've missed reliable sources in the process, additional sources welcomed as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Based on the detailed account of this person's life appears to be an WP:Autobiography. J04n(talk page) 01:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any significant coverage. [2] and a few similar documents confirm he was Dean of Administration at John Jay College but don't say anything else. Hut 8.5 11:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per comments above. --Kumioko (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to establish notability and not a single third party sourceCurb Chain (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Boss (electronic sports team)[edit]

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

I was originally hoping to condense and neutrally rewrite this article, but after searching for reliable and independent sources, I found nowhere to begin. It seems there is not nearly enough significant coverage to justify a stand-alone article on this subject, and since none of the content is sourced, a merge may be impossible. Team Final Boss certainly touts some gaming credentials, but without independent sources, it might be out of Wikipedia's scope. Your thoughts? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Or if nothing else trim down the obvious, excessive WP:ADVERT problem this and pretty much all other eSports team articles have. --Teancum (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps there is a gaming team that is notable, but I have yet to come across it anywhere on the internet. No refs. Szzuk (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a gamer and while I'm keen to see video games thoroughly covered on wikipedia, lists of video game players, teams and tournament stats are basically cruft and should be on fansites not here. danno 20:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberscore[edit]

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

Apparently recreated after PROD, so AfDing instead. Fails basic WP:GNG/WP:WEB -- no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I cannot find any coverage about the website except various mentions in forums. As per the article itself, the claim of notability "Cyberscore is the worlds largest video game scoreboard" is supported by an unreliable forum link with required registration and I cannot find any other source saying this. No other secondary sources are given. If this is really world's largest scoreboard, then in principle I'd like to see it kept and cleaned up, but I don't see any sources to establish notability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – recognizing that I’m biased, as a programmer of CS, I won’t be voting. However, I will try to answer the nominator’s point: “world’s largest video game scoreboard” could easily be confirmed by comparing its member count with its competitors. Unfortunately, Wikipedia probably considers this method original research. Nevertheless, Wikipedia does have an article for Twin Galaxies, which is smaller than CS in terms of members but is a lot better at getting publicity for itself, which is sadly what Wikipedia’s website notability criteria are based on. MTC (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and search for Twin Galaxies results in instant hits, whereas search on CyberScore does not. Afraid, CyberScore just hasn't received the same media attention. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't even need to invoke the notability guidelines. This topic can't be verified through a secondary source. There's nothing "sad" about it, that's just how tertiary sources are defined. Maybe one day a journalist will find Cyberscore worth writing about. Until then, we don't have an article on it. Marasmusine (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:INDY. Almost all the cited "sources" are references to the subject's own web site (hence not independent). The other "source" is from a forum or blog (not generally reliable per WP:SPS). I couldn't find any other usable source in a Google search. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party sources, all the references are to it's own website! Even the one external can not be salvaged into a ref, because it refs a forum post, so that's not a secondary source.Curb Chain (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Foreman[edit]

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

Crime sheet/ rap sheet - not a biography at all - content should be at the crime article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does look like a rap sheet, but that's the nature of his profession, summarizing a criminal's career in a few sentences is very much a rap sheet. He seems to have published two books, [3] [4] including an autobiography. Not through a vanity press, John Blake Publishing, a publisher of true crime books, including some bestsellers. I don't own the books, but their existence seems strong evidence there is enough content to write an article that would be a biography. --GRuban (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Freddie Foreman is one of the most notorious British gangsters of all time and certainly deserves a page on wkipedia by any normal standards applied to such topics. I did not start the page but just started editing it to build it up. The scarcity of the information is not a reason to delete. A template suggesting improvements would be more appropriate. The problem currently with adding information is the best sources for citation are non-web. So its not for lack of history the page is currently scarce but lack of web based reputable sources. His life has been the work of documentaries and books but i cant find much on the net that carry the same authority. Thundernlightning (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable gangster....--BabbaQ (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. As for merging to the crime, there are multiple crimes. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. snow keep - improved and updated (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward A. McCabe[edit]

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

White house staff not notable person Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice response to finding out he's died, you're all heart. He was associate special counsel to Eisenhower,[5] then promoted to be administrative assistant for legislative liaison in 1958.[6] He was made Research Director for Barry Goldwater in 1963, writing speeches for him,[7] and he became Research Director for the Republican Party in 1964.[8] He returned to law in 1964 after Goldwater was defeated in the Presidential race.[9] He headed Sallie Mae ("he was chairman of Sallie Mae from 1972 to 1978 and again from 1981 to 1990. He also was on the board of USA Funds from 1978 to 1996 and was a director of the USA Group from 1993 to 2000. He was the founding chairman of the USA Group's successor, the Lumina Foundation for Education, a billion-dollar private foundation, from 2000 to 2003, remaining on its board until 2006") and had an obit in the Washington Post.[10] Not exactly a household name, but easily passes GNG if you bother looking (which Off2riorob clearly didn't). Fences&Windows 20:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 20:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 20:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 20:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 20:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bit of a strange nom. I'm Australian and often see what I consider to be US bias in Wikipedia, but I don't see how being a White House staffer makes him non-notable. Now, not all White House staffers are notable, but this guy clearly is and all you have to do to check is the "news" link above. He has a bunch of write-ups in The New York Times (even after his retirement he gets quoted every now and then) and other similarly respected American newspapers and, as Fences and windows says, he had an obit in the Washington Post. To be frank, I'm don't think WP:BEFORE was carried out in this nomination. Jenks24 (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its life Jim but not as we know it - he's been dead three years mate - A person that died three years ago and had not had his death updated is clearly of low notability - still living after all this time - its a bit very late for wp:before - the guys been dead for three years and no one even noticed - not notable dead living person. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cute. Actually he was dead before someone created a Wikipedia bio about him. To me, it seems likely that had Wikipedia had an article on him at the time he died, it probably would have been updated. It's really the fault of the article creator who, if they had done a google search while creating the article, would have found the obit in the Post. P.S. please only use level 4 headers and below in AfDs, otherwise it messes up the daily log page. Jenks24 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets notability guidelines. GB fan please review my editing 21:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets GNG as per the reasons outlined by Fences&Windows. There are lots of examples, often systemic ones, where Wikipedia overlooks some topic. This is not evidence of anything except the interests and editing patterns of Wikipedia editors. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal life[edit]

He was dead for three years before anyone updated his wikipedia biography^[1]

Keep - Plenty of coverage by reliable sources to satisfy GNG. Just because few editors on wikipedia care about him to update it is not reason to delete it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because of the outstanding work done by Fences and Windows to expand and reference this article. Thank you, the encyclopedia is better because of your efforts. Off2riorob's deletion argument is bizarre. He thinks that this article about a notable political figure in the 1950s and 1960s should be deleted because no one until now improved a stub and added the fact that he is dead. Well, that fact and many more have been added to what was, but is no longer, a stub. Stubs on notable but somewhat obscure topics are OK, but expanded articles are better. It is now an informative article, but Off2riorob now thinks it should be deleted. He thinks that if this person is notable, someone before Fences and Windows should have improved the article, but is not satisfied by the improvements that Fences and Windows has made. Please remember, Off2riorb, that 99.9% of the world's population are not Wikipedia editors, but billions of people use our encyclopedias in many languages - millions every day. Shortcomings in an existing article is not evidence that the topic is not notable, but instead is only an additional piece of evidence that this encyclopedia is a work in progress. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being the founder of Sallie Mae is enough justification plus there are plenty of refs available. --Kumioko (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources, easily meets WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently notable - WP not being updated is notnews <g>. Collect (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily closing bad faith nomination as keep. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AMPLE[edit]

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

Delete fails WP:N entirely Preceding nomination was made by Flylanguage (talk · contribs) 16:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article discusses the AMPLE programming language used by Mentor graphics EDA for automation. If this article deserves to be deleted for Notability so does the Cadence SKILL article. The user, User:Flylanguage who initiated this has been blocked indefinitely. 12.238.240.164 (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD wasn't listed on July 26 when it was created, so I've placed it on today's log. The nomination was a disruptive one, made by a now indef blocked user, so unless an argument for deletion is presented this qualifies for a speedy keep - frankie (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At present, I make no judgment as to whether this article should stay or go. But as this AfD was clearly started in bad faith, it should be closed as a Speedy Keep. If somebody wishes to nominate for AfD in good faith, they can make a new nomination. Safiel (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosanna Bell[edit]

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

The subject of this article isn't notable enough; there are no reliable sources that indicate any notability. Mathonius (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any reliable third-party coverage or sourcing here to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not demonstrated. Kleuske (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have suggested to the author that s/he read certain policies, but s/he was creating this article at the same moment. Non-notable, it would appear. Peridon (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity; no 3rd party sources

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starless (visual novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. PROD removed by author. Taking to AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not locate any sources for verification. Marasmusine (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salt will be applied Courcelles 04:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tropang Hudas 13[edit]

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

Non-notable Gang, none of the info in this article is confirmed from reliable sources. The gang does exist, however the validity of the article is called into question. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the first AfD: Delete as unverifiable with no coverage by reliable (or even credible) sources. This gang in the Philippines appears to be a hoax. Searches for "Tropang Hudas" get only passing mentions about a minor gang in California. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, and probably unverifiable. It also reads like an advertisement! AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gang has gained no notability (or verifiability) since the first AFD, which was only closed because the author had blanked the page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls a hair short of being a complete hoax, but most of the contents appear to be nonsensical. No sourcing, and what's actually out there suggests this is, at best, "organized" crime's equivalent of a micronation, complete with a mythical pedigree. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly a hoax and non notable. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 20:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Claims are unverifiable and internally inconsistent. If there's a 20 year gap, it's not continuous, is it? Moreover, why would there need to be a system? Why would a Filipino gang be "hiring Yakuza and Crips", and how does one switch gangs like that and remain alive? "One million members" (>1% of the Filipino population) in this gang, and nobody's heard of them? This honestly sounds like a in-game clan fiction thing, so it's not a hoax so much as "Stuff made up at school". MSJapan (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely fails WP:VERIFY. — Satori Son 22:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is some information that can be found about the most recent iteration of the gang based in Los Angeles and they might be able to pass the notability requirements. But I can find absolutely nothing about the earlier iterations of the gang or even any real connection to them and the Philippines. Considering that they were mostly based in the early 1900s, this lack of info may just be the fault of the internet not covering old topics like that very well combined with the lack of info about the Philippines in general. Whatever the reason, I can't find the sources to verify the claims presented in the article. Silver seren^C 03:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7 per nom. StormContent (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason for keeping here at all.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid squatting[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this is a notable activity. Google search for "hybrid squatting" brings up only pages having to do with weightlifting and uh, bodily functions. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 19:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be the very definition of WP:Madeup Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 09:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete really?!Curb Chain (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Those in favor of keeping cite only WP:ENTERTAINER's first point about "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." At the least, the notion of "significance" is never explicated by those in the keep camp, and no secondary sources demonstrating significance are offered, which is necessary per WP:NRVE (or WP:V more generally). The arguments of delete commenters about the lack of sources and the failure to meet the GNG are not addressed by those in favor of keeping the article. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Oxley[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Contested Prod. No significant coverage found. Michig (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER. She has played a significant role in various notable series. This includes her role as Misaki Kirihara in the Darker than Black series, and the main character of Momo in Peach Girl. I added in references showing she did voice commentary on her roles there on the DVD. Dream Focus 20:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely she just did the English versions of these series, not the originals. I think this is stretching WP:ENTERTAINER somewhat.--Michig (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a cartoon. Which voice actor did the role first is not relevant. The voice actors have to put in the same emotions as a regular actor does, it taking work. Dream Focus 00:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, dubbing actors don't get to claim notability from their films unless the dub itself is independently notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 00:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (i) little evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" & (ii) little evidence that participation in derivative works such as foreign-language redubs (which are generally not themselves independently notable) confers any notability, so would not appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- " little evidence that participation in derivative works such as foreign-language redubs (which are generally not themselves independently notable) confers any notability, so would not appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER." You don't know much about anime dubbed by popular anime companies do you? Do some Google searches for the dubbed versions sometime. Joe Chill (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 21:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable biographical sources. Both Yahoo! and Google didn't find any sources that support this Wikipedia biography. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per • Gene93k. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gene93k didn't comment in this AFD. Dream Focus 16:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my mis-attribution I've taken another look and checked all the references. Only one reference seems to be primarily about the subject, and that's a fan-built site that's primarily a compilation of references to minor references to the subject. Categorical fail to meet WP:GNG in my view. Not close. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a vote, and bald assertions are likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was not a vote, it was a statement that it should be kept since it passes the notability guidelines at WP:ENTERTAINER. And administrators that just ignore anyone that disagrees with their personal opinions, often find their rulings overthrown at deletion review. Dream Focus 11:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - When you make a claim without any substantiation, it's a vote. Where are the sources that show that this person passes the mark? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I mentioned that in my statement above. Should they have to copy and paste the same thing and just repeat what someone else has said already? If you were the main character for a notable series, then obviously that counts as a significant role, as does being one of the main characters in another notable series(see my keep reasoning for specific examples). Dream Focus 11:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I seem to be in disagreement with a bunch of people here on what it takes to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. She has performed a few major roles in the U.S. versions of anime, and the U.S. releases of those anime have gotten significant coverage in reliable sources (for instance, she played the main character in the U.S. release of Peach Girl, and the U.S. release was reviewed by reliable sources like Anime News Network and Mania.com). As someone who has played major roles in notable works, she passes WP:ENTERTAINER. The suggestions that the coverage must focus on the dub or must go above and beyond what would be sufficient for a Japanese voice actor has no basis in policy that I can see. Calathan (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ENT. I don't see where it says that dubbed shows don't count in the sentence, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The dubbed anime is notable as well not just the original. Joe Chill (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the "entertainer" shortcut so abused here is but a small section of the page Wikipedia:Notability (people). The first section on that page is the basic criteria of having "if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The next section down,the "Additional criteria" section, says "People who meet any of the following standards are likely to meet the over-arching general notability criteria." [Emphasis mine]]. Just waving hands and saying "meets entertainer" does not satisfy the accepted inclusion criteria. Find some real sources actually about this person. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, yeah. Whatever you say. Joe Chill (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You added in that bit a few weeks ago, in your attempt to make all secondary guidelines pointless. There is no consensus to add it. I just removed it again and started a discussion about it. [11] So far everyone who has commented is against you adding that. Dream Focus 09:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recommend people the "Additional criteria" section (under WP:BASIC), since WP:ENT is dependent on that section. I also recommend people note, should questions of ANN's encyclopedia's accuracy come up, the separate listing for what we claim to be Kate Oxley's real name. Whoops.--joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That section keeps changing to say opposite things back and forth these past few weeks. Go by what its said for years, not what a small number of recent people have been trying to make it say. Dream Focus 09:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I added an indent for clarity here, my apologies if that's a problem.) As I mentioned over at the Orion Pitts discussion, I accept and had been unaware that the wording there has changed, however, I dont read either wording as having a particularly different meaning when taken in view of WP:NRVE. Unlike Orion, though, there is some (from my view) reliable sourcing in this article, which is why I'm not contributing a !vote to the discussion here, simply a comment. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A notable dub would be Sailor Moon, where things were changed so substantially that there were plot points that differed, and it had a major impact as an English-language franchise. In this case, Oxley's parts in a notable series were mainly as a bit player, and the others are only notable in particular circles, so there's a question of substantial coverage and independent sourcing as well, if interpreted broadly. MSJapan (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 17:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Hache[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. This article was created and edited by the subject of the article, who is currently blocked for removing BLP prods. BLP article is unsourced. As indicated in the article itself, the subjects roles in these films is as an extra. A web search turns up absolutely no sign of notability of the subject, either as a film actor, theater actor or as a comedian. Delete. Safiel (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Safiel (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless recognized contributors significantly add to the article's content before AfD closure (with references), the self-creation was very bad form. Note to admin: Please check for that so we are considerate of other contributions to the article, despite the self-creation. Quite a list of stuff he's alleged to have done, but right now it's imdbpro territory. MMetro (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT and WP:RS. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Angel of the Presence. Courcelles 23:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angels of Presence[edit]

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

Unsourced and entirely original research Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Angel of the Presence - The Isaiah 63:9 reference and the Charlesworth reference are worth keeping and should be merged into the main article at Angel of the Presence. Neelix (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Angel of the Lord per my suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel of the Presence. St Anselm (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is part of Category:Angels in Judaism, otherwise it loses its significance in this context. IZAK (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 15:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi Choctaw Indian Federation[edit]

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

This organization was not notable in the first place and now it no longer exists. Uyvsdi (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Speedy Keep: I can't fathom the case that the organization was not notable. Being defunct has nothing to do with WP:Notability. Per WP:CORP non-commercial "organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources."

As a legitimate government of the Choctaw Nation,^[2]^[3] they meet #1. The 2 6 sources satisfy #2 in spades. Toddst1 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any activities they have performed could be mentioned in the Choctaw article under the appropriate history section. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

That's what you do if it's not notable. Since this article satisfies WP:CORP, it "is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization" We have policies for cases exactly like this. Toddst1 (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The provided sources does not reinforce its notability, if it was non notable before its closure why should it be kept here after it? Its notability factor seems to be locally limited and WP needs to provide a greater context to make an article encyclopedic or else WP would be filled with fancruft and locally known organizations and federations. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is a national government a "locally known organization"? Toddst1 (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable per WP:CORP. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 20:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as sources more than cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. This was, for a time, a recognized national government and the number of those is small enough to prevent the encyclopedia from running out of paper covering them. - Dravecky (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: fair enough, but can I refer you to the List of unrecognized tribes in the United States? -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Merge to Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians or Choctaw and redirect. Seems to just barely pass notability, but doesn't seem like enough to warrant an article. Unless somebody would like to spend some time fleshing it out from its stub status? He iro 00:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable per WP:CORP, with multiple independent sources. Altairisfar (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Alabama-related deletion discussions, Mississippi-related deletion discussions, and Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Altairisfar (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several books cover this particular dissident tribal government. Among them are Beyond red power: American Indian politics and activism since 1900, and Lumbee Indians in the Jim Crow South: race, identity, and the making of a nation and The Choctaws: Cultural Evolution of a Native American Tribe. Their concerns were discussed in a Congressional hearing in 1934. The history of this faction is a notable part of the development of a unified Choctaw tribal government. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per WP:CORP. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 15:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaluyuti[edit]

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

WP:N Unable to find reliable secondary sources to evidence notability of this poet under WP:GNG. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable poet, he fails GNG and lacks further details needed for BIO. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 01:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS — currently no sources at all, and although I found lots of stuff in a Google search, none of it was of the independent, reliable variety which would be required to establish notability under any criterion. Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 15:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Alliance of Mixed Martial Arts[edit]

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

WAMMA was never a remotely legitimate sanctioning body or organization. It created a belt which it randomly awarded twice before it went out of business and fell off the face of the Earth. It was a scam that never had a single implication or any significance. This article is a waste of space. Pull lead (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find reliability to prove the contrary of what is said above, preliminary research only returns social network links, no standard, no official organization reckons WAMMA. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Article is on a short-lived minor MMA organization. It seems to have received some coverage, but the reliability and independence of the sources is questionable. Many of the links are dead or useless. Neither its rules nor champions were widely accepted. Astudent0 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on the very limited research available, this wasn't even an organization as it never promoted events. It appears to have been a failed attempt at a sanctioning body of some sort that recognized, for no apparent reason, certain fighters as WAMMA champions. Only 1 fight that was allegedly for a WAMMA championship even took place, yet it was under the Affliction promotion. Additionally, on an MMA message board I found pictures of the WAMMA headquarters which was an empty sham office that wasn't occupied by anyone. This organization and article are completely irrelevant and lack notability. Should be deleted. 16:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 15:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel's Totally New Year 2008[edit]

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

Other pages have been deleted. Unnecessary page. DisneyFriends (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Unnecessary replication of details (CFORK). Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a speedy because this page has been up for three years as an orphan. Long description of promotional continuity for a New Year's Eve sitcom marathon that was not unique in any way. Nate • (chatter) 18:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge info if there is an article about an annual occurrence on Disney Channel. Otherwise Delete the ONEEVENT. MMetro (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That actual article, Disney Channel's New Year Events was PRODed a year ago for the same unsourced and unnotable reasons, and I have secured other successful AfD noms for other Disney Channel event articles on the same grounds. Nate • (chatter) 02:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boundaries · International Architectural Magazine[edit]

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

A magazine with the first issue released July 2011, does not appear to be notable, no sources to suggest it is, and spa's are repeatedly restoring promotional content Jac16888 ^Talk 14:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the article brief and written in clear language, without promotional content. I don't know about the spa's Jac is talking about, but I've read the magazine (I'm architect and I read a lot of architecture magazines each month).
Notability can be acquired leaving people expanding the article instead of simple quickly deleting it.
I suggest to keep it and leave people decide about. Kim2371 (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Kim2371 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Non notable magazine, with limited distribution range. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per lack of third-party sources, as none were found on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lekill lines[edit]

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

Article was deprodded by SPA article creator with no explanation and no addressing of the underlying concern of lack of reliable source cites to establish notability, hence we are at AfD. It appears to be a non-notable non-cited technique. I am unable to find WP:GNG references to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Madeley[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability criteria + this person is spamvertising his wikipedia page sciencewatcher (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He won an award that was given at the same time to a "raft" of other people in his home town. He's a local businessman, a home town booster, and probably a fine fellow. However, not notable by Wikipedia standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I arrived at this page after receiving a spam email from Honey Pot Mail which Mr Madeley appears to run. Since this appears to be the only reason for this page I have added a speedy deletion request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjpg (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same as commenter above - received a spam message and looked him and honeypotmail up here. Should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.17.101 (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with this company and know that their databases are all opt-in and consequently they have several brand name clients. I am sure they would confirm this if approached by anyone who is unhappy with their emails. Their website states that they have a database of 360,000 'members' so I would expect more than 3 complaints out of 360,000 people, if it was actual spam.

On the contrary, such a low complaint rate is evidence that it is actually an opt-in database. Based on this complaint rate, if they emailed everyone in the UK simultaneously they would only receive 519 complaints nationally.

I see the subject's emails connected with this company and confirm that the subject's Wikipedia page has been included, on occasion, in the email signature as a source of further information. I can see no problem with this in Wikipedia's guidelines.

With regard to notability criteria:

The subject is the main topic of the following references, thus exceeding the notability criterion for 'significant coverage': http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/business/business_opinion/business_opinion_chris/8785385.Well_deserved_honour_for_character_Keith/ and http://www.aroundtownpublications.co.uk/online/celebrities/wakefield-mr-yorkshire.html

Both sources are clearly secondary, with obvious reliability (i.e. editorial integrity). Both sources are also self-evidently independent of the subject. For example, the Telegraph and Argus Newspaper is owned by Newsquest Media Group, which has no connection to the subject.

The above establishes the presumption that the subject is suitable. This presumption is accurate because the evidence is verifiable from a wide variety of sources which have built up over several years and not as a consequence any short-term promotional or publicity efforts. --109.153.45.0 (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you seem to be the person who created this page, and you are involved with the company, so your opinion doesn't really count. Are you Keith? Secondly, the lists are definitely not opt in - you purchased my email address from an illegally harvested mailing list without my permission. Third, when I look at spamcop alone I see 10 reports for your email, which is pretty typical of spam. If it wasn't spam you wouldn't see any spamcop reports at all (spamcop users aren't your typical hotmail idiots who click the spam button willy-nilly). --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say this seems like either a personal, or completely emotional attack with no evidence whatsoever given (or even attempted) for either the claim about the veracity of the email list or the notability of Keith Madeley. It is impossible for anyone to know whether their details are legitimately held by a particular company or not because of 'third party opt-in'. I advise readers to Google a definition of this legal term, and if they find it unacceptable, for them to never share their details with any company without first reading that company's privacy policy line by line and checking whether they may 'share your details with selected third parties'. As for Keith Madeley's notability, the post on 4th August has put this beyond doubt, as have the original page's citations. I wonder what is really behind anonymous Vendettas like this...--83.244.233.130 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vendetta. We just don't like spammers. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. He does appear to have received an MBE as noted in the argus article, so he's done some good community work along the line. But that doesn't make him notable. Szzuk (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ANYBIO. My understanding is that there are way, way too many Members of the Order of the British Empire for "MBE" to be notable for Wikipedia purposes. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ANYBIO. Also, we don't like spammers. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The post by IP address 109.153.45.0 on 4th August made completely clear that the MBE award, although could be seen as justification for the entry, is coincidental - The subject's clearly had a very high profile for several years and the entry was online long before the MBE was awarded (and no one disputed it then). Also, 10 people out of a database of 360,000 considering an email spam does seem like a very low number (possibly below average for an opt-in list?) So I have to echo the commenter's question on 5th August: "I wonder what is really behind anonymous Vendettas like this...?" --135.196.50.125 (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Travel Services[edit]

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

PROD previously declined by an IP editor, but fails the WP:GNG and WP:CORP. There is one 'ref' in the article that actually leads to the local newspaper's website home page; of the others all but one of the refs are either from the company's own website or merely demonstrate that the company exists, and the other ref (from WA Today) doesn't mention the company at all. Google turns up nothing other than the company's website and Facebook page, and companies of the same name in other parts of the world. I'm not sure if it qualifies as COI, but the article creator designed the company website; most of his/her edits are related to the company in some way. YSSYguy (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. - Ahunt (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; falls slightly short on notability. bobrayner (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources merely confirm facts about company. Nothing indepth. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cant see anything unusual or of note about the company. MilborneOne (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable mentions that could help this article on an encyclopedia, as I didn't see anything on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angel of the Presence[edit]

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

The entire article is uncited original research. None of the biblical references specifically refer to "Angel of the Presence". Instead the article is based on the author's interpretation of some verses Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We also have Angels of Presence, which is slightly better at the moment. The two articles probably ought to be merged. Will check when I get home as to whether Gustav Davidson's dictionary or some other source has any useful info. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am not entirely sure that Angels of Presence should exist either. It is original research as well, just in a less blatant way. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above comment, and move Angels of the Presence over it so the sourced article is the singular. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does look like it contains a noticeable amount of original research. I'm still not entirely sure what the Angel of the Presence is supposed to be after reading it. Also, there are no citations. On a side note, could something happen with the AfD notice on the article so that there's a blue link to this discussion instead of a red one? Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 18:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A simple Google Books search makes it clear that this is a notable topic. I have added some preliminary references to the article as a sample. Neelix (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep - a poor article, but there can be no doubt of notability, as Neelix has made clear. A cleanup is necessary, but not a merge: Angels of Presence is a broader topic. -- 202.124.73.149 (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be poorly written, but it is notable. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as suggested by nominator & StAnselm below. History2007 (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added more information and references to demonstrate notability. Neelix (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as StAnselm said below, a merge/redirect is a good idea anway. History2007 (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angel of the Lord. Most of this article is either talking about the Angel of the Lord (that being called an angel who is identified with God himself) or is original research. The phrase "Angel of the presence" is not used in the Hebrew Bible, and "Angel of his presence" is used exactly once. I have copied the relevant material into the Angel of the Lord article, so no further merge is necessary. St Anselm (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Li Wenjun[edit]

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

Notability has been in question since May 2009. Google search yields no reliable sources Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. It is possible that there are reliable sources in Chinese, but I can't find any in English. Regarding notability all I have to go by is his website, which provides no indication that he meets any of the WP:CREATIVE criteria. He is early in his career and has only a handful of completed works at this point, none of which (with no disrespect to Mr. Li) appears to be anything out of the ordinary. If reliable sources turn up stating otherwise, I'm willing to reconsider. Camerafiend (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google and Yahoo didn't provide any good sources in their search, at least in the English language that is. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per per WP:BIO. Beagel (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Raeside[edit]

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

This is a biography of a living person which is unsourced, and after some searching, does not appear to meet notability. The article is a bit vague on its assertion of notability. The subject is the author of one book for which I cannot find any critical reviews and is held in 17 libraries worldwide. That doesn't appear to be a work of significant impact. The article also states he is a regular contributor to Ireland's Eye. I'm assuming the wikilink in the article was done in error and that really refers to this magazine. I can find no evidence support the assertion that he is contributor although I have no reason to doubt the assertion. However, being a contributor to a minor magazine is not notable, and especially so when there is no sourcing. The rest of the positions he holds are not notable either. In searching for soruces, [12], and [13] are the best I am able to find. That us well short of what is needed to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability, seems to be a mostly forgotten BLP.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any coverage other than those found by the nominator both of which fall far short of significant coverage J04n(talk page) 21:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable mentions, I didn't see any on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkingRock[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is about software with no significant coverage in reliable sources provided and none found. TN X Man 12:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 3rd party coverage is not significant enough to establish notability. Lifehacker link is independent coverage, but only has 1 sentence mention of the product. Dialectric (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'closed as moot. Article was deleted by User:RHaworth as unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 11:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Informer Technologies, Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable software company, a couple of the products might be notable but notability is not inherented. Cameron Scott (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement for non-notable software business. GNews finds one hit in what looks like Malay. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - spam masquerading as an article, tagged for speedy deletion accordingly. ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy D per lack of third-party sources, none of which were found on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Susan Powell[edit]

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

Standard missing person case, without any national or international attention. (Sadly one of 2000 dissappearances per day in the US alone). Article is written like a news report. No evidence of notability. Dmol (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sourcing alone shows that the case has recieved alot of coverage. was one of those "major" disappearances when it happen.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that's exactly why we have guidelines like NOTTHENEWS. It was major when it happened, and it still is very tragic, but that does not give it any lasting notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lasting notability? How do you expect that a crime-story gets coverage if their is no new leads?. But that doesnt change the fact that it has reached alot of coverage and news over the years. Its like saying Mischa Bartons article should be deleted just because she hasnt done any films or been alot in the media for a few year.?--BabbaQ (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it is definitly one of those cases were an arrest or new big elad with be on the front page of newspapers and news on the news channels so thats enough for me to keep on saying Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards a Keep if the article is organised just a little bit more. It definitely has the necessary references but they need formatting. Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --very sad. But it just doesn't meet the notability requirements needed for an event like this.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article need a touch-up doesnt mean it should be deleted.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There clearly are more than two sources of information here and original source material as well as secondary material from which an article can be written. The "lasting notability" is due to the fact that this story doesn't seem to want to die and keeps getting reported, including some headlines just within the past week or so. If there are notability requirements for something of this nature.... specify them. Certainly this topic satisfies WP:NOTE and other general notability requirements and goes well beyond a normal obituary. That the story may be somewhat local in scope does not disqualify it from notability standards.

Also note: The formatting of the article or the quality of the text has not merit at all in terms of establishing notability or why an article must be deleted or not. Single sentence stubs can exist on Wikipedia that simply need the attention of somebody willing to expand those stubs. Complaints about formatting is more the province of the WP:SOFIXIT policy. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robert Horning - ongoing interest shows that it's not ONEEVENT. Bearian (talk)
Keep per WP:Notability - the subject was object of significant coverage, which as WP:Notability#General_notability_guideline states: "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."

Furthermore, WP:GNG goes on to state "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected"; we currently have 13 reliable sources, all news organizations and most of them national/national-affiliated major news organizations. As to those who say this is a local, not a national story, they must not have been paying attention, because the only way I heard about it (living in California) was through national media, as could be shown by something like this.

Also, as WP:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary states, once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. However, this article does have recent, ongoing coverage (Huffpo and Fox and SL Trib just to name a few, so even that weak argument is invalid. Moogwrench (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Brame[edit]

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

This is a BLP with no sources at all. It has been tagged as unsourced for 18 months. The only references provided are the subject's own books. There is no evidence of the subject's notability. Alarics (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep and try improve to BLP citation standards. "There is no evidence" of her notability? Clearly, the question isn't whether she's notable. She is. It's whether she clears the bar for WP notability guidelines, for whatever categories she's in. There's a Forbes article quoting her quite a lot[14], you have half a dozen mentions in a Washington Post article[15], and about half an article about her in the Globe and Mail [16], perhaps some more coverage in a couple dozen pay-view articles. Numerous mentions in books. The question is: Does it add up? Yakushima (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources. There's enough for our BLP notability standards, but they have to be referenced in the article. Owen× ☎ 14:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a bunch of refs, could add more. Is good? Ketzl talk 3:57, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Is very good. Well done, Ketzl. Owen× ☎ 15:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inno garage[edit]

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

NN organisation, all sources are either press releases or primary. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. G11: unambiguous spam. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Fails WP:N. Third-party sources are almost non-existent. Miguel AG (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BloodConnect[edit]

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

College blood drive - not notable and can be covered on the NSS ITT Delhi page. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: And after reading it further, everything but the first paragraph was a copyvio (see article history for urls) and I've deleted that content as per policy (just in case anyone is wondering). --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per lack of notable mentions, media coverage in general. I didn't see any good links on both Yahoo! and Google aside from the BloodConnect website and someone who was affiliated with them, Janet Woods. SwisterTwister talk 00:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Red Herring Top 100 Winners[edit]

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

A list of winners for some awards from an online magazine. While the magazine (Red Herring (magazine)) may be notable (and perhaps the awards, too), I'm not sure including a list of winners for the awards is appropriate. wctaiwan (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to notability concerns. The magazine certainly seems to be notable, but there is no evidence that the award is - if it was, a list could perhaps be justified. Virtually any magazine can come up with a list of Top 100 Salad Creams From 1990 to 1991 or whatever, but the award itself has to independently pass the inclusion guidelines before an article on the award, or indeed, on the winners, can be included. Ironholds (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per page creator's request. VQuakr (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luciano Fleischfresser[edit]

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

A Meteorologist/Atmospheric Scientist. An adjunct professor of environmental engineering. Appears to not have published any articles since his PhD days in 2000. Has written a 100-page monograph on tropical climate modeling. Article is written by Dr. Fleischfresser. Fails WP:PROF Bgwhite (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per nom. No evidence of significant citability or of passing WP:PROF on other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WoS publications and no other credible claim within WP:PROF indicates no notability. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No cites in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Zero notable links found on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author of the article has requested the article to be deleted. They left a speedy delete tag on the article. Author sent me an email apologizing for creating the article and it was his mistake for not reading the notability requirement. Bgwhite (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, non admin closure. Szzuk (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kastles Stadium at The Wharf[edit]

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

Fact presented may not be true. The source provided says that construction is yet to start. Can have an article in Wikipedia only after the construction is complete. Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search of Google will find you plenty of articles about games and events that have already taken place there. For example [17] or [18]. Your rush to delete is uncalled for. In fact, the article needs to be expanded; it is a stub. —Diiscool (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an appropriate reference and sentence to the article. This is something the AfD nominator could have done rather than opening an AfD, causing a lot more work for a number of people. The reasoning given for this AfD is irresponsible. If an article is out of date, edit it, don't delete it. —Diiscool (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tone you have used certainly not appropriate for an AfD discussion. I sent this article to AfD for a discussion based on the sources you provided - and that doesn't mean that I am deleting it. As a creator and major contributor it was your responsibility to keep it up-to-date and provide sources which doesn't create confusions. That was an unpatrolled new article remained in the queue for about a month. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Admin may remove this AfD, or can decide for a Keep - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its only recently been built but it seems ot meet notability to me and plenty of refs are available. --Kumioko (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. v/r - T P 14:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SUPER[edit]

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

Ephemeral project, no independent sources about the project, does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is very saddening to experience repeatedly that the wiki user Crusio is trying to purposefully silence/ sensor European ground-breaking research activities that is heavily backed by European research, industry, and the European Commission. This is very unfortunate that this user continues with the intention of trying to silence objective information about long-term international research under the excuse that it is somehow not in line with the wiki policies. I believe such a desire is not aligned with the wikipedia spirit. Suggesting the deletion of this page will be very unfortunate for European ICT industry and research organisations. The fact that this user apparently is a research director in a French research organisation makes the proposed deletion suggestion very unfortunate and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthprovider66 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please desist from comments about other users. Perhaps focus instead on whether the article in question can be demonstrated against notability criteria acknowledged in independent 3rd party references etc? AllyD (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's current form is an abomination. It's ironic that a project which aims to simplify IT by introducing semantic context can't even write a decent PR piece for Wikipedia. This article is dense, filled with unlinked/unexplained jargon and original research. All but one of the sources offer but a brief mention of researchers affiliating themselves with the project, there's no real discussion of it outside of theory and planned future research. Some of the sources appear to be hosted on IP-SUPER's site as unpublished papers partially funded by the organization. After reading (sometimes skimming) the sources, I think that the SUPER project itself does not warrant exclusive encyclopedic coverage. If SUPER leads to notable discoveries or breakthroughs or the organization becomes recognized and documented then I'd reconsider deletion. As long as the article approaches intelligibility. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or upmerge brief mention into Framework_Programmes_for_Research_and_Technological_Development#The_programmes if any kind of notability can be demonstrated. As it stands, this text fails to meet encyclopaedic intent, chattering along using unexplained acronyms (BP? guessing business process, but is there such a problem in saying so?). I'm trying hard to avoid value judgments, but a document written like this would not be well received in most contexts. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: at first I thought it was a joke, when it said it was "set in the environment composed of finite number of entities..."? Hardly unique there. Maybe the meaning was lost in translation. It looks defunct for two years now, so will not get any more notable. There seem to be a fair number of these projects that had articles written two or three years ago that read like they are just pastes of the grant application. I started a merge but am unsure of how to proceed. Please see Talk:Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development for the discussion. W Nowicki (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict?: This page seems to be in the same category as Webinos, which is up for deletion and as of today shares a contributor, Truthprovider66. The source group feels that Wikipedia is discriminating against them by not letting them advertise, which emphasizes the importance of deleting all advertising pages that may have slipped by. This page was never real, and User:Crusio has caught up with it. A family of them probably exists, emanating from this offsite canvasing project. A relevant discussion appears at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Webinos. TerriersFan (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for finding the canvasing page. Actually that page (posted in 2007, four years ago) does say "articles should be concise, avoid marketing terminology and reference its sources". Most of these articles do not comply with those suggestions. If the project itself was ever notable or not, hard to tell from the article, which has the burden of proof. W Nowicki (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the essential facts to Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. I agree that the article, as presently written, is a shocker. However, this is a valid, funded research programme and we should have some core information about it. TerriersFan (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as TerriersFan described. The general topic of these Framework Programmes is noteworthy. Giving a free billboard to every individual project is absurd. We might as well try to have a page for every medical research project at the National Institutes of Health. Many of them would probably appreciate the greater visibility (at no cost to themselves) and the increased funding that might result. Ornithikos (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 06:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ersan İlal[edit]

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

Not all the faculties of all the Universities of the world can have separate articles on Wikipedia. There should be some highly notable work by the person. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per lack of any notable sources on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see what category of WP:Speedy delete this BLP falls into. However, I ask the nominator why he did not prod the article before AfDing it. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The subject might possibly be notable per WP:PROF, but it is impossible to tell based on the available sources. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced BLP Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Fred Carter[edit]

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

WP:V: Six-years of unreferenced BLPs, and despite what appears to be a long and varied career, I haven't been able to find any verification of this fellow in reliable, secondary sources, just wikimirrors. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Agree with the nominator that the depth of the article would lead one to believe that there are sources out there, but unable to find them. Searched with and without the middle name. J04n(talk page) 01:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Foursquare (website). Courcelles 04:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Foursquare Badges[edit]

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

Same reason as last time. "This list of 'badges' for the social networking website Foursquare is not suitable content, listing each and every badge is indiscriminate. It's total trivia." We are not a directory of social networking site features. Fences&Windows 04:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Foursquare.Soupy sautoy (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any notable information and delete the rest; WP:INDISCRIMINATE and lacks reliable third party sources to establish WP:N. —Ost (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 04:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josettante Hero[edit]

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

No indication that the movie is released or even it is in the post-production. Movie may be Lower standard than notability. Also Lead section too short Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable media coverage. When I typed in the movie's name in both Google and Yahoo!, I found one mention here and a "HowdyIndia" news article. But as nom said, it seems to be an independent and very low profile movie. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. Even if it had already been released, it's questionable whether it would satisfy WP:NF; the two currently cited sources don't even come close to doing that. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely not notable at this stage. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 04:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Prioryman (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rugby league in the United States. Courcelles 04:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Rugby League USA[edit]

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

I have put this page up for deletion because it is likely that this competition will never happen. First of all it was announced in 2009, hoping it would start in 2010 now they hope it starts in 2011, still nothing, no website, no further news. Rugby league is still an amateur sport in the United States with barely over 300 adult players and nothing at all in grassroots development. The AMNRL today only has 6 teams competing, some teams even struggle to attract a full team. The USARL then formed in 2011 to take the game more seriously with professional administration unlike the AMNRL not making big announcements and failing to live up to them. If you see the AMNRL website they have announced a Pacific Conference in Hawaii where 6 teams will be competing, turns out there are only 2! That just shows how unprofessional the supposed chairman of the National Rugby League USA, David Niu is! So I come to the conclusion that this comp is only a pipedream and will never happen, if any rugby league competition is going to become professional it is the USARL, they have the right vision to take this game forward in the US.--Youndbuckerz (talk · contribs)

Fixed the formatting for you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree this league is very unlikely to ever get off the ground. But it's already mentioned (and sourced) at both American National Rugby League and Rugby league in the United States. As it was attached to the former, why not just redirect it there?Cúchullain ^t/c 14:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. —AIRcorn (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant information into Rugby league in the United States#Proposed professional competition. If it happens to kick off the article can be split out, otherwise it should probably stay as a section. AIRcorn (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Anyone?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Aircorn. If it happens the page can moved back. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreton Bay Morris[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG. Was nominated for an A7 speedy, but that fell through. User:Timelord2067, the article's creator, probably has a significant conflict of interest (see the talk page too). Raymie (t • c) 03:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real indications of notability per WP:ORG Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dance troupe that is defunct and doesn't have any references indicating they were notable while in existence. Szzuk (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete no reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They don't seem to have achieved media notability, as I didn't find any third-party sources aside from a YouTube video on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biophile[edit]

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

This is a clearly non-notable magazine. The article's tone is much like an advertisement and it has been tagged for references since 2009. There appears to be zero coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 03:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, closer to G11 spam from the Texo/rrrr SPA. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Spector[edit]

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

This is a neutral nomination to address the concerns posed in a proposed deletion: "appears to be unnotable vanity article full of trivial information without any references or sources to mainstream publications indicating notability". Article restored on request. Your thoughts? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow. This article made me laugh. This thing is almost ridiculous enough to userfy, but not quite enough. This man is a non-notable voice actor and his page is a ridiculous unencyclopedic piece of vanity. Will you please explain some more of the circumstances surrounding the PROD? I see no reason this should be contested. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 03:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles deleted by proposed deletion are normally restored on request without discussion. It gives users a chance to contest 'posthumously', if you will. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the article is poorly written and extremely out of date, those are not criteria for deletion. The lack of third-party coverage of the subject is, however. Other than IMDB and self-published sources, I find nothing out there about him. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If there wasn't a meager Imdb page, I might have thought the article was a hoax.
KEEP While there are clearly so-called "facts" that are meant as jokes, the imdb page indicates that he wrote and produced some of David Blaine's television specials. It should be updated and stripped of the hoaxy material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.101.53 (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as an apparently self-written fluffball, although there really should be a legion of fame for such material where this could reside: "Trivia: Cannot ride a bicycle, nor can he drive an automobile, despite being licensed to do so in New York State....Known for his affinity for Dunkin' Donuts, especially their iced coffee and breakfast sandwiches (regardless of the time of day). Received two separate bite wounds to his head during two separate street fights in October 2004. Wears New Balance sneakers exclusively. Huge fan of MacGyver...." Carrite (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no actual assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just performed some cleanup and removed the unsourced trivia from this BLP, as well as tagging the BLP itself for not being sourced. In searching, I do not find him meeting WP:GNG and his career fails WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing Boat Song[edit]

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

Google searched and does not appear in any charts or media. Lachlanusername (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per search results reported by nominator, plus the article itself states that only 500 copies of the record were pressed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A song of which only 500 copies exist needs to have had a lot of coverage in reliable sources to be deemed notable. Fails both WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. —Andrew_stalk 07:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This release doesn't seem notable. The M. Ward article doesn't mention it or I would have suggested merging there. The release should be mentioned in the discographies of the bands that contributed if this article is to be deleted, assuming it's existence is verifiable.--Michig (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Grandaddy discography. –MuZemike 06:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rugged and Splintered Entertainment Center[edit]

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

Google searched and does not appear in any charts or media. Lachlanusername (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grandaddy discography. It seems unlikely that anyone will search on the Grandaddy side expecting to go to the Polyphonic Spree article, but anyone searching for information on this track should at least be directed to the discography where it's mentioned. --Michig (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I've added details of this release to the Polyphonic Spree article, so there's now nothing here that merits a separate article, though the redirect would still be valid.--Michig (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please let me know, either on my talk page or via email if you wish to have a copy of the article to work on for future consideration. –MuZemike 06:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mic Wrath[edit]

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

Autobiographical article about a musician of questionable notability. Little significant coverage found outside primary sources/social media sites. Google search on "Mic Wrath" shows only about 135 unique results. Of the notability claims, I can't find reliable sources that back up the producer claim, acting roles appear to be minor/extra roles. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND, does not pass any of the criteria. Yunshui (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2011
~~Do NOT Delete~~ per WP:BAND, All relevant references have now been added to this article. Mic wrath (talk) 22:11, 03 ~~July~~ August 2011 — Mic wrath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. Recent changes by the primary author, Mic wrath, appear to be attempts to establish notability; if so they are unsuccessful. Mostly they are references to unreliable sources that do not mention the artist. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete per WP:BAND, All relevant references have now been added to this article and ARE reliable references. Most references state the artist using his previous name Rhyme'z which he is no longer known as, but is still active as a Artist. Mic wrath (talk) 22:11, 03 ~~July~~ August 2011 — Mic wrath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please read WP:RS. Blogs, other wikis, and YouTube are not considered reliable sources. Some of the new sources do indeed refer to a Rhymez, but again none of them establishes notability. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the recently added sources:

L.D.B - Wordpress Blog. Blogs are not regarded as reliable sources; anyone can create them and say whatever they want.
Kidz N The Hood - Grimepedia. This is a blank page.
L.D.B - Yes Im That Guy Video - DJ SEMTEX. Again, it's a blog.
BBC THREE - Singing With The Enemy. This is better - the BBC are an excellent source - but it makes no mention of Mic Wrath or Rhyme'z, and the video content has been withdrawn.
Rago Magazine Intervie With Jay Full Stop. This gives me a 404 error, if anyone else can access this site they may be able to check it for notability. However, i did a search of Rago Magazine's archives - no hits for either Mic Wrath or Rhyme'z.
Hood Tapes - Romance - Word Blossom. A mixtape site where anyone can upload their music. Again, not a reliable source.
Mic Wrath - The Strong Move Silent Video. A YouTube video. Again, since anyone can upload whatever they want to YouTube, it is not a reliable source.
Choice FM - Playlist. This does at least meet WP:RS, and verifies the statement in the text. However, it does nothing to demonstrate notability.
StreetDance 3D Production Notes. Seems to be a dead link.
DJ Semtex = StreetDance 3D Review. Yet another blog.
Zion Website. Another dead link. Correcting the link indicates that a person who appears to be Mic Wrath (certainly looks like the chap in the YouTube video) has a role as a character in an as-yet-unreleased independent short film, which may or may not be notable in and of itself. Since the film has not yet been released, it is impossible to say whether or not this may confer notability. Given that independent shorts by unknown directors rarely set the world on fire, I think we can safely say that this too fails to make Mr Wrath noteworthy for inclusion.
Zion - Character Profile Maxwell. Same website as above (another botched link).

See those links in the text above? If you want to keep this article, read 'em. Here they are again: Reliable Sources and Notability. Best of luck. Yunshui (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To read the deadlinky pages, delete the /s from the ends of the URLs. I did this myself within the article so we could continue the discussion. Lagrange613 (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Have read WP:RS Notability I understand. This individual is known by different names as I have highlighted before. You have M.D.R which stands for Mike Da Ripper/Murda Da Rhyme'z also short for Rhyme'z who was in a collective called Lyrically Scar'd. He is now known as Mic Wrath aka Romance, I dont know why he has different names but this is the same person. Below I have answered to your arguments about the links I put within the references. Mic wrath (talk) 09:29, 04 August 2011 — Mic wrath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Regarding the recently added sources:

L.D.B - Wordpress Blog. Blogs are not regarded as reliable sources; anyone can create them and say whatever they want

(yes very true, BUT looking along the page your see the names Rhyme'z & Romance which are stated in the Article I've also found this interview on You Tube which is of London Dream Boyz the group Rhyme'z/Romance has been affilated with. In this video you see Rhyme'z introuducing him self and the group >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOU5zDetdsQ) wacth from 6:00 and onwards.

Kidz N The Hood - Grimepedia. This is a blank page (Removed, this as I understand this is not relevant)

L.D.B - Yes Im That Guy Video - DJ SEMTEX. Again, it's a blog.

(yes it is a blog, but its a OFFICIAL blog written by the man himself giving visual evidence of Rhyme'z in the video, he even says his name before he raps his verse, you can also google this and it will say ft Rhyme'z)

BBC THREE - Singing With The Enemy. This is better - the BBC are an excellent source - but it makes no mention of Mic Wrath or Rhyme'z, and the video content has been withdrawn.

(Lyrically Scar'd is the collective M.D.R, Mike Da Ripper/Murda Da Rhyme'z, Rhyme'z now known as Mic Wrath aka Romance used to be in. this is giving reference that the show existed. content has been removed but there is detailed writing there stating Lyrically Scar'd were a part of the show.)

Rago Magazine Intervie With Jay Full Stop. This gives me a 404 error, if anyone else can access this site they may be able to check it for notability. However, i did a search of Rago Magazine's archives - no hits for either Mic Wrath or Rhyme'z.

(this is link works fine, It is a interview with Lyrically Scar'd member Jay Fullstop who states that Rhyme'z was in Lyrically Scar'd at that time and how he features on the track "Hotel Califiornia" which features on his debut Album City Meals, look under the section's Yeh lets talk about Lyrically Scar'd for a minute., When did that crew get together and who’s in it, what does each member bring to the table? and Do they feature on the mixtape or album? this clearly states the name Rhyme'z or Rhyme's >>> http://www.ragomagazine.com/interviews/jay-full-stop-v-from-south-london-uk.html)

Hood Tapes - Romance - Word Blossom. A mixtape site where anyone can upload their music. Again, not a reliable source.

(But it does again state the Name "Romance" and if you go on You Tube & Type Mic Wrath it will come up with his YouTube Channel with Video's with the name Mic Wrath aka Romance and there are Video's on his channel using the same pictures from the the Website.)

Mic Wrath - The Strong Move Silent Video. A YouTube video. Again, since anyone can upload whatever they want to YouTube, it is not a reliable source.

(How can this not be a reliable source? this is giving you VISUAL evidence of Mic Wrath, it is a video oploaded by the people who shot and edited the video? look at the person on the video *Tattoo on the neck* and this video is on various sites, Im sure if this was not Mic Wrath there would not be a demand for it to be put on sites?)

Choice FM - Playlist. This does at least meet WP:RS, and verifies the statement in the text. However, it does nothing to demonstrate notability.

(Of course this demonstrates notability the same song in the Video is the same song played on Choice FM therefore the persons in the Video are the actual Artists that feature on the track. Mic Wrath clearly has a tatoo on his neck that reads "Respect Love & Loyalty" if you go to his you tube videos or even type his name in and follow his official Facebook fan profile you will clearly see pictures demonstrating this. Choice FM are one of the biggest radio staions in the UK im pretty sure they research the music before the play it on air that link shows you a playlist stating that Mic Wrath was played on Choice FM.

StreetDance 3D Production Notes. Seems to be a dead link

( this is not a dead link, works fine, in the Production notes its states his name but they seem to have spelt it wrong spelling it as Rhime'z using the first Name Michael Idubor? which must be a previous surname he used to use but Visual evidence shows the person in this movie is Mic Wrath aka Romance, the scene that he is in shows a individual with the exact same tattoo on the neck he carrys "Respect Love & Loyalty" Im quite sure people dont get the same tatoo's across the neck these days? if you watch the linkbelow is shows Mic Wrath aka Romance along side DJ Semtex as is written in the article. >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJgo8Tt9beI&feature=related

DJ Semtex = StreetDance 3D Review. Yet another blog.

(Again a OFFICIAL blog written by the man himself, stating his inclusion within the Movie why would he lie? theres visual evidence)

Zion Website. Another dead link. Correcting the link indicates that a person who appears to be Mic Wrath (certainly looks like the chap in the YouTube video) has a role as a character in an as-yet-unreleased independent short film, which may or may not be notable in and of itself. Since the film has not yet been released, it is impossible to say whether or not this may confer notability. Given that independent shorts by unknown directors rarely set the world on fire, I think we can safely say that this too fails to make Mr Wrath noteworthy for inclusion.

( This is not a dead link, this is a official website stating Michael Raphael Davies who is Mic Wrath aka Romance is a lead character, look through the website and pictures, same guy with the Tattoo on his neck reading "Respect, love & Loyalty" is on there also there is a link to a facebook page showing a video on the page entitled ZION with below it 27 May 2011 if you watch that from 7:57 you will see a brief interview with Michael Raphael Davies again known as Mic Wrath aka Romance, also the guy has the same tattoo on his neck >>> https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150255993030396&oid=220818981279833&comments. It is unfair to say "Unknown directors rarely set the world on fire" that is a opinion not a fact!, this short film features Aml Ameen who is a well established british Actor who's stardom came from the movies Kidulthood and Adulthood who won Noel Clarke a Bafta award. also it features another well known Actor, Ashley Walters who both of them you can google and loads of information would come up. So if its good enough for a Actor who was part of a Bafta winning Movie then it must be worth some acknowldegement.)

Zion - Character Profile Maxwell. Same website as above (another botched link)

(No its not a botched link, as I have written above.)

Mic wrath (talk) 09:29, 04 August 2011 — Mic wrath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reply Hi Mic. If you'll forgive my saying so, although you may have read WP:RS it's pretty clear from your comments above that you haven't really understood it. I refer you specifically to the section on self-published sources, where it is clearly stated that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." DJ Semtex' blog, YouTube, Hood Tapes and so on are therefore not considered, by Wikipedia standards, to be reliable sources of information. If I were to upload a video to YouTube in which I claimed Mic Wrath was the President of Greece, won the 1994 Mr Universe competition and eats a macrobiotic diet, would that information then be valid to quote in the article?

Lagrange613 has helpfully fixed the article links, so I can see the Streetdance and Rago ones now. Neither convince me of Mr Wrath's notability. Please check the specific criteria for notability for musicians, and indicate which of the criteria there apply to Mic Wrath. I think we can write off number 1, but if he passes any of these (except, arguably, number 7), the article's a keeper. I have, believe me, tried to find one of these that could be applied, but so far I have failed; hence my !vote still remains unchanged. Yunshui (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yunshui I fully understand, apologies for before. The Article lacks the resources Wikipedia find acceptable to be kept! I do understand that! Im just trying to show resources that are common sense to see from a "Visual" point but quite difficult to put out as txt in the Article showing the WP:RS & notability of the resources. I suppose this article obviously needs more information from credible sources to be believed Perhaps if the Article was changed to Rhyme'z instead of Mic Wrath then we wouldnt be having this issue, its because this Artist is now named Mic Wrath its hard to find details that showcase his history under his new name. But its not rocket science, I've found lots of Articles on Wikipedia that have no WP:RS notability take a look for example at Mic Wrath ex collective member Jay Fullstop who's article is very similar and hardly has any sources as to what he's saying? so If he exists surely Mic Wrath does also take a look at the article Vex King, please take a look at these to understand the point Im making. Its just a Article giving the public information about a Artist? But if you must, Delete it!

Mic wrath (talk) 11:56, 04 August 2011 — Mic wrath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reply The issue is one of general notability, rather than name-changes - in looking for sources, I searched under Mic Wrath, Rhyme'z, Michael Raphael Davies and Romance (that last one was pretty hopeless!), but he isn't notable under any of these names: if he were, we could have an article on him. Noting that other articles are equally poorly sourced isn't much of an argument for retention, but you're right about the Jay Fullstop article being an issue; after another fruitless hunt for sources demonstrating his notability, I've reluctantly AfD'd that article too. Yunshui (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Ok, on that Note I agree for this Article to be deleted. Thank you for making me understand the reasons why. I understand the article cannot be left blank so I've deleted most of the information that was on there before and have left minimum info so Wikipedia can delete it.

Thank you.

Mic wrath (talk) 13:48, 04 August 2011 — Mic wrath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For anyone not following this closely, User:Mic wrath has mostly blanked the article. Are we done here? (I.e., can we agree to delete the article?) Lagrange613 (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Grandaddy discography. –MuZemike 06:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MGM Grand (song)[edit]

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

Google searched and does not appear in any charts or media. Lachlanusername (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grandaddy discography. It's possible someone could search for this, and it's listed there with almost as much detail as we have in this article.--Michig (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The David (rock group)[edit]

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

This article emphasizes how obscure the group is and doesn't demonstrate notability. If deleted, Another Day, Another Lifetime would be {{db-album}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article pretty much states that at the time the band was originally active, it did nothing that was noted; one failed album and then they disbanded. The only possibility of meeting WP:BAND would be the claimed current day cult following. However that is unsubstantiated by any sources, and I can find none in my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or more specifically, I say move it back into a draft space to see if this statement: "Though meeting little success while together, the David has garnered a cult following in various parts of the world including France, the Balkans, Scandinavia, Britain, and the Northwest and Northeastern United States." can be substantiated (in which case I'd find the band notable). If not, the prose of the text pretty much undermines its own importance. Sloggerbum (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bitetti Combat MMA 7[edit]

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

also nominating:

Bitetti Combat MMA 6
Bitetti Combat MMA 5
Bitetti Combat MMA 4

another sprawling series of fighting results. coverage merely confirms the event happened, nothing to establish long term notability as per WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage seems to be either routine after the fact reporting or before the fight press releases. Astudent0 (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles are rountine sports coverage with no indication of notability. Papaursa (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 last 3 comments following the second relist push this to the "keep" side. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Dark (Dev song)[edit]

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

~~Single, article makes no attempt at passing WP:NSONGS, references show only existence -- being a single is not enough by itself. Bold redirect reverted twice.~~ Amalthea 10:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NSONGS, no reason to believe will ever become notable in the future.—Kww(talk) 11:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. It does have a couple of reviews (1, 2) which could be added but don't feel this will help it pass this criteria. Nik thestoned 11:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the reviews, non notable release. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 10:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. I like this song — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.103.239 (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, does not meet the notability guidelines to justify an article for a single song. It is unlikely that this article would grow beyond, at best, a list of excerpts from reviews. Skleinjung (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Apparently this song is now listed on an acceptable national chart. Although this is not by itself enough to make it pass WP:N/WP:NSONGS, and no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources has been produced as of yet, in my personal opinion having charted is an acceptable bright line and I generally leave articles like that alone. I thus withdraw my nomination, acknowledging that the other opinions above may still be valid. Amalthea 15:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Considering the nominator's "heel-face turn", some more discussion would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. It's going to be released next week in the UK and if the past singles are anything to go by then it should chart there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitumen649ndx (talk • contribs) 20:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Song is now on three charts and a couple sources are in the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has charted on two national charts. I hear it on the radio like every day so it will most likely chart in my country too. Pancake (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is now notable because of the charts Spiderone 08:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonita Magazine[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. The only coverage that I could find about this magazine is the one hit from the scholar search [19], and it doesn't seem to be more than a mere mention - frankie (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vacuous, spammy, unwikified orphan article about a latina fashion mag which is not the subject of substantial independent published coverage elsewhere. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 06:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NGOs in Bangladesh[edit]

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

A list like this ends up being a place for these NGOs to promote themselves. As the article says, "number of NGOs in Bangladesh in excess of 20,000" and "Here some NGO are categorized according to their main area of work but the categorization is not accurate". This is a list that will never be complete and accurate. As of right now, some NGOs are listed multiple times on the page, and many have external links to the organization websites. In addition, there is already a Category:Non-governmental organisations based in Bangladesh so it would reduce the amount of spam from non-notable NGOs if the major ones are included in the Category. EdwardZhao (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Non-governmental organisations based in Bangladesh Stuartyeates (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't redirect from article to category. Delete since the list will be too big and promotional. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted as their is no prohibition on redirecting an article to a category, so this needs a little more examination. Courcelles 01:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is an excessively massive "universal set" for this list. I think focused lists of Non-Governmental Organizations might work: List of environmental NGOs in Bangladesh, but without some sort of narrowing of inclusion criteria there is no utility or functionality to a list. Imagine trying to derive benefit as a Wikipedia user from an amorphous blob called List of private companies in the United States and you'll understand the issue... Carrite (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator has had his chance to provide a valid reason for deletion and has failed to do so. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Horne (radio)[edit]

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

a number of inaccuracies Frdbr (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can those inaccuracies be fixed by normal editing? If not, why not? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason suggested for deletion is not a valid reason to delete the page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have this discussion closed? The nominator failed to provide an adequate reason for deletion and has not edited Wikipedia at all since then. This probably should have been a speedy close, rather than keeping the discussion open indefinitely. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Default to keep I'm not sure if Horne's departure from Metro Radio ([20]) days before this nomination has anything to do with it, but this isn't a nomination that's given us anything to work with so.. Someone another 17:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all (no reason supplied) by Courcelles. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Rules Africa Bomba-Yaa 2006[edit]

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

another sprawling series that fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. also nominating:

K-1 Rules "First Step Road To Tokyo" 2006
K-1 Fighting Network Riga 2006
K-1 Kings of Oceania 2006 Round 3 LibStar (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zakaria Paliashvili. Courcelles 03:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Zakaria Paliashvili[edit]

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

Reccomend a speedy deletion of this unsubstantiated place may be hoax no vot verified no sources reliable or otherwise, mini stub HBf/H 00:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not a hoax, since the Kutaisi city website has a page and photo gallery for the museum. Whether or not it meets general notability guidelines is another question. Perhaps it should redirect to Zakaria Paliashvili where the museum is also already mentioned. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the suggestion of LAL. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per suggestion above until such time as enough info can be sourced to show notability. StarM 01:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Nominator's rationale is sound and there's no objections to deletion so I'm treating this as an uncontested PROD. Since it has sources this article can be restored upon request at requests for undeletion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel A. Jenkins[edit]

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

Non-notable musician: there's lots of little bits that might establish notability, but they don't quite do so. Having talents sufficient to meet and work with celebrities doesn't make you notable. The footnotes might suggest notability: the National Academy of Recording Artists - the people who put on the Grammy Awards, right? But working with NARAS to lobby the government doesn't make you notable in the same way as winning a Grammy does.

Google test doesn't bring up enough to establish notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 03:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Gonsalves[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

as per previous nomination. I see no reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biography of the person has a UN award and is the first Goan to be awarded by UN. It meets criteria WP:ANYBIO Sehmeet singh (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an awarded fellow, it seems to meet criteria --Ouaanaya1 (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Ouaanaya1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Basically an unsourced BLP Courcelles 03:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franck Hermanny[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, no reliable sources, nothing in the article attributed to a source. My redirect to the (maybe also non-notable) band that he's in was soon reverted, so bringing it here. Michig (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability has been unaccomplished. I didn't see any notable mentions on both Yahoo! and Google aside from his MySpace and other trivial websites. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adagio (band) without judgment on that article's suitability for deletion. Lagrange613 (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 06:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What If (Aaliyah song)[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet to notability guideline for music (songs); non-charting album track. The article is composed of original research. Dan56 (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the article's two main contributors 68.49.100.213 and R&BEditzs; the former has been active since the notice, while the latter has not edited since early June, so I don't think he checked. Dan56 (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lachlanusername (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aaliyah (album). Violates WP:NSONGS, WP:NOR and WP:V. The song didn't even chart on the Billboard charts. No references, and the article is not going to grow much more than it is right now. Meets speedy deletion criterion A9. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 06:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete violation of many things. Its completely opinion-based fancruft which is not a substantiated at all. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 03:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bayonet (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A punk rock band that released their first album today. It is an Extended play album released on the independent label Mightier Than Sword Records. Think this is a tad TooSoon. Note: Article was deleted in 2009, waaay before a record was released. So, that AfD has no bearing here. Bgwhite (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think it meets WP:BAND: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. Being covered by AbsolutePunk, Punknews.org, Rock Sound and Alternative Press ought to count for something. Puchiko (Talk-email) 09:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AbsolutePunk and PunkNews articles are user generated content, therefore not reliable. Rock Sound and Alternative Press are one/two paragraph references are about the release of the album and not about the band. I was unable to find reliable references about the band. Bgwhite (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – While AbsolutePunk and PunkNews may accept news tips from users, they're always reviewed and edited by a staff member before posting. The two sources used in this article from these two publications were solely published by a staff member and had nothing to do with their respective site's users as indicated by the lack of an attribution to a user. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "staff members" are volunteer users that are not paid. Anyone can submit news, but are "reviewed" by their staff members. I love the "You have news about your band, click here to submit the news." PunkNews requires a source when you submit news, but the source can be from Facebook, MySpace or any site. The entire forum board reference you have for AbosolutePunk, from 2009, reads, "Buddy Nielsen of Senses Fail has started a new band with members of The Banner entitled Bayonet. Check out songs at their myspace." The album review references from Rock Sound are reliable sources as it comes from a published magazine. Bgwhite (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – PunkNews has its own ISSN, Wikipedia considers it a reliable review site, and at least two of their staff members (Brian Shultz, Scott Heisel) also write for Alternative Press. I fail to see how using social networking sites as a source in the year 2011 holds any weight, especially when even the larger and more print-focused publications do the same[21][22][23]. PopMatters and Alternative Press are considered reliable sources, and yet they too offer user-submitted news tips. I also fail to see why it matters whether or not the staff is paid or volunteer as long as the staff members are clear and can be easily distinguished from site users. From WP:USERGENERATED: "any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." Fezmar9 (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Bayonet currently meets WP:BAND criteria #1 and #6. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It's simply one argument against another with absolutely no other participation even after a relisting. –MuZemike 06:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peruz Terzekyan[edit]

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

No evidence that the general notability requirements are met. Searches for sources, nothing for: Peruz Terzekyan, Queen of Kanto music, or Minik Peruz.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At present, I cannot find sources written in English language. But there are sources about "Kantocu Peruz" in Turkish language. Takabeg (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this soruce, not Terzekyan, but Terzakyan. Takabeg (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No 20 - Falcı Çingene (Gypsy Fortune teller) in this CD was sung by Peruz Hanım & Şamran Hanım. This song was recorded in 1904-05. Takabeg (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources. According to sources, Peruz Hanım was most skilful kanto singer at the time. Takabeg (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Takabeg (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck McCoy[edit]

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

Contested prod. The concern was that this gentleman falls short of general and BLP-specific notability guidelines. Jafeluv (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think BLP is at issue here; he's clearly a public figure, having put himself out there as a media personality both on the radio and on the Internet. However, due to sharing a name with the Canadian radio executive, it may be tricky to find further sources. I'll see what I can do. Powers ^T 15:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; minimally notable BLP with very little coverage. Subject has also requested deletion. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Erk, say what? Powers ^T 19:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only two sources in the article are a) a bio from somewhere he works (no good for establishing notability) and b) an article that touches on him briefly and vaguely. All the other sources I looked at mostly met "a", plus a few "b"'s as well. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, yes, I'm working on that. I meant "Subject has also requested deletion." -- where did you get that? Powers ^T 01:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that's a very good question. Is there an OTRS ticket number? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, #2011072110014608 Obviously we don't do "deletion on request". But on a marginal BLP, that the subject would like the article removed usually sways things (it's written into the policy somewhere, but I can't find it right now). --Errant ^(chat!) 08:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It had been my impression that that provision was for non-public figures. An actual media personality wouldn't seem to qualify. Powers ^T 11:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I think any BLP subject should be allowed to say his peace even if it would be given very little weight for an "A list celebrity". The problem has always been twofold. 1. How to we determine if some "red user"/IP editor who claims to be the subject really is the subject? 2. Even if they do contact OTRS there are privacy concerns that more often then not prevent the OTRS volunteer from telling us what exactly the subject's beef is. I recall one AFD where the nominator/OTRS guy did nothing but reference a ticket number which wasn't helpful because almost the entire debate was about the vague OTRS ticket with little discussion on the merits of the article or how it did or did not meet our inclusion guidelines. Fortunately that's not the issue here as Jafeluv has provided a policy based rationale for his nomination. Still, if this discussion does turn into a "coin flipper" then knowing what the subject's concerns are would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS (one of the two sources is marginal, the other is just promotional, and I couldn't find anything else in a Google search). Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MWW Group[edit]

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

Repeatedly recreated article about another non-notable public relations firm. Referenced to press release based stories about petty trade awards, routine mergers and spinoffs, and industry size rankings, none of which are genuinely independent sources, and none of which demonstrate significant effects on history, culture, or the development of the field. Since they apparently really really want a Wikipedia article, I assume the sources present are the best ones out there, and they are not significant enough coverage. I am not finding anything better myself. Recommend protection against re-creation. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.

Delete and salt per nom and my previous PROD on the article.--v/r - T P 19:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, I'm the primary author of the article. I am in no way affiliated with the company, except insofar as I was e-mailed by an employee as a friend of a friend, and that employee asked me to for some advice. Second, the sources cited are probably not the best ones out there, despite the organisation's desire for a Wikipedia article. I spent at most an hour searching Google for what I could find, decided it was more than enough, and left it at that. I'm sure more could be found. More importantly, I'm curious as to why the sources already cited are judged to be A) not genuinely independent and B) not significant enough. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source #1, #3, and #5 are press releases. #2 has no editorial oversight. It's written by one person and published by him. #4 is a mere mention. #6 also has no editorial oversight and is self published. #7 is the only source that is independent of the subject, significant, and a reliable source. Thus failing WP:GNG which requires multiple, not one.--v/r - T P 22:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TP. I'd add that the sources don't really say much. Being acquired and spun off, winning an award from a trade association, and participating in publicity campaigns for people and products don't go very far to make any public relations business notable. Particularly, being associated with campaigns for notable products or institutions does not confer notability by contagion on a public relations firm: it's sort of what we'd expect any firm in that sort of business to do. (Trade awards seem to proliferate; unless it's something well known at the level of a Michelin Guide, I don't think they count as very significant coverage.) Announcements that campaigns have been launched, mergers, or spinoffs, aren't the kind of deep coverage we're after. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of other third-party sources. Both a Yahoo! and a Google search didn't retrieve any notable mentions aside from money mentions, i.e. PRNewswire, Yahoo! Money, etc. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Article shows no evidence of notability justifying its being on Wikipedia. Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Faulk[edit]

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

Subject has not met notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Xajaso (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Xajaso (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Possibly meets WP:NHOCKEY by being named to the Frozen Four All-Tournament Team. Also keeps getting coverage in The Hockey News: [24] [25] [26] [27] plus apparently a full length article in the May 16, 2011 issue that I can't seem to access [28]. There is also some coverage in the USA Today [29], Fox [30]more coverage here [31], and here [32] a small bit on NBC [33], some coverage here [34], and this from the WJC [35] and that doesn't cover any attention he may have received as a highly rated prospect in advance of his draft or upon being drafted. Rlendog (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Frozen Four All-Tournament Team is not a major award so not meeting criterion #4 of NHOCKEY, and independent coverage is not substantial so not meeting GNG. Xajaso (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't call that a major award as its only chosen out of 4 teams. -DJSasso (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor league hockey player who doesn't meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Johnblue52 (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 03:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JumpStart[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It's almost 100% unsourced, and the notability is certainly not reflective of the article length. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found these sources:
- 3 reviews for JumpStart Pet Rescue[36]
- 7 reviews for JumpStart Escape From Adventure Island [37]
- CNet Editor's review of JumpStart World 2nd Grade [38]
- TopTenReviews JumpStart 2011 review [39] (I haven't heard of this site, but it's in the videogames RS search)
- JumpStart Toddlers and JumpStart Babies synopsis at allgame [40] [41]
- JumpStart Music and JumpStart Typing reviews at allgame [42] [43]

The "Jump Ahead" branding fairs less well: They are listed at allgame and metacritic but do not appear to have been reviewed anywhere. Nevertheless, I think there's enough here for a series overview article. Marasmusine (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Without digging too much, search gets reliable source hits. Certainly past the point of WP:GNG. Not that the article couldn't do with a little cleanup, but that's not the AfD's job. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article needs a lot of work, but the jumpstart series is has been and is still used an a large number of schools in the US (or at least in VA), and has been around since I was a kid in the early 90's. Definitely noteworthy. --Djohns21 (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It might be that it would make a better list of software than an article but I see collective notability based on the above sources. Someone another 17:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources found above establish notability. If the article is 100% unreferenced, how about fixing it?. You've got about 10+ to work with now. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 21:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nomination was withdrawn, anyways, which IMO should have been honored 6 days ago instead of holding the nominator's feet to the fire here. –MuZemike 06:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mego Sonny & Cher Toys[edit]

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

crufty, no assertion of notability, unreliable sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no personal interest in this type of "collectible". However, a Google search for "Sonny & Cher" dolls +Mego shows coverage by the Chicago Tribune in 1976 and in a number of antiques and collectibles books. Although these dolls may be little known in 2011, they were notable enough in 1976 that Bob Mackie designed the costumes. This isn't an encylopedia of things in the 21st century, it is an encyclopedia of things that remain notable after decades, centuries and millenia, because notability is not temporary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above (I'm the author). --87.16.92.10 (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- with very little effort I . found additional references. Geo Swan (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article's name should be changed. I don't see the need to mention the name of the manufacturer, unless additional manufacturers were also to make Sonny and Cher dolls. Geo Swan (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a nine-source 'refspam' for the simple fact that WP:ITEXISTS, plus a whole swathe of citations to fansites (megomuseum.com, cherscholar.com, hieroglyph.net) does not amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". No indication on Google News/Books of reliable sources that "address the subject directly in detail". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, in the interest of collegiality, you could say how you think the article should be changed, so that it conforms to what you consider merits inclusion?
- One of the references I added was to a book, an illustrated volume on rock and roll memorability. Perhaps you could explain why you asserted "No indication on Google News/Books of reliable sources that 'address the subject directly in detail'"?
- I disagree that the references I added merely demonstrate that the dolls existed. Rather they demonstrate that the dolls were the subject of coverage for over thirty years. People use encyclopedias to look things up. Perhaps you have forgotten that. Perhaps you already know who Sonny and Cher were/are. Perhaps you think anyone who comes across a reference to a Sonny and Cher doll should be able to figure out everything relevant to the dolls without looking up an article. If so I suggest you are forgetting that the wikipedia's readers will include lots of people who don't know who Sonny and Cher were, who don't know what a Barbie doll is, who will require looking the topic up to understand the reference.
- Frankly I wasn't comfortable with the original references, all to sites whose notability I thought might be questioned. But I didn't have the heart -- or the energy -- to give the article a cruftectomy rewrite. I believe the quotes in the references I supplied demonstrate sufficient varied detail, over 30+ years satisfies the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that you cited.
- I remind you that deletion is supposed to be based on the notability of the topic, not over concerns over the current state of the article. Geo Swan (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement whatsoever to accompany a 'delete' !vote with a statement of "how you think the article should be changed", and I view your request for such to be borderline WP:HARRASSment of contrary !votes, rather than "collegiality".
As the fact that "one of the references I added was to a book, an illustrated volume on rock and roll memorability" does not in any way contradict the claim that there is "No indication on Google News/Books of reliable sources that 'address the subject directly in detail'", no explanation is necessary -- and your demand for such simply amounts to further WP:HARRASSment.
"The Sonny & Cher Dolls were a 12 ¼ inch celebrity dolls, in the likeness of Pop rock duo Sonny & Cher.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]}" = 9 sources cited for rthe bare existence of the topic. This egregious over-citation serves no legitimate verifiability purpose whatsoever, so clearly is aimed simply at larding the article up with references to simulate notability.
"Frankly ma'am I don't give a damn." Short quotes don't demonstrate coverage "directly in depth".
Notability is based on evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", with "significant coverage" defined as sources "address the subject directly in detail". No such evidence has been forthcoming to date, so notability has not been established.

I would conclude by suggesting that you concentrate your efforts on finding reliable third-party sourcing to do more than simply re-re-re-re-re-re-verify the topic's bare existence, rather than arguing interminably with those that point out the article's deficiencies. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I know you are an experienced contributor, but there is one crucial point you seem to have forgotten. Opinions as to which articles should be deleted is supposed to be based on the merits of covering the topic. All your criticisms focus on what you regard as the deficiencies of the current version of the article.
Now you could say "not only does this current article suck, but I don't think it would ever be a good idea for the wikipedia to have any articles devoted to dolls, modelled after celebrities. I would never agree to this kind of article, even if documentary film-maker Ken Burns released a 12 hour documentary on them. And the reason I object to any article on celebrity dolls, no matter how well documented, is ..."
If your objection is solely to the current state of the article, then, sorry, I have to wonder whether your "delete" opinion complies with our deletion policy. And I strongly disagree that asking you to expand on what changes you think would be necessary for you to change your mind is harrassment. If you have some blanket objection to articles on celebrity dolls I think questions aimed to get you to explain this objection are also not harrassment. For all I know if you made a good faith attempt to explain why you objected to articles on celebrity dolls maybe you would convince me.
If you genuinely regarded my good faith comments as harrassment, let me clarify for you that illumination not harrassment was my intention.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WRT to your numbered fifth point, we know:
- Who manufactured the dolls: Mego Toys;
- who designed the dolls costumes: Bob Mackie, then a well known fashion designer;
- how much they cost: $10 for the dolls, with each costume costing between $3 and $5;
- how many outfits were available: In the initial release there were 32 separate costumes for the Cher doll.
- that the dolls assumed significance in the gay world, with two separate articles where adult gay men reflected on how playing with the dolls as children played a role in coming to terms with their sexuality;
- that the dolls have become high priced collectible items;
- that adult fans continue to value and honor the dolls decades after they were made, up to taking Sonny dolls to his funeral;
All the points I list above were from the new references, not the original fansite references.

All the points I listed above were covered in the quotes I supplied in the references I provided.

Yes, ideally, those points should be in the body of the article itself. However, I am a volunteer, I am not obliged to do all the work required to bring the article up good article status by myself. I thought I could rely on good faith respondents here to see that there was potential in the new references I provided and which you characterized as REFSPAM to expand the article relying on good quality references.

No one reference included all the information above. But, taken together I believe they do cover the topic "in detail". Now if there is some detail, or set of details, you think would be required before you would agree that the references cover the topic "in detail" I call, once again, on your collegiality, and ask that you spell that out.

I remind you that the wikipedia is a world wide project. You may think "everyone" knows who Sonny and Cher were, so everyone should be able to figure out what a Sonny and Cher doll was, without looking it up. But individuals who did not grow up where the Sonny and Cher show was broadcast won't know what it means. Individuals too young to remember Sonny Bono, too young to know Cher was ever part of a duo, and was ever anything beyond the world's hottest 60 year old cougar, won't know what a Sonny and Cher doll is. Because the dolls are still being referred to, in newspaper articles, members of those two groups may want to look the topic up in their favourite encyclopedia. Maybe all they need to know is that the dolls were the same size as Barbie dolls, and like Barbie dolls, owners could dress them up in different outfits. This is a valid topic for an encyclopedia article. Geo Swan (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times says "At the American Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, Queens, an official Monkees tambourine and a pair of Sonny and Cher dolls are currently on exhibit, so a new program of rock-and-roll movies will fit right in." [44] They are notable enough to be in a museum. Dream Focus 03:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In a museum" ≠ notability. Bare mention in the NYT ≠ notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weird argument. The dolls being in a museum is potentially a sign of notability for Sonny and Cher or the company that makes the dolls, not the dolls themselves. Just like most artists may be notable due to their work being featured, but that does not mean the individual work is as well. By your logic, we should also have an article on the Monkees' Tambourine.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nicely documented article on a notable rock and roll collectible. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Say rather 'nice piece of unreliably-sourced (except for the refspam of its bare existence) WP:FANCRUFT'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying instead: Wikipedia is better off with this piece than without it. Carrite (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt that 'more unreliably-sourced WP:FANCRUFT' (from megomuseum.com, cherscholar.com & hieroglyph.net) equates to "better off" under any rational definition of that phrase. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The facts don't seem in dispute here and the worst case is that we'd merge with Sonny & Cher or Mego Corporation. Per our editing policy, there's no case for deletion. Warden (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish: nothing in the article, after the opening sentence is reliably sourced -- so (i) yes it is disputed & (ii) no it can't be merged. You make no valid argument for keeping and contrary to your boilerplate, blind preservation is not out editing policy (see WP:CANTFIX). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is an obvious keep under Wiki guideline. The dolls are now a vintage item. There are enough reliable sources which support the article. I have my self added few lines giving citation.Jethwarp (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is "obvious" is that you've made no valid, policy-based argument for keeping. And no, there aren't reliable sources for anything beyond the first sentence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is encyclopedic and not of temporary significance, that it self suffices to a Keep. further there are lot of [45] on line books which give enough material of how the dolls were a rage among the kids of those generation and are now a collectables.Jethwarp (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I think the article page should be changed to Sonny & Cher dolls.Jethwarp (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Iconic collectables frequently mentioned in popular culture.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Iconic figures, well-referenced. Radiopathy •talk• 16:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's two cents First off, I might as well withdraw this nomination per WP:SNOW--it's obviously going to be kept. Furthermore, while the article has probably been justifiably saved from deletion, it still contains mostly unreliable source making most of its claims. Subtract them and you have a much smaller article made up of mostly passing references to the dolls from reliable sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I'm the author of the article and I've clean up the citations. The site Megomuseum is the offical site of the Mego Corporation, so it's an official source. I've deleted the "Cherscholar" fan source and replaced with the template ^{[citation needed]}. The article also really needs a strong clean up due to my bad english. That's all.--79.13.80.73 (talk) 09:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: you've done nothing about the hieroglyph.net citations which both appear to be an unreliable-source & broken-links. Also, I would suggest that the amount of material cited to Mego's megomuseum.com is excessive -- a predomience of WP:SECONDARY-sourced material is needed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can replace hieroglyph.net with this site is from a book, an official source. --87.20.82.141 (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That does look like decent information, but it's always hard to judge the reliability of a source from on-line reproductions of printed material. Even if this were taken as read as being reliable, there's not enough to make a stand-alone article, as opposed to having the information merged. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to find signifigant coverage from reliable sources in the list of references. Will continue to look for sufficient sources, but right now this fails the general notability guideline. The Megomuseum sources clearly cannot be used to establish notability, and I'm only so far finding one source that even has a chance of being signifigant. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Ref one is just mentioned in a list, not signifigant.
2. This is quite hard to tell if it's signifigant, not being able to see the whole work. Looks pretty small?
3. It's one line under a photo, and press-release like coverage is not used to establish notability.
4. not coverage of the topic
5. trivial mention
6. trivial mention
7. trivial mention
8. trivial mention
9. trivial mention
10. fan site
11. self published source
12. self published source
13. offline source
14. not signifigant coverage on the topic. appears to be about designer
15. pretty hard to tell

per the above, delete. This can be userfied until the sources can be confirmed. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Though some of the sources in the article as I found it were not ideal, they don't detract from the notability of this toy line. (I do sympathize with the concern of overzealous wikipedia editors who would take a completely obscure toy and whip it up like crazy, however, these dolls were part of the zeitgeist of late 1970s U.S. pop culture. Perhaps just as much as the exploding Pop rocks hoax. Don't let the inclusion of unreliable sources obscure that fact.) I added two references from toy collecting books citing these dolls as quite popular (one noting a 1,000 guest party thrown at the Waldorf-Astoria to launch the toy, I also see there was a $1 million marketing campaign behind the launch), as well as a 1976 NY Times article which states that the Cher doll was the No. 1 selling doll that year. She looks like a monster next to Muhammad Ali and Evel Knievel! Image I also added a cite to a 1976 Time magazine reference to the impending release of the dolls.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is poorly written and ungrammatical. I have tagged it for copyedit. I have no position on keeping or deleting at this time. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Edward_A._McCabe
^ Lowery, Malinda Maynor (2010). Lumbee Indians in the Jim Crow South: race, identity, and the making of a nation. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press. p. 130. ISBN 9780807871119.
^ Osborne, Katherine, M.B. "In the Name of Justice and Fairness:The Mississippi Choctaw Indian Federation vs. the BIA, 1934", in Cobb,Daniel M.,Beyond Red Power:American Indian Politics and Activism Since 1900, 2007, School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico, ISBN 978-1930618862

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Edward_A._McCabe

[Lowery-2] Lowery, Malinda Maynor (2010). Lumbee Indians in the Jim Crow South: race, identity, and the making of a nation. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press. p. 130. ISBN 9780807871119.

[3] Osborne, Katherine, M.B. "In the Name of Justice and Fairness:The Mississippi Choctaw Indian Federation vs. the BIA, 1934", in Cobb,Daniel M.,Beyond Red Power:American Indian Politics and Activism Since 1900, 2007, School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico, ISBN 978-1930618862

[1]

[2]

[3]