Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 June 23 June >

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 keep. — Cirt (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Algerians[edit]

List of Algerians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List consists predominantly of original research and lacks any sources. Most of the modern people included on the list raise BLP issues, and sources (that are not referenced) for the ancient ones refer to them as Numidian. Once all unreferenced entries are removed per WP:LISTPEOPLE this page will be blank. -- Selket Talk 23:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Entirely unsourced information. Perhaps some of the current politicians could be kept pending a citation that Algerian citizens can only run for office (I only assume this to be true, though). As Selket stated, early rulers of Numidia are problematic entries because it now makes up current-day parts of Tunisia and Morocco. I Jethrobot (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly speedy keep because I fail to see any valid deletion rationale here. Are you claiming that it is unverifiable whether anyone is an Algerian or not? Unsourced at present ≠ OR, particularly not when the information may be sourced in the subjects' own articles, just not in this list at present. The standard is verifiable, not verified. Whether Numidians should or shouldn't be included in this list is an editing decision based on how reliable sources treat them, and in any event not a cause for deleting the list if the most extreme solution would just be to remove them from it. And do you intend to eventually nominate for deletion the Category:Algerian people category structure, and possibly all articles in Category:Lists of people by nationality? I'm aware of no consensus against these, nor any discussion establishing that the proper way to fix such verifiable lists is to blank them and/or nominate them for deletion, but given Selket's recent contributions, it seems like he's starting a broad campaign against indexes of article subjects by nationality. To what end and purpose, I cannot tell. postdlf (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly good subject for a list, many are easily sourced, some already sourced in their own articles. WP:LISTPEOPLE does not state that people should be removed if sources are not cited in the list itself.--Michig (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep So long as the individual articles are sourced, this is neither unsourced nor original information. 23:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy/Snow Keep Is Algeria a notable place? Definitely. Are there notable people from there? Sure. Maybe there are people on the list who are not, but that does not mean the article needs to go. Eauhomme (talk) 16:12, 26 June 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 by User:Athaenara under criteria WP:SPEEDY#G7. Marasmusine (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BioGamer Girl[edit]

BioGamer Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This reads largely as an advert - does not establish notability and references are all 'official' sites. Reichsfürst (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • BioGamer Girl does not read like an ‘advertisement.’ The document is fact-based, and there are many reliable sources sited to backup the information within the document. Also, BioGamer Girl cannot become anymore established having already linked references to websites where you can purchase the magazine through Magcloud, listen to radio programs from BlogTalkRadio and read a business review from Better Business Bureau. In addition to Magcloud and Better Business Bureau, there are other references to websites that are not directly affiliated with BioGamer Girl such as the Days of the Dead vendors link. Please check these sources and remove the deletion notice upon further review. I am a regular contributor to this entry, and I am always trying to help improve it. Thank you. XXmAsTeRsHaKe (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)— XXmAsTeRsHaKe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—True, the article has many references listed. But as a whole they seem very soft on satisfying WP:GNG. Sorry but I can't support a keep at this time. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine has been covered by local print media and has held charity events. See References. Amandadyar (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)— Amandadyar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Clarification: db-g7 deletion was explicitly requested by both Amandadyar and XXmAsTeRsHaKe, the authors of the "substantial content" per the criterion. – Athaenara ✉ 15:54, 25 June 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. consensus is that this lacks a clear scope and is unreferenced Spartaz Humbug! 05:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Afrikaners[edit]

List of Afrikaners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list contains no references, and extensive original research. Afrikaner is a contentious and suspect class as it is. Once all unreferenced entries are removed per WP:LISTPEOPLE this page will be blank. -- Selket Talk 23:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Weak consensus on categorical membership. The discussion section of the Afrikaners article is indeed in some dispute and has yet to determine what characteristics make an individual an Afrikaner. I Jethrobot (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no definition of the term Afrikaner that all concerned groups agree on. As such the list does not mean much: anyone from Africa could be in. As a statement of identity it does indeed mean something because a certain political assertion is made by it. Unfortunately, "I am an Afrikaner" means different things depending on the ethnicity of the speaker, and something like a List of people referring to themselves as Afrikaners would of course need a reliable source for each entry. In summary: Delete because this list would need a complete rewrite and a new name in order to become encyclopedic. --Pgallert (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename While Afrikaner is notable, this article really belongs in a List of South Africans, where the division is based on a political nationality and not on a questionably defined and politically charged ethnicity. Eauhomme (talk) 16:16, 26 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bilderberg Meeting attendees of 2011[edit]

List of Bilderberg Meeting attendees of 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is made up entirely of living people. It is based solely on a single webpage published by prisonplanet.com, a website run by Alex Jones who has recently been describing conspiracy theories concerning the Bilderberg Group. The article was created by a single purpose account with evident prior experience editing Wikipedia. A single, dubious source is not sufficient to show notability for this topic.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just discovered that there's also a List of Bilderberg participants. That makes this single-year list seem redundant, and there's nothing to merge since the source is poor quality.   Will Beback  talk  20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom due to unreliable sourcing. To the extent that anyone cares about who attended the meeting, it would be better just to include a link from Bilderberg Group to [1] which is a listing of attendees on the group's official site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons explained by Will Beback. --Loremaster (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement of the arguments above. John Shandy` • talk 05:39, 25 June 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 Withdrawn by nom. -DJSasso (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McNeill[edit]

Mark McNeill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable junior player who has yet to meet any of the points of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The 2011 NHL Entry Draft is going to start on the 24th, well within the period this AfD figures to run. According to what I'm reading on Google News, there's a strong chance this player will be selected in the first round. If that happens, McNeill will meet criterion 5 of WP:NHOCKEY. I won't say the article should be kept now (WP:CRYSTAL and all that), but if he is picked in the first round you can consider this a keep. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Indeed he will almost certainly meet criterion 5 of WP:NHOCKEY before this AfD has run its course. But even if he doesn't, I believe he has received enough coverage already (largely due to his likely draft status) to meet WP:GNG already. Rlendog (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since the Hawks just picked him in the 1st round. Patken4 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 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 withdrawn by nominator. Most of the sources mentioned listed by the sockpuppet below are not independent, third-party mentions, but the coverage in El Pais, Midi Libre and La Gazette de Montpellier is sufficient. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nath-Sakura[edit]

Nath-Sakura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artist does not appear to meet the notability guidelines described in WP:ARTIST; I can't find any major reviews of her work in independent (English or French) publications, and while she has apparently been involved in numerous exhibitions I don't know if any of them are "significant exhibitions". The creator of this article and the primary editor of the fr-wiki article on which this is based, User:Suzie-One, is likely to either be the article subject or someone closely related to her, given that this is the only subject she edits on en-wiki, the main subject she edits on fr-wiki, and that she uploaded File:Nathalia-aout2006d.jpg, a self-portrait of this artist, claiming it as "own work". rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In France and Spain, the artists are formally referenced when participating in auctions in official establishments. But the fact that many artists go through different networks. They are considered artists néamoins by the French government because they pay a monthly fee and are referenced by the Agessa services and / or the House of Artists. This discussion therefore has no place. In addition, major exhibitions that Nath-Sakura attended throughout Europe testify to his credibility. In two minutes of research I find on the net, a recent article in the largest newspaper in southern France, which supports this article. Read here: http://www.midilibre.fr/2011/05/04/nath-sakura-accroche-son-art-decale-au-sexy-au-chai-du-terral,313730.php 15:19 (GMT+1), 23 June 2011

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzie-One (talk • contribs)
That article does seem to offer some good coverage. I would still like to hear input from other editors. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is good enough explicit references in this article to detain him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria2005 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Victoria2005 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no references in the article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is references :

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bill C. Riemers (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The article has been updated with sufficient references, so I withdraw my nomination. No other people are in favour of deleting this article.Bill C. Riemers (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogosort[edit]

Bogosort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. (See also WP:NOT Wikipedia:NOTTEXTBOOK Wikipedia:NOTESSAY). If this page was noteworthy for educational use, it would be referenced by text books and other educational material. There are no reference that indicate this idea is being used as notable educational topic. Bill C. Riemers, PhD. (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No, but I have now established that there are many more and better sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For completeness sake, Wikipedia should in my opinion cover all entries in the NIST DADS. —Ruud 21:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although it does include other worthless entries such as Lucky sort... —Ruud
        • Lucky sort proposed for deletion as well, but his is just a discussion on Bogosort. Once and awhile someone has to go through and try and prune these things. There are thousands of possible sorting algorithms, but only a few actually worth referencing in a encyclopaedia intended for laymen. Really, I don't mind if someone proves me wrong and finds a reason why this in noteworthy. I just don't see one yet.Bill C. Riemers (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first two are just dictionaries, which Wikepedia is not a dictionary WP:NOT. While the conference lecture published in LNCS does have merit, there are millions of professional lectures and articles published every year. 24.716 articles where published in LNCS in 2007. [1]. A single publish reference is not sufficient to establish noteworthiness, unless the algorithm itself is actually somehow noteworthy.24.36.199.169 (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Subject-specific encyclopedias are often titled "dictionaries". They are however not dictionaries in the Oxford English Dictionary sense intended by the WP:NOT essay. —Ruud 21:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. Since the references are not online, I cannot actually see the contents. Do they actually give something beyond the name and a short definition like you would expect from a classical dictionary?Bill C. Riemers (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I second this argument from Ruud. I consider the article to be more substantive than a dictionary-like entry, and that the current references reflect more than just mere descriptions of the algorithms they describe. I Jethrobot (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think of all the "ineffective" sorts, this has the most potential to be an article. It doesn't help that Bogosort is a newer and only used for educational purposes-- it makes the task of finding reliable sources inherently more difficult because it simply isn't used in actual programming. Is there more evidence that Bogosort is used in education, since that is the stated notability in the article? I Jethrobot (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are two additional scholarly articles where bogosort is implemented and described in a way consistent with the educational demonstration of a bad sort as described by the current article. Multiple, independent, published usages of the sort by members in the academic field for should satisfy notability guidelines. I Jethrobot (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The above references are good enough for me. I added some of them to the bogosort article. Bill C. Riemers (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per I Jethrobot's sources, in particular the first, which analyses the algorithm's average running time. This is a long-standing fun meme in the analysis of sorting algorithms, and any good encyclopedia should provide information on it. Merging with other inefficient or fun sorting algorithms might make sense, though. Hans Adler 23:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Coverage is fairly minimal, but does exist. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does have sources and some notability and the article is fairly reasonable. Dmcq (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It appears sufficiently notable to be included. Its current purpose is educational, and serves as a simple example for Las Vegas algorithms. The motivation for such an abysmal algorithm might not only be education, but also to be a descendant to an algorithm called "slowsort" that appeared in a 1984 paper by Broder and Stolfi on Pessimal algorithms and simplexity analysis. The topic of Pessimal algorithms apparently never caught on; according to Google Scholar, the paper has only been cited 3 times, the first being in 2006. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 15:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adequately referenced. At most, the infinite group of rubbish algorithms could be merged into one article to save space. That would need sorting though! :) Widefox (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think we have sufficiently many reliable sources for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 23 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romina Espinosa[edit]

Romina Espinosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ENT, WP:BIO. Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article states she has worked in three areas that we should consider for notability. Firstly, there is acting; none of the roles that she has done is signficant nor is there any coverage about her acting that I can find, and her body of work is minimal. Secondly, there is singing; according to the article, the accomplishment was singing the national anthem at a town hall meeting while she was in high school which is well below anything that would establish notability. Thirdly, there is her entrepreneurship; this is the aspect that seems to have actually attracted some notice. Taptic Toys got some coverage whre her name was mentioned. See [2], and [3]. However, the coverage is not about her, and the coverage simply mentions her name as the co-founder of teh company, or as the person doing the demonstration. That's far from the significant coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 28 June 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 - a worthy club but playing friendlies against a league club doesn't confer notability. Fails WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buckfastleigh Rangers F.C.[edit]

Buckfastleigh Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable football club Zanoni (talk) 20:29, 22 June 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Féfé[edit]

Féfé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find sufficient RS indicia of notability of this rapper. He has been tagged for notability since 2010. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 June 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,  Sandstein  19:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No adequate refs. Someone needs to cite or get off the pot. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Found an independent review from the NRJ Music Awards, a French awards ceremony, and also that Fefe (along with partner K'Naan) were nominated for Best Hit of the Year and for best Duo / Group in their 2011 ceremony:

French

English Google translation

The article is entirely in French, so I had to do some Google translating to add anything substantive to the article. It also seems like most of Fefe's fame is paired with his partner K'Naan, and I'm not sure Fefe has enough notability on his own. I Jethrobot (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tx. Good work. While that supports that Fefe exists, I don't see how it meets our notability criteria. And, as you say, "I'm not sure Fefe has enough notability on his own" ... perhaps that statement is not consistent with a keep !vote (even a weak one). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with K'Naan article Well, knowing that Fefe's rise in notability has been tied to K'Naan, we could consider adding some of this material to a section in the K'Naan article under the Collaborations header. I Jethrobot (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support Jethrobot's suggestion -- I'm supportive of deleting this article, and merging any appropriate material from this article into the K'Naan article (though I haven't parsed through which of the material might be appropriate).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 22 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legend (professional wrestling)[edit]

Legend (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Team doesn't meet WP:GNG. The information in the article can easily be included in the articles of the individual members. All of the references in the article are wrestling fansites that are not considered reliable third party sources. Nikki♥311 01:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Kusunose 15:31, 7 June 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) 02:05, 14 June 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,  Sandstein  19:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also attempted to find reliable third party sources using a number of search techniques, but I've only been able to come up with fansites. Until Legend receives better coverage, I think the information is safe in the individual member's articles. I Jethrobot (talk) 21:17, 22 June 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 Kept - withdrawn by nominator. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V18 engine[edit]

V18 engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no V18 engines. This is not a configuration that is used, has ever been used, or has been considered as a practical configuration. The page was created some years ago as an unreferenced misunderstanding. The engine referred to there, the Bugatti EB118 is a W18, not a V18, i.e. 6 cylinders per bank, not 9. It thus has something in common with a V12 engine, but this V18 engine is just a figment of a past misunderstanding. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. It's still obscure, but thanks to BMRR's efforts we've now got some provable examples. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions.
  • Comment there does seem to be V18 engines... like this thing states:[4] and these pictures: [5] [6]; you can buy one from Cummins [7] ; so the assertion that V18 engines don't exist is wrong. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cummins QSK78 78 litre V18 cylinder -- (yes, 78 litres, not 7.8 litres; it's an industrial engine) 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I guess it's a modular engine that has added three V6 block or bank units together? Add it to the article, with some reasonable sourcing, and I'll happily withdraw the nomination.
Do you know what the crank angle is though? This claimed 40 degrees still sounds dubious. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the V18 engines mentioned by the IP editor above, there is a V18 version of the ALCO 251 diesel engine, which produces over 4,000 horsepower and was used in the Montreal Locomotive Works M640 locomotive. Apparently it's also a popular choice for standby power at nuclear power plants.[8] So, instead of deleting this article, let's try to improve it, eh? –BMRR (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick cleanup and added some references. I'm sure there's more that can (and should) be added, but I think it's at a point where it meets the standards for being kept. Thoughts? –BMRR (talk) 00:36, 26 June 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 23:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Parish, Portland[edit]

St. Louis Parish, Portland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No particular assertion of notability in article. PROD shortly after creation was disputed by creator. Checking Google briefly shows lots of trivial mentions, but nothing obvious in depth. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think all parishes are notable, per the discussion above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The discussion, linked above seems to be the sole province of one editor. I see no guideline that indicates that parishes are inherently notable. TerriersFan (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge/Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland. I could accept that all dioceses are notable, but parishes? Gimme a break! As noted by TerriersFan, the opinion that all parishes are notable seems to be just that - an opinion, argued by WlaKom and pretty much nobody else, and based on no recognizable Wikipedia criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A building and a few people. Szzuk (talk) 12:26, 30 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Mohann Kansal[edit]

Hari Mohann Kansal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, already speedied once before, creator's username suggests an autobiography. Notable only within a small business community, if at all. No third party sources, barring one trade magazine. Maintenance tags persistently removed by a family of sock editors, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harrshitmkansal. Hairhorn (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability. Just to be safe, I did a search engine on Hari Mohann Kansal, but didn't get any results except for a few the article is already providing. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 23 June 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. I accept that this substance exists but that is not enough. No evidence of any compliance with WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asmasol[edit]

Asmasol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, non-notable. Joke? Mjpresson (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It's not a joke since it does exist according to Google Scholar. Whether it's notable or not is another story. ... discospinster talk 18:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I thought it odd that the same user created Asmasol and Canasol, and used the same non-existent reference as the only source. Mjpresson (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google scholar, this is all there is: "One of the first patents awarded for NPs research was in 1959 for an antibiotic named Monamycin active against the Panama disease pathogen (isolated by Ken Magnus and Cedric Hassall with IP assigned to the British NRDC). One of the most recent patent was awarded in 2002 for a potent antihelminthic called Eryngial (isolated by Wayne Forbes, Ralph Robinson and Paul Reese) – this IP is shared between the UWI and the Scientific Research Council. Several other natural products in commercial production include hypoglycin, canasol and asmasol (the latter two are registered products in Jamaica derived from Cannabis sativa".Mjpresson (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, mention needs to be made that this is a Jamaican product with no apparent NDC/IDC Reg. Mjpresson (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; as an alternative, merge to Medical cannabis, but a brief mention of existence does establish reliable sourcing for much of a statement.Novangelis (talk) 02:38, 23 June 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 by User:Drmies. ... discospinster talk 14:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italian State Police 1953 DUI Report[edit]

Italian State Police 1953 DUI Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Police report of unclear notability. "Perhaps one of the earliest cases" of DUI charges not sufficient to establish notability. Unreferenced and possibly a copyright violation. ... discospinster talk 18:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unsourced, not notable, possible hoax. Not only is the subject unreferenced, I am unable to make sense of the statement that this might be one of the earliest cases of DUI charges. Presumably the author means in Italy, but even that would not confer notability. At most it might get a mention in an article about drink driving law in Italy, and then only if there were clear sources and good reason - for example if it were claimed that there was a gap between the law being passed and any action taken to enforce it. For what it is worth, by the way, drink driving laws pre-date the motor car and applied to driving of vehicles in general, particularly horse drawn - for example it was made illegal in England and Wales in 1872. I'd be surprised if there were no legal controls in Italy until 1953. --AJHingston (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, Discospinster, I don't mean to out-admin you, but why don't I just delete this as a blatant hoax? (You're involved, which is probably why you haven't done that.) Drmies (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax. A search of the Google News Archives indicates that prosecutions and convictions for driving under the influence of liquor, driving while intoxicated, etc. long predate 1953. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done There is no need to drag this out. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 23 June 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. It's snowing, let's not spend any more time on this one. Courcelles 21:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Israel Congregation (Beaufort, South Carolina)[edit]

Beth Israel Congregation (Beaufort, South Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable religious organization. Fails notability criteria. Basket of Puppies 18:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep per presence in sources such as [9] and [10] and [11] and [12] and [13] and [14] and the nominator should really spend some time following WP:BEFORE – it took me about five minutes to find this lot. ╟─TreasuryTag►Alþingi─╢ 18:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My rationale is WP:BUILDER. The congregation may possibly be notable at some point, but I don't really know. All I know if that it perfectly fits the description at BUILDER and is not ripe for the Wiki. Basket of Puppies 18:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so we're both clear, what's the problem with [15] and [16] and [17] and [18] and [19] and [20] – ? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 18:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Historic wooden synagogue building, lots of reliable sources. This does not appear to be a well-researched AfD. Jayjg (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your rationale, but sadly this doesn't meet any of the speedy keep criteria. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 19:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—a synagogue that's over 100 years old that has been operating consistently seems inherently notable to me, even without the other claims to notability. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'll see your WP:BUILDER and raise you a WP:INSPECTOR. The article could use better sourcing (many of which were provided above by TreasuryTag), but its subject does have historical significance, especially as it pertains to the historical presence of a Jewish congregation in the predominantly Christian American South.  Cjmclark (Contact) 19:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of sources to establish notability (including the material from the Goldring / Woldenberg Institute of Southern Jewish Life that was already listed in this article as an external link.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted above there are many reliable and verifiable sources available about this historic congregation, in addition to the several sources establishing notability that have already been added. Alansohn (talk) 20:02, 22 June 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 - a somewhat surprising consensus. What lifts a dicdef into an encyclopaedic topic is sourced discussion of the concept rather than the word. The only discussion of the concept is unsourced. But, hey, consensus is consensus so 'keep'. TerriersFan (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francophone[edit]

Francophone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:NOT#DICTIONARY Gnevin (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. There may be some bits worth merging, though none jumped out at me. The first paragraph might also be merged to French language Cnilep (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a bad idea. It means french-speaker first and foremost, so should be a disambiguation page. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, the term is somewhat ambiguous and does mean "speaker of French" in English as well as French, so pointers to French language and OIF may be warranted. Notice that Francophonie redirects to OIF. Cnilep (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment anglophone is a disambiguation page, so this one should be as well. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable - see The Francophone world, for example. There is nothing in the DICDEF policy which tells us to delete and the nomination's reasoning is not clear - see WP:VAGUEWAVE. Warden (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Frankly, when I saw the notice I was very surprised. The term is most certainly notable, and any failings in the article should be noted for repair and expansion, not used as an excuse to delete. --~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckatz (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Valid topic for inclusion. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strongly oppose merging to Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. The lead of the latter article clearly shows that the organization is not the same as the concept behind the word, with sentences like "Francophonie may also refer, particularly in French, to the global community of French-speaking peoples, comprising a network of private and public organizations promoting special ties among all Francophones." Maybe the best would be renaming to Francophonie or Francophone world, Francophone becoming a disambiguation page in the same way as the Anglophone page. --Anneyh (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Francophonie" is the OIF. Renaming this to Francophonie is a bad idea. "Francophone world" is a better name than the very confusable "Francophonie", since the capital letter form is the OIF. The lower case letter form "francophonie" therefore is unavailable. In my local English dialect, "Francophonie" almost always means the OIF, and rarely the francophone world. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Very notable, and this article (1) is more than a dictionary definition, and (2) can be expanded further. Eauhomme (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neige pablo 21:03, 28 June 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. It's snowing. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Hebrew Congregation[edit]

Cuban Hebrew Congregation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable religious organization. Not demonstration of notability. Basket of Puppies 17:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I haven't taken a look at the articles because they are behind a paywall, but there are apparently around 40 articles in The Miami Herald mentioning this congregation since 2003. There are likely many other sources if one looks at other newspapers or looks further back in time. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridiculous nomination—the article is so blatantly covered in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that I am actually beginning to question the good faith of Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs) – how could they possible have done even the most basic Google Books/News search and not immediately found the heaps of coverage that I did? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 19:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, a single image caption isn't exactly in-depth coverage.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK; I unreservedly apologise that, in my sixty-second foray into researching this topic, one of the several references which immediately caught my eye didn't meet your standards. Well done for tracking my edits here, though. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 19:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether to say that that was a funny response, or to trout you instead.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. What TT said--pace Sarek: at least two of the hist listed by TT are big enough. TT, please leave off the personals--I'm not tracking you either, I saw this on ANI. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, I never suspected you of following me! ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 19:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Dozens of sources at Google Books. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep More than enough sources, dead tree sources no less according to Google Books. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, lots of reliable sources write about this synagogue. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly coverage is sufficient. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)
  • Snow Keep. Per all the above. It appears that nom either: a) is failing to perform the wp:before search that he is required to perform before bringing such nominations, or b) fails to understand the concept of notability in the wp world. It may be that he would be well served by taking a break from such clearly improper nominations until he better understands, and accepts, the two concepts. Failure by him to do so could, perhaps, suggest something short of good faith in his nominations.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above. It is becoming increasingly difficult to take the nominator seriously because he has made no effort to engage editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM who would have the potential interest in working with him to resolve his concerns. Never in the history of synagogue articles on WP have so many articles about Jewish synagogues been nominated for deletion within days starting from here to those he has attacked so far: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], plus requesting speedy deletion of many others: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43] (and more such efforts) within so short a span of time by one user, i.e. Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs)}. How much longer will this go on and be tolerated? This type of gung-ho come-what-may rigid "enforcement" deletionism automatically undermines WP:CONSENSUS-building and is bound to lead to future WP:EDITWARRING as more editors with a genuine interest in this topic feel violated and outraged as it undermines WP:AGF when such a wave of actions are conducted giving expert editors limited ability to improve the articles. IZAK (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Large number of synagogue article deletion proposals. IZAK (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For all the reasons mentioned above. Furthermore, surely any Jewish congregation today on the island of Cuba is notable. Davshul (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification I nominated this based upon WP:BUILDER. The article is as barebones as possible and it is entirely unencyclopedic in it's current state. Basket of Puppies 13:14, 23 June 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. It's snowing. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Emanu-El (Miami Beach, Florida)[edit]

Temple Emanu-El (Miami Beach, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable religious organization. Not demonstration of notability. Basket of Puppies 17:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Quite a few sources out there even from just a cursory examination. Examples include this article which discusses in part the synagogue's response to the Conservative decision to allow female Rabbis. It is unfortunate that Basket is nominating so many articles about congregations for deletion in such a short time. It makes it much more difficult to find sources within a reasonable timeframe. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This institution, originally known as the Miami Beach Jewish Center is a landmark of the Miami Jewish community. In addition to the extensive news coverage[44][45], it is discussed in scholarly literature, such as Deborah Dash Moore, To the golden cities: pursuing the American Jewish dream in Miami and L.A. (Harvard University Press, 1996), ISBN 978-0674893054[46][47] and many others[48][49] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per JoshuaZ and Arxiloxos. There are a rich set of reliable sources on this synagogue. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arxiloxos. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The available sources seem to establish notability. The number of synagogues raised for AfD the past couple of days, with some of them easily identifiable as notable, is troublesome to me. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per nom. Monterey Bay (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep. Per all the above. It appears that nom either: a) is failing to perform the wp:before search that he is required to perform before bringing such nominations, or b) fails to understand the concept of notability in the wp world. It may be that he would be well served by taking a break from such clearly improper nominations until he better understands, and accepts, the two concepts. Failure by him to do so could, perhaps, suggest something short of good faith in his nominations.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above. It is becoming increasingly difficult to take the nominator seriously because he has made no effort to engage editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM who would have the potential interest in working with him to resolve his concerns. Never in the history of synagogue articles on WP have so many articles about Jewish synagogues been nominated for deletion within days starting from here to those he has attacked so far: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], plus requesting speedy deletion of many others: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72] (and more such efforts) within so short a span of time by one user, i.e. Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs)}. How much longer will this go on and be tolerated? This type of gung-ho come-what-may rigid "enforcement" deletionism automatically undermines WP:CONSENSUS-building and is bound to lead to future WP:EDITWARRING as more editors with a genuine interest in this topic feel violated and outraged as it undermines WP:AGF when such a wave of actions are conducted giving expert editors limited ability to improve the articles. IZAK (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Large number of synagogue article deletion proposals. IZAK (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 23 June 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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North Star News[edit]

North Star News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are lots of North Star Newses, but this is not a notable one. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, never had any reliable secondary sources, none likely to be found. Not notable. Huon (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 23 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agudas Achim Congregation (Alexandria, Virginia)[edit]

Agudas Achim Congregation (Alexandria, Virginia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Non-notable religious organization. Not demonstration of notability. The congregation is not notable due to having a notable rabbi as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Basket of Puppies 17:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Withdraw vote, the article is better sourced and I'm not feeling certain on notability standards for churches and similar institutions.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to say. I glanced over the article on their rebbe, and it looks like he is notable for political involvement rather than congregational work, which tends to say something, but I won't go there. But it doesn't tend to lend notability to the temple. Not to tax this issue overmuch, but the best solution would probably be to bulletproof this article to find more sources. Surely local papers would have covered the institution.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What?! Lyndon B. Johnson bought a hot dog at Jimmy's diner. Yipee! Chesdovi (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a. can you verify that? b. it's not the same thing... Drmies (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IZAK...Modernist (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I added a few referenced factoids about the synagogue, but nothing adds up to real notability. The rabbi of the synagogue, Jack Moline, is notable and has a Wikipedia page to prove it. Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change !vote to Keep. Epeefleche has done a tremendous job adding valid references and text to more than prove notability. Yoninah (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm throwing my weight behind Yoninah on this one. Chesdovi (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Yoninah is !voting keep, does that mean that you now are doing so as well then?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is inherited.[96] Rabbi Jack Moline and former member Rahm Emanuel brought such a spotlight [97] to this congregation that it became notable. Lots of churches and synagogues serve as polling stations, but reporters don't just go to random places to interview the voters standing in line, they pick places with a public image [98] and when they want comments form congregants on days with special meaning, they go to high-profile congregations [99] . this is a very high profile congregation.PA6-5000 (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is the Rabbi notable? Yes. Is there a notable member, Rahm Emanuel? Yes. Does that make the synagogue notable? No. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Searching for sources on this synagogue without Moline or Emanuel in the content turns up stories on Agudas Achim in Hartford instead. There do not appear to be reliable sources establishing notability of this Agudas Achim. This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. It makes no claims of notability in the article itself other than having a famous rabbi or a famous congregant. I also tried to find any evidence of it being a nationally famous local organization, but failed to. I have also found no evidence of particularly unique longevity, size of membership, major achievements, or prominent scandals. In terms of GNG, I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage for any general factors either.ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete Seems to not quite meet notability standards. Willing to change my mind if more sources are presented, but right now, I don't see it. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Changed to keep There are now sufficient sources. Notability has been demonstrated. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't finished culling through the ghits, but my attention so far was grabbed by the fact that this is a 97-year old congregation, whose 90th anniversary was lauded in Congress. That does seem to bring it into a different category than, say, Jimmy's Diner ... --Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congressmen often put notices about Little League teams in the school papercongressional record. It's not unusual.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The main focus of my point was that the congregation is 97 years old, which had not been recognized in the article previously and so may have been missed by some commenters. As Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) states: "Non-commercial organizations ... Additional considerations are: ... Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity ... should be considered to the extent ... reported by independent sources." But yes, I was also looking at the fact that it was lauded in Congress for that as supportive of the fact and its notability, both. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I still haven't read all of the RS refs on this synagogue, I've seen enough (and added enough to the article), to reflect substantial RS coverage of this 97-year-old congregation, over the decades, sufficient to confer notability on it for wp purposes. I understand from nom's statements elsewhere that these recent nominations were done without a wp:before search, and understand how if one failed to look beyond the article itself in its earlier state, one may have missed indicia of its notability. I'm encouraged by nom's statement elsewhere that he will conduct such a search in the future, as it will no doubt decrease the number of his nominations that are not successful, and free the community up to engage in other, productive activities.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep [sorry, mis-typed] Wide range of reliable sources; significant coverage; looks good to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 09:48, 26 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bet Shira Congregation[edit]

Bet Shira Congregation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Non-notable religious organization. Not demonstration of notability. Basket of Puppies 17:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't had a chance to wade through the 771 gnews hits as of yet, or the thousands of ghits. However, while not in themselves indicia of notability, such widespread coverage is often a harbinger of notability being contained in such refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, a large number of gnews hits and ghits might simply indicate that this is a religious organization whose weekly announcements are published in a local newspaper that allows and receives unusually thorough indexing by Google. Just saying. --Orlady (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may. Though when it is this high a number, I rarely find that to be the case. But as you imply, one does certainly need to work through the refs to make a judgment at the end of the day, which I've not had time to do.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is apparently one of the largest Conservative congregations in the Southern United States. Furthemore, the information in the article is well sourced. Davshul (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IZAK...Modernist (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep only on the condition that reliable sources are added to the text. I searched Google and Google Books and was unable to find any verification that this is indeed "one of the largest Conservative congregations in the Southern United States". Most of the article reads like a website for the organization, and I'm not even going to begin formatting the references for the antisemitic attack until this AfD is finished. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change !vote to Snow Keep. Epeefleche, you've done it again! This page is now too well-referenced to stay listed at AfD. Yoninah (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a synagogue that was the victim of a high-profile episode of anti-Semitism and for the drive-through Sukkah. Most of the article is run-of-the-mill cruft, however. --Orlady (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG. Sufficient coverage in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - an absurd nomination. The article is properly and adequately sourced and manifestly satisfies WP:N based on the references provided. Nsk92 (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ns, I agree that the nomination at this moment in time would be absurd. The article is now well sourced and have been significantly improved. However, the version when nominated included zero reliable sources and no demonstration of notability. I withdraw this nomination, but take strong issue with your characterization of this being an absurd nomination. Will you retract? Basket of Puppies 15:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What did you find when you Googled for sources on the topic? ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 16:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing, as I did not do that. It's not my job. I previously asked about WP:BEFORE's status and told it was a "quasi-guideline". It appears to be more like an essay to me but it isn't required in any event. Basket of Puppies 16:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's where you're wrong. It is your job. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 20:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Basket -- let me correct that. It is your job. Nominations that are absurd -- if the editor takes the time to do a google search first -- are manifestly disruptive. You've received this feedback both on your talkpage, at various AFDs you've brought (that were of the same ilk), and at AN/I. I've little question, based on the energy in the reactions to your nominations, that if it continues an RFC will be brought, which I generally view as a waste of time for all involved, and therefore a bad result. My suggestion is that you heed the consensus reaction to your slew of nominations that you would not have made, had you done a wp:before search.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ep, I realize and appreciate that WP:BEFORE is best practices, but is also isn't policy and isn't required. That said I think I will start to do it for now on, if only to avoid the uprising. Basket of Puppies 17:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: WP:BEFORE makes a lot of sense when one is looking at a single article, particularly an article recently created by a newbie. Unfortunately, there are situations on Wikipedia where large numbers of low-content pages are created, often in rapid-fire succession, by users who are oblivious to WP:Notability and/or WP:Verifiability. (For example, this happened a few months ago with Roman Catholic parishes in the northeastern states.) To insist that the nominator must individually fully research each and every apparently nonnotable article before nominating it (probably doing more work than the article's creator did in the first place) is to say that Wikipedia must give up any effort toward quality control. BoP may have been overly eager about nominating articles about synagogues for deletion, but his eagerness may be explained by the fact that he found a large inventory of similar articles with no apparent notability. --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For articles with no apparent notability, PROD is the approach that wp affords. For AfD, in contrast, the nom should follow wp:before. This is clear in both wp:before, the reactions at this and various other AfDs, the reaction on nom's talkpage, and the reaction at nom's AN/I. The community has now spoken rather strongly to this issue, specifically to nom here, and to this slew of AfDs which appear to me to have an exceedingly low rate of success (I would be curious if someone would indicate how many synagogues Basket has nom'd for deletion this past week or two, and how many of them at the end of the day the community agreed should be deleted). In any event, the most important take-away for me on the posts on this page is Basket's above highly mature response to the effect that he will start to perform wp:before searches now, in light of the community's reaction. I very much appreciate his taking note of the community reaction -- that is, at the end of the day, what this collaborative enterprise is all about. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice for WP:BEFORE to be formalized. Basket of Puppies 17:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There is a very wide range of reliable sources listed in the article. These focus on a whole range of things, including anti-Semitic attacks on the synagogue, their various community programmes and the particular distinguishing point of the drive-through Sukkah. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 16:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The breadth and scope of the dozens of reliable sources about the congregation and its events go a long way to establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The significant number of reliable sources in the article attest to the congregation's notability. Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 26 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media bias in India[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Media bias in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created by a contributor who has since been community banned for producing articles of this type. It is an unencyclopaedic small collection of loosely connected statements which do not even all consider media bias. It is poorly referenced and was previously the subject of a delete decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media bias in India.

It is no great secret that the media is biased everywhere, if only because of human nature, and so without some substantial work the article is merely stating the obvious. As a general subject it is already covered at, for example, Media bias. The one cited statement actually says that there is no bias, which certainly was not the creator's intention if his history is considered. Sitush (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet another Maheshkumaryadav POV fork--Sodabottle (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no content to for an article. Hence not required. If any points are to be raised with proper references it can be in Media in India article as a separate section. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 05:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Poorly sourced, no substantive content. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Sodabottle. — Abhishek Talk to me 06:05, 27 June 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, due to an early discovery of WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early discovery of the Faroe Islands[edit]

Early discovery of the Faroe Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Series of articles promoting the editor's (User:Dr. R.M. de Jonge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), WP:FRINGE claims about 'early discovery' of various islands. Other articles are:

All are cited solely to Jonge & Wakefield's publications in what appear to be unreliable sources (I can find no evidence of the publisher of most of them, "Medical Communications & Services", outside the context of these books). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. JohnCD (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Early Discovery. The new article has exactly the same problems, with De Jonge citing himself in fringe publications, presenting fringe material as unchallenged fact. Binksternet (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. Lack of secondary sourcing is the issue. If any can be found before the AfD closes, I'd happily rethink my position. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None are anything other than stubs about a fringe theory from a single source, with no evidence of notability provided whatsoever. Even with secondary sources, unless the subject has been discussed elsewhere in reliable sources (e.g. within mainstream archaeology) it is unlikely to meet notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are pure fringe articles. There is nothing to suggest that the theory is notable. If there is some evidence that it is (which as yet there isn't) all article content can be rolled up into a single article on the theory. Paul B (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not just sourcing, although that is a serious problem, these are all clear pov WP:CFORKs. I also think that on their own the titles/articles don't meet our notability criteria either. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:No original research and WP:REDFLAG. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That comment also appears to be admitting that the books in question were self-published, meaning that it is even less likely that they can be considered WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. No good sources! The references are littered with fringe articles by De Jonge published in fringe magazines such as Ancient American. The magazine states clearly that it is "In sharp contrast to majority academic opinion", so of course it is useless as a linchpin source supposedly proving notability. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per expat et al. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that one too, block the editor under WP:COMPETENCE. Sorry, I've tried to explain the situation to this editor repeatedly now (see my talk) but he just doesn't get it. In particular I warned him that creating new articles without addressing the point at issue would simply be seen as a disruptive attempt to sneak past our usual slow-moving processes. Enough's enough - if he hasn't yet found any 3rd party support, we can only assume that there isn't any. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote includes Early Discovery, since it is an exact copy of the other articles and thus has all the same problems. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - essentially single sourced, do not establish notability, and almost certainly breach of WP:COI. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Per all the above. --Folantin (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At this point, since Dr. de Jonge seems to be aware of the AfDs, and has chosen not to respond, I'd suggest that we apply WP:SNOW here, and delete the lot (including the new one) immediately. Someone might suggest to Dr. de Jonge that if he wishes to get a properly sourced single article about the subject into Wikipedia, he prepares it in his user space, and allows others to comment - after he has studied our requirements for reliable secondary sources. Frankly, I see no point in wasting further effort on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment My !vote also includes Early Discovery. Obviously I can't get involved in any closure, that will be up to some other Admin. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All as per nominator. This appears to be a non-notable fringe theory being pushed by a single purpose account with a conflict of interest. Edward321 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Early Discovery of Atlantic Islands

Dear moderators: The claim has been mainly based on decipherment of the two mentioned groups of petroglyphs. The only text which could be added to the articles is the following: "Both groups of petroglyphs are prooven to be megalithic (Ref.1). Both the passage grave of Cairn T at Loughcrew, and the petroglyphs in it, date from the time of the construction of Stonehenge I in South England, c.3200 BC (Refs.1-5). The eleven petroglyphs of Dissignac were made one after the other, spread in time from before the construction of the passage grave, c.4500 BC, to c.2500 BC, after which the monument was closed (Refs.6-9). As far is known, the interpretations of both groups of petroglyphs are not disputed in the literature."

References:
  • 1. Twohig, E. Shee, The Megalithic Art of Western Europe, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1981
  • 2. Eogan, G., Knowth, and the Passage Tombs of Ireland, Thames and Hudson, 1986 (ISBN 0-500-39023-1).
  • 3. Dames, M., Mythic Ireland, Thames & Hudson, London, 1992 (ISBN 0-500-27872-5)
  • 4. Richards, J., Stonehenge, English Heritage, 1992 (ISBN 0-7134-6142-X))
  • 5. Atkinson, R.J.C., Stonehenge, London, 1979
  • 6. Briard, J., The Megaliths of Brittany, 1991 (ISBN 2-87747-063-6)
  • 7. Giot, P.R., Prehistory in Brittany, Ed. JOS (ISBN 2-85543--123-9)
  • 8. Giot, P.R., La Bretagne. des Megalithes, Ed. Ouest France, 1995 (ISBN 2-7373-1388-0) (French)
  • 9. Batt, M., and others, Au Pays des Megalithes, Carnac-Loc-mariaquer, Ed. JOS, 1991 (ISBN 2-85543-001-1) (French)
--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou for adding these. I would note though that your first publication (that I can see) is 1996, which post-dates all of these. It would thus be difficult for any of these references to be a commentary on what's at issue here, which is not the existence of petroglyophs in Brittany, but rather your theory based on these petroglyphs.
Is your theory based on some earlier work described in these references? Or is there any later reference that comments on your work? That is what we are still in need of. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Early Discovery of Atlantic Islands

    Dear moderators: The core of the articles dates from the publication of the SunGod book in 2002. This is 9 years ago. Our book was well received, and the conclusions are not disputed in the literature. It is that simple. For that reason I cannot give "secondary sourcing". - If the archaeological community does not react in this case, it is their responsibility, not mine.--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it "well received"? Where in the literature were its conclusions mentioned without dispute? This is the independent commentary that is needed here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except for other R.M. de Jonge publications and a single Atlantis theory publication, Google Scholar draws a blank on the Sungod book. I think that it would be very wrong to interpret the complete silence of the academic archaeology community on these theories as tacit approval. It is much more likely that the reason is that no scholar takes them serious enough even to warrant a written rejection of them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the reason for lack of independent comment, our key policy WP:No original research is clear: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are none. The book did not attract even the slight effort of a scholarly rebuttal. This material from De Jonge is not useful to us. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Early Discovery of Atlantic Islands

The Dutch book was well received in the archaeological community in the Netherlands (my co-author is/was a professor in archaeology in Amsterdam), but, as far as I know, it was never scientifically commented (which is not my responsibility). The SunGod book of 2002 was well received in the USA (where it was published and printed), by Ancient American Magazine, by MES (Midwestern Epigraphic Society) in Columbus, Ohio, and by NEARA (New England Antiquity Research Association), by AAPS (Ancient Artifact Preservation Society) in Michigan, by Ancient Waterways Society, etc. The same holds for the third mentioned book Rocks & Rows. - "Is your theory based on some earlier work described in these references?" The answer is: No. "Or is there any later reference that comments on your work?" The answer is: As far as I know: No. - "well received"? "Where in the literature were its conclusions mentioned without dispute? This is the independent commentary that is needed here." Well, what we need is a scientific comment from the archaeological community, worldwide. As far as I know this is lacking, but I immediately add that this is not my responsibility! They had the opportunity to react for more than nine years!- - I would like to add, that the exact dates are based on the two groups of petroglyphs, but the same approximate dates are confirmed by many other monuments and petroglyphs in Europe.--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of comment by scholars in the field is detrimental to a book's usefulness as a source on Wikipedia. Sorry, but Ancient American Magazine, MES, NEARA, and your circle of friends are not reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reaction on these important conclusions means that all readers basically agree.--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No it doesn't, it could mean that they can't be bothered to respond to something not worth responding to, it might be that no one who knew about the subject read it, etc. There are many fringe claims which never get responded to by the academic community. (which is what the above edit is suggesting I think, just more tersely) Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The absence of a reaction is absolutely not agreement. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: all of the specific groups that de Jonge mentions appear to be amateur enthusiast groups, so would not count as reliable sources, even if evidence had been presented that they had performed a formal, published review of this book (which hasn't occurred). I therefore have to concur that nothing that he has presented qualifies as providing the slightest basis for judging this hypothesis to be notable. The world is filled with thousands of self-published books promoting pet theories. Few, if any, of them garner academic notice (even scornful) -- presumably most academics have enough on their hands debunking claims that are better financed/more heavily promoted, or come with at least the colour of academic respectability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:

On the other hand, the official archaeological community, in North America in particular, is very conservative with its conclusions. It is not so long ago, that they refused to think about somethimg else then the discovery of America by Columbus, in 1492. They now admit an earlier discovery by the Norse (or Vikings) in Newfoundland, in c.1000 AD. However, there are literaly thousands(!) of books which prove without a shadow of a doubt, that America was discovered before that date. This is not a wise attitude, and it undermines their credibility. I am talking about the Smithonian Institute in particular.--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Smithsonian Institute, whose staff suggest that Europeans came to North America over 15,000 years ago as did the Japanese (a bit later)? Your argument is both wrong (which shows a disturbing lack of knowledge) and irrelevant here. I don't know when it was thought that the Vikings didn't visit America, but I was taught that they did and that was in the early 1950s. Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, including Early Discovery. Article content is not supported by reliable sources. Scolaire (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:Dr. R.M. de Jonge has had his say. There is no point in dragging out the above discussion. I agree with AndyTheGrump that the AfD should be closed per WP:SNOW. Scolaire (talk) 11:59, 25 June 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. joe deckertalk to me 14:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

N-able Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:
N-able Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account with no other edits other than related to N-able Technologies. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases, blog pieces and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 23 June 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 DELETED (or DELETE per WP:SNOW, if you prefer; no point in drawing this out regardless). postdlf (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon NeoTamers[edit]

Digimon NeoTamers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references, no obvious notability via Google search, suspect it's made up but decided to take to AfD rather than PROD or speedy it, just to make sure that I'm not being overly harsh. Brammers (talk/c) 14:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious speedy delete - completely unremarkable fanfic. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - fairly new to NPP so I don't want to be too reckless. A7? Brammers (talk/c) 15:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable fanfic. However, I don't think there is a CSD criterion for stuff like this, so I fear we'll have to sit out the AfD. --Crusio (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked with db-web. Otherwise, delete. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:24, 22 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Mars[edit]

History of Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not appear to be linked from the main article on Mars, and appears to be a redundant 'lost' article. The majority of the content is written in a much more encyclopedic fashion in the "Mars" and "Geology of Mars" articles. In addition, the article creator states that "Mars was probably home to Martians" that "matched or advanced the mental capabilities of humans". While the article contains references, the majority of them are for minor, obvious points and not for the main claims being made. Very few edits, aside from minor changes, have been made by other users. Given the patently false claims being made by the principal author and editor of the article, it brings the entire content into question. ShadowChaser (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's certainly an encyclopaedic article to be written about the formation and history of Mars. I'd say redirect to Geology of Mars#Geologic history for the time being, because I don't trust the current content either.—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essentially a content fork containing "original theories and conclusions". Regards, RJH (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - adds no notable, verifiable info not already in main Mars article. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The small amount of actual scientific information presented is often inaccurate, wrong, or takes hypotheses as established facts.Schaffman (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finishing up an article on the Noachian to expand on the material I wrote for the Geology of Mars. I plan to add full articles for each of the otther Martian time periods (Pre-Noachian, Hesperian, Amazonian), thus removing the need for a History of Mars article (which I fear might be too long anyway).--Tom aka Schaffman (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I can't really add much to the opinions expressed above. This article is a POV screed that subtly misuses sources to advance a point of view regarding ancient Martian aliens. The title would be useful as a redirect as S Marshall points out. Reyk YO! 22:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. I came here fully expecting to say keep, but then again I didn't expect this to be a content fork. So delete, per RJH. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:41, 28 June 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 Mercer Island School District. joe deckertalk to me 14:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Island Park Elementary School[edit]

Island Park Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No information in the article that proofs any notability. Looks more like an advertisement to recruit pupils. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 23 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISA Trend Investing[edit]

ISA Trend Investing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be an advertisement for a particular investment company's strategy masquerading as an article about that strategy. The strategy itself appears to be a simple variation on Momentum investing, with particular applications to the UK's Individual Savings Accounts, not quite worthy of its own standalone article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
  • Delete per nomination: ISA Trend Investing is an innovative investment strategy, which utilises various economic and financial tools to enable the investor to realise greater returns. The strategy integrates theories including: Market trends, efficient market hypothesis, and behavioural investing, along with popular investing tools including technical analysis, and then combines this all together within a modern investment vehicle. You will of course wait in vain for a clear explanation of how to operate the method, or in which particular it differs from similar ones, because that would be telling. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the initial concerns raised, the article has been rewritten. The style of writing has been toned down, and the notable nature regarding the investment strategy has been emphasized. Numerous points have been made in regard to the unique approach this strategy follows, which also educates potential investors in regards to how to follow this strategy should they wish to.
In regards to the concern pertaining to similarities to momentum investing, the strategy follows a similar philosophy to trend investing, not momentum investing. And this in itself is merely one facet of the strategy. If the previous critic feels that innovating and developing current knowledge, tools and strategies is not noteworthy, then perhaps this person may disagree with advances in technology as well as other things, because most things developed today are innovations of yesterday, society progresses by innovating ways of doing more with less. The strategy achieves this by harnessing various tools and concepts, but also details a very precise plan on how to successfully undertake the strategy, for example one quote notes "they [ISA Trend Investors] don’t buy individual stocks as they carry too much risk. Nor do they buy index tracker funds because it’s possible to “beat” the indexes if you know what you are doing. ISA Trend Investors buy their fund or funds only when the market is healthy (uptrend). When the market is unhealthy (downtrend), they remain in a cash-based fund." This is very specific information and not just a generalistic concept/theory like momentum investing.
As can be viewed from the article history, this article has been frequently updated to ensure it fits with Wikipedia's article policies, and the article will continue to be updated to ensure it remains this way. Shaun2011 (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment With regard to the difference between "Trend Investing" and "Momentum Investing" it was Shaun himself who first equated the two terms in his initial version of this article, so if he doesn't like the equivalence, he has no one to blame but himself. The real problem with "ISA Trend Investing" is not only that the article is overly promotional (although it is), but that the term itself is a sales gimmick. It is a term invented by the Sutherland brothers to bolster their own investment company and strategy. All references to the term that can be found in a Google search come back to these two and their "retire rich" scheme. There are no reliable sources to hang this article's hat on. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Firstly, the term regarding momentum investing was used in context within the first article, and perhaps it is only through honest reference that the critic was able to acknowledge this, which the critic is now trying to use as a point, nevertheless, credit is made where it is due.
Further, the critic states that the article is "overly promotional", however there is no promotion within the article, there are no direct links to the founders of the strategy (as mentioned briefly the article has been edited due to concerns and toned down), there is merely background information to the strategy and how it is applied. It is very clear the critiques are based on personal assumptions and is very clearly over-exaggerated, as it contrasts what is within the article.
The critic may have issues with the founders of the strategy or their line of work, the quote the critic provided clearly implies this, however assumptions made against the founders should not lead to an unfair bias made against the content of the article. This critic seems to make a number of biased assumptions.
In regards to the references, firstly there is a widely-published book regarding the content. Which in itself was reviewed positively by some of the world's most successful business people. On top of this Google has over 3,940,000 results for ISA Trend Investing. These range from news sites, to investing websites, to personal blogs.
Instead of the critic making wild assumptions about the article, which hold no solid ground, I feel it would be more constructive if the critic made recommendations on what may be improved to better facilitate the wikipedia audience, as this is what Wikipedia is all about, it is not about one person's assumptions, but the wider, international community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaun2011 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISA Trend Investing Article has now been re-edited. The article has been made more concise, more resources have been added to help readers to learn even more about the strategy, and more information about the strategy has been added too. Shaun2011 (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been edited, but not improved. It still does not provide a single reliable non-primary source that indicates that this term is anything other than a marketing scheme by the founder of ISACO. Yes, there are lots of books that talk about various trend investing schemes. And yes, the UK has something called an Individual Savings Account. But if one searches for the term "ISA Trend Investing" in Google, one runs into only sources published by ISACO and/or its marketing partners. If Shaun or anyone else can provide any reliable sources, I'll be willing to re-evaluate. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"News sources often contain both reporting content and editorial content. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact".
In keeping with this, lets begin with the UK's leading magazine for Company Directors, Directors Magazine (magazine for members of the Institute of Directors):
"ISA trend investing. You trade investment funds, not stocks, using an ISA, a SIPP or both" [123]
So there is one reliable source according to Wikipedia policy.
Also, please see Amazon's community for ISA Trend Investing, you will not only find Liquid Millionaire within the ISA Trend Investing Community, and I invite the critic to investigate why it isn't the only book within the ISA Trend Investing community within Amazon, here take a look: http://www.amazon.co.uk/tag/isa%20trend%20investing/products/ref=tag_stp_hd_istp
How about this key point from WP:RS#News organizatons?
"When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint".
Here is an article from Andy Sacker, who is an Investor – Marketer – and Author. He is a self-made, entrepreneurial, Multi-Millionaire.
Now here is his review of ISA Trend Investing: http://andysacker.com/how-to-capitalize-on-the-2009-isa-season
Here is another well known News organisation, quoted "proving it is possible to beat the market over the long-term using ISA Trend Investing" http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/view/pressrelease/isaco-ltd-isa-investment-specialists-isaco-limited-predict-imminent-market-rally-440414
Do keep this quote in mind "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples
And consider that the previous reference is from an international news site, we also listed a UK leading Directors magazine, website, we also have an independant, successful, business multi-millionaire.
Now considering the previous critique asked for "any" reliable sources, keeping with Wikipedia's policy, numerous sources have now been provided. My last search turned up over 4,000,000 results for ISA Trend Investing on Google, and I appreciate the previous critic suggested he/she can not find any reliable sources. Well I suggest, considering there are 4 million (and rapidly increasing, especially as my previous explanation noted 3,940,000 - thats an increase of around 60,000 references in about 2 days - the equivalent of 1,250 references being created per hour) sources to look through, I suggest it is a bit unrealistic for the critic to imply he/she has searched them all, and only found unreliable sources. Especially after a quick search has turned up the Wikipedia politico-acceptable results above. Shaun2011 (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's examine these reliable sources one by one.
    1. The Directors Magazine could actually be considered a reliable source. However, it consists of little more than Sutherland using this vehicle to push his wares again. However, the editorial coverage provided by this magazine might rise to a single instance of independent coverage. WP:N requires multiple instances of significant coverage.
    2. The Amazon community that was linked consists of two books, Sutherland's and one other. And the community is based on any number (including one) of people applying a particular tag to a particular book. This is insignificant.
    3. The blog post from Sacker consists entirely of an article written by Sutherland himself. One get-rich-quick guru (Sacker) promoting another (Sutherland). Significant? I'll leave that decision to other reviewers of this discussion.
    4. The "MyNewsDesk" link is a press release published by ISACO. Press releases are not considered reliable sources to establish an organization's notability.
    5. The google search statistics are misleading: if one searches for the term ISA Trend Investing without quotes, one finds hits for any of the words in the search term. If one instead searches for the term "ISA Trend Investing", with quotes, one finds hits only to those sites that actually mention this concept. The number reduces to about 21,000. Still quite a few, but all promotional, or book sellers, etc.
In sum, Shaun has provided exactly one source that might remotely be considered reliable. I think that it would be best if both he and I recused ourselves from further discussion so that other voices can be heard in this discussion and proper consensus reached. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Current page ratings:
    • Trustworthy: 3 "5 out of 5" scores
    • Objective: 1 "5 out of 5" score
    • Complete: 1 "5 out of 5" score
    • Well-written: 1 "5 out of 5" score

-- Shaun2011 (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Shaun2011 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with the point made regarding a consensus being made.

I would like to share my dissapointment in regards to the critic, as he/she previously stated "If Shaun or anyone else can provide any reliable sources, I'll be willing to re-evaluate". Well he/she has now agreed at least one of the sources I provided, "could actually be considered a reliable source". Yet no re-evaluation has been made. Clearly showing a lack of integrity.

In fact, I would like to re-iterate the guidelines, beings the critic assumes he/she knows them so well, to the general audience so that they can make an even more informed decision:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] **For example, there are available texts on trend investing, and ISA's. Further materials can be found for partiular tools used such as technical analysis, behavioural investing etc, which is all pertinent to the strategy covered, and others which are not directly themed in regard to the strategy but contain information in regards to it, such as the book on Amazon. There was also the reliable source that was agreed, and the 21,000 references the critic found using the precise search on Google. Which are not all promotional as was suggested in the previous comment, the critic initially said he/she couldn't find any reliable sources in their first comment, then after I made a quick search, I found at least one source he/she deemed reliable, this goes to show the critic is too lazy to search and would rather make an exaggerated decision, which ultimately affects the Wikipedia knowledge community.


"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. **There is a widely published book regarding the overall strategy, an independant editorial by Directors magazine and various books available regarding individual parts of the strategy**.


"Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. **There is a widely published book by the founder as mentioned above, there is the agreed reliable source by Directors magazine with editorial and there are numerous independant books available on various aspects within the strategy**.


"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4] **As mentioned above, there are numerous sources regarding the various tools and philosophies involved in this strategy and add to that the agreed reliable independant source by the UK's leading organisation for Directors, which includes an independant editorial**.

Considering this criteria, I am happy to leave it to the wider audience to identify the fulfilled criteria.

Shaun2011 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WikiDan61's arguments above. While this fulfills WP:V, that is not sufficient. The only reliable source this article depends on is the Directors magazine article. The book that Shaun2011 has discussed above mentions the topic exactly once, and the preview page is unreadable to boot. It's unlikely this second book is a reliable, secondary source. This is insufficient evidence of notability per WP:GNG. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 06:01, 29 June 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. Recreation of material deleted after a debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United People's Party (UK) Fences&Windows 21:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United People's Party (United Kingdom)[edit]

United People's Party (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Google news searches on the title bring up similarly named parties in Pakistan, Estonia and especially in Malasia but nothing in the UK. Provided references are all primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 13:50, 22 June 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. joe deckertalk to me 14:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Financial management[edit]

Financial management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very little information and poorly written - most of the edits have been reverted; almost certainly covered in other articles in the same area. Mato (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing worth keeping here. Perhaps redirect to Corporate finance.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree entirely with the nominator's assessment of the article as it was at the time of the nomination. However, it had been a disambiguation page which was recently hijacked to be converted to this very poor article. I have restored the disambiguation page, and I see no reason for not keeping it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and probably protect the useful disambiguation page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as disambiguation page. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is a stub (WP:STUB) but the caption for the page "financial management" should not be lost and the page should be developed as a notable (WP:N) subject.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as disambiguation page. Though I originally created this page based on a distinguishing point between the two, I no longer recall the importance. Someone with more knowledge of finance needs to review these concepts and confirm if there is any real need to have a disambiguation page in the first place.mmortal03 (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, my feeling is that the disambig page is probably not very useful, but it does no harm and may be of some use to someone, so we may as well keep it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's comment - as the second entry by JamesBWatson points out, I failed to see that I had nominated a vandalised version of the page for deletion and, as the page stands after reversions, I would agree that it is a Keep. I'm not entirely sure but, per my comments, this probably satisfies the conditions for a speedy keep? Mato (talk) 22:09, 27 June 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. joe deckertalk to me 14:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global IDs[edit]

Global IDs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to address WP:ORG. The only matches in GNews are within the walled garden of vendor related puffery (such as 'vendors to watch') and press releases. The impact required for ORG is unlikely to be demonstrated in independent reliable sources in the near future. Fæ (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 22 June 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 as a blatant hoax. Article was supposedly about a botanical term also applied to humans, about a fear of going out in the rain. Plants don't seem to have much of a choice about that, now do they? As noted, likely private joke, and perhaps an attack page; who knows? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lochgelly precipitationitis[edit]

Lochgelly precipitationitis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Google search for the topic turns up absolutely nothing. This is almost certainly a hoax. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:56, 22 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Larbi Sadiki[edit]

Larbi Sadiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have reason to believe this article was created and written by Larbi Sadiki. KT1854 has contributed almost exclusively to this article. He/she also published the photo of Larbi claiming ownership. I also think HM87 and this IP are possibly socks of KT. If my assessments are true, the article is a blatant violation of WP:COI. The article is also mostly dependent on sources primarily originating from Sadiki's place of work. WikifanBe nice 08:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no time right now to look into this, but the article asserts that Sadiki is a regular expert on TV, which would probably satisfy any concerns about notability. Unless that is somehow incorrect, I don't see why this is at AfD. COI is absolutely no reason for AfD. And while it is discouraged to write an autobio, it is not forbidden. Maybe a reason for cleanup, absolutely not a reason for AfD. Perhaps the nom can give us some good reasons why this fails WP:BIO or WP:GNG? --Crusio (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is he a regular expert on television? I understand it is traditionally frowned upon to write your own article and operate sockpuppets to do so. I don't see any sources outside of his own work and link to university website. I'm just going off what the article has right now. If someone other than Larbi can "cleanup" this can be closed. WikifanBe nice 22:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GS gives h index of 7. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment The article should be deleted - the subject doesn't meet the notability criteria for academics and seems be blatant self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maturescence (talk • contribs) 02:53, 27 June 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. joe deckertalk to me 14:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryna Aisin Gioro[edit]

Bryna Aisin Gioro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Suspected hoax. None of the Chinese-language sources in the article refer to a person by this name. Sole evidence of existence is the name's presence on a half-finished website for something claiming to be the "Girls' Global Fund": [124] located on a free webhost. No third-party sources at all, let alone evidence that she is actually related to the former Qing Dynasty ruling clan. English Google hits are Wikipedia copies or blatantly-obvious astroturfing (e.g. [125]). Zero Chinese Google hits. cab (call) 07:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability. I did both a Google and Yahoo search but didn't find any reliable sources except for an answerbag question about her and a Facebook page. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable at best, possible hoax. Edward321 (talk) 13:37, 24 June 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, as the consensus of the AfD participants is that notability has not been established by the sources provided. 28bytes (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard Monsters[edit]

Backyard Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Note: This article is at Template talk:Did you know#Backyard Monsters, where reviewer Eisfbnore (talk · contribs) asked, "What makes Facebook a reliable source?"

I have reviewed each of the sources to assess whether they enable the game to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

Analysis of the sources in the article:

  1. "Backyard Monsters". Facebook. Kixeye. Retrieved 18 June 2011. – Facebook is not a reliable source.
  2. "Backyard Monsters - Facebook application metrics from AppData". WebMediaBrands Inc. Retrieved 18 June 2011. – AppData is a website that provides data about Facebook Apps. Tantamount to a directory listing, the website does not establish notability because it is not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic.
  3. the99th (27 August 2010). "Backyard Monsters: Puts the "Game" in "Facebook Game"". Playthisthing. Retrieved 12 June 2011.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) – the review is written by "the99th" and the website's content is user-generated. On page 6 of http://s3.amazonaws.com/playthisthing/PlayThisThing_Writers_Manual.doc (linked to from http://playthisthing.com/about-play-thing), the website provides instructions for "Supplying a Review to Us Via Email".
  4. Alicia Ashby (7 May 2010). ""Backyard Monsters Reviews - Gamezebo". Gamezebo. Retrieved 12 June 2011. – at first glance, Gamezebo appears to be a reliable source that establishes notability. However, the website's terms of service page, http://www.gamezebo.com/terms, states:

    GAMEZEBO IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUBSTANCE, ACCURACY OR OPINIONS EXPRESSED ON SUCH THE GAMEZEBO SITESS [sic], AND [sic] SUCH THE GAMEZEBO SITES ARE IN NO WAY INVESTIGATED, MONITORED OR CHECKED FOR ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS BY GAMEZEBO.

    Because the website will not stand by the accuracy of the content it publishes, it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source, which requires sources that have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
  1. "2011-06-10 - Monster Laboratory". Kixeye. Retrieved 18 June 2011. – a forum from Kixeye, the developer and publisher, is not a third-party reliable source that establishes notability.
  2. Calin Ciabai (17 May 2010). "Backyard Monsters Review". Unigamesity. Retrieved 12 June 2011. – Unigamesity accepts user-submitted reviews. http://www.unigamesity.com/write-for-us/ states:

    Do you love computer games more than any other type of games? Do you have strong, professional opinions and it also happens that you love writing (and are actually really good at it?) Would you like to be featured on Unigamesity and have your words and opinions read by tons of computer games fans? Then drop us a line at the following e-mail address and I’m sure we can work something out:
    ...
    P.S. At the moment, I can’t offer any sort of payment for your hard work and I can’t guarantee that things will change in the future. However, if you want to have your content published on a high quality website and read by thousands of gamers all over the world, I’d love to help you make it happen!

    Content from user-generated websites are unreliable. http://www.unigamesity.com/terms-of-use/ states:

    We do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information presented on the Website, which may include views, opinions and recommendations from third-party individuals.

    This review fails Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source which requires sources that have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
  1. "Gamasutra - Features - Gaming The New Era Of Facebook". Gamasutra. UBM TechWeb. Retrieved 18 June 2011. – while reliable, the article is primarily about games on Facebook. On page 1 of the article, the author discusses CitiVille, FarmVille, and FIFA Superstars. On page 2 of the article, the author discusses Kingdoms of Camelot, Dragons of Atlantis, and Glory of Rome. The third and final page of the article is when Backyard Monsters is first mentioned. The discussion about Backyard Monsters is largely confined to Casual Collective CEO Will Harbin's commentary. In a Gamasutra article that uses several companies and numerous games to discuss gaming on Facebook, the subject does not receive significant coverage.
  2. "Update - 7th Jan - B.B.B.B.Bunker! and other things". Kixeye. Retrieved 12 June 2011. – a forum from Kixeye, the developer and publisher, is not a third-party reliable source that establishes notability.
  3. "New Monster Graphics". Kixeye. Retrieved 12 June 2011. – a forum from Kixeye, the developer and publisher, is not a third-party reliable source that establishes notability.

I have done much research about this website and have been unable to find any sufficient reliable sources about it. My searches included trawling through several pages of Google results, Google News Archive, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Yahoo!.

In a Google News Archive search, the sources are mainly press releases or unreliable sources. The best source I found was this article from the Manila Bulletin. After reading the article, I have found several red flags that indicate it is unreliable. The article states that Backyard Monsters is a "cool game from Zynga". However, Backyard Monsters is not from Zynga. According to AOL's games.com blog:

In response to growing list of hardcore-skewed military strategy games like Kabam's Kingdoms of Camelot and Backyard Monsters by Kixeye,
Zynga and Digital Chocolate have released Empires & Allies and Army Attack, respectively.

Backyard Monsters is from Kixeye, and Zynga is one of its competitors. This major factual inaccuracy casts doubt on the accuracy of the article. Furthermore, the Manila Bulletin article contains a number of typos:
  1. "additive" instead of "addictive"
  2. "differet" instead of "different
  3. "kinda" instead of "kind of"
  4. "your ready" instead of "you're ready"

Based on the significant factual error and the typos, this particular article from Manila Bulletin has not received adequate editorial oversight and cannot be considered a reliable source that passes Wikipedia:Verifiability.

I appreciate the work Σ (talk · contribs) has spent crafting this article. However, because the sources lack the depth and reliability mandated by Wikipedia:Notability, and because the article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —--The Σ talkcontribs 07:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards Gamezebo, the disclaimer you highlight is of the "covering our ass" kind found on other journalistic sites: c.f. Guardian ("To the extent permitted at law, we do not accept any responsibility for any statement in the material...") Gamezebo is currently checked off as usable at WP:VG/RS. Also, I applaud you for your formatting. This AfD should be framed. Marasmusine (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that Gamezebo's listing at WP:VG/RS should be revised to unreliable. A paragraph of The Guardian's disclaimer is:

    To the extent permitted at law, we do not accept any responsibility for any statement in the material. You must not rely on any statement we have published on guardian.co.uk without first taking specialist professional advice. Nothing in the material is provided for any specific purpose or at the request of any particular person.

    The Guardian has an excellent reputation for fact-checking. The newspaper has published this disclaimer to absolve itself from any lawsuits ("To the extent permitted at law"). On the other hand, the Gamezebo website specifically states that

    GAMEZEBO SITES ARE IN NO WAY INVESTIGATED, MONITORED OR CHECKED FOR ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS BY GAMEZEBO.

    This statement goes further than protecting the website's publishers against lawsuits. That Gamezebo explicitly states that it does not fact-check its articles strongly suggests that it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source, which requires sources that have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Cunard (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the excellent book written by the nominator. There's really only one source that can be counted as reliable (Gamezebo, as per Marasmusine above), and that in no way establishes the notability of this game.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe that Gamezebo is a reliable source. See my response to Maramusine. Cunard (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe the Gamezebo and Play This Thing sources are enough to pass notability. Gamezebo is a well-established casual review site and I see no reason to discount it because it doesn't claim the same level of scrutiny as a scientific journal. This is a videogame, not the reproductive cycle of ants, Nature don't do game reviews. "The99th" is Patrick Dugan, the second in command of Play This Thing, which is run by Greg Costikyan, both men have featured in magazine articles on indie gaming in magazines like Games TM because of their experience with the subject. Someoneanother 12:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gamezebo states that it does not fact-check its articles so it directly fails Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source. Verifiability does not require sources with the same level of scrutiny as a scientific journal but it does require sources that do fact-checking. Having read the review by Patrick Dugan, I don't consider it enough to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you see anything in the article you feel is factually incorrect? I'd say their disclaimer, while much stronger than a main-stream media source, is just that: a disclaimer. Anyone know if that was a proper English sentence? The site has solid reviews and coverage and I've never seen a factually inaccurate issue there. Hobit (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that it is a proper English sentence.

    A review of the article does not reveal anything that is overtly incorrect.

    Disclaimers of publications generally do not say that no fact-checking is done. They usually note that while they do fact-check, they are fallible and should not be held liable for any errors. That is what distinguishes Gamezebo's disclaimer from the disclaimers of sources—including non-mainstream but reliable ones—that do fact-check. Cunard (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the English help, I sometimes get myself in weird constructs and can't find my way out :-). I fully agree you are right on the letter of the rule here. I just believe they are over stating the situation (by a lot) as a legal maneuver. It costs them nothing (who reads those things anyways?) and could be helpful. Sad, but our legal system can be a bit of a mess. On the net, if you lack the money for lawyers in arbitrary nations you should probably cover yourself as well as possible. Sort of like the "not based on any living person" disclaimers when things pretty clear are. Hobit (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. It's amusing that my reply to you inadvertently contained a typo. :) I've stricken out that pesky word. I take the meaning of the Gamezebo source as it's written. I agree that the website likely lacks money for lawyers in arbitrary nations. But I think that indicates the website also lacks sufficient funds to review the articles it publishes for accuracy. Cunard (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Delete. I concur with the bulk of Cunard's excellent analysis. However, I recently offered an opinion in support of considering Play This Thing reliable at WT:VG/RS, so it'd be poor of me to change horses in midstream there; that makes one notability-establishing cite by my count. The Gamasutra cite is just on the edge of what I would consider a true passing mention; I feel like it's worth something. So, call it 1.5 notability-establishing cites, hence a week keep. I tend to suspect that if it's managed to scrape together a bit of coverage, some tiny bit more will be along by and by, making deleting the article now something of a pointless exercise. WP:POTENTIAL and all that. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have doubts about Play This Thing's being reliable. The article has numerous typos such as:
  1. "prolly" instead of "probably"
  2. "explicitedly" instead of "explicitly"
  3. "fickel" instead of "fickle"
  4. "losts" instead of ?
  5. "spawing" instead of "spawning"
  • I also do not understand this sentence:

    This kind of commitment, as fickel as it may seem to those who have losts years to MMORPGS, is staggering for a social game.

    While a typo or two can slip past a copyeditor or editor, I question how much editorial oversight an article has had when there are many typos. I maintain my position that the article should be deleted for failing the notability guidelines but I understand and respect your argument. Cunard (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, actually, I agree. Copyediting is a pretty low bar for editorial work, and failing at it that pervasively does call the entire level of editorial oversight into question. I've switched my support for Play This Thing as an RS to oppose, and since that takes my count of notability-establishing cites from 1.5 to 0.5, which is clearly out of any kind of "keep" territory, changed my !vote above to delete. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Someone's grammar and spelling does not reflect their knowledge on their industry. --The Σ talkcontribs 07:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, and I brought that up in the WT:VG/RS thread. But I'd expect a managing editor with bad grammar and spelling who's trying to put out a serious publication to recognize his own issue and bring in somebody who can copyedit for him. If editorial oversight consists of one guy who can't spell, that's not a strong editorial process. —chaos5023 (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with chaos5023's comments. Spellcheck should have caught most of the spelling errors in that article. That a managing editor does not use spellcheck for one of his own articles indicates the website has a weak editorial process. Cunard (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK for me to move it to my userspace? --The Σ talkcontribs 21:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the event of consensus being to delete. --The Σ talkcontribs 22:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the discussion about the reliability of the sources is ongoing, I ask that you let Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backyard Monsters run to completion. The community may disagree with my assessment of the sources.

After the AfD is closed by an administrator, and if the AfD result is "delete", feel free to request userfication at WP:REFUND. Cunard (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference for your review. --The Σ talkcontribs 21:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding that source. When I assess whether an award confers notability, I search for whether it has received secondary coverage. Has Backyard Monster's winning the award from Mochi received any secondary coverage—coverage independent from Backyard Monster's developer and Mochi Media? Cunard (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this? --The Σ talkcontribs 00:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Picaboum source links to a previous article by Picaboum which advertises online voting for the contest finalists. This calls into question Picaboum's affiliation with Mochi and whether it qualifies as a secondary source.

Second, the guideline for film articles prohibits the inclusion of online polls because they are subject to "vote stacking and demographic skew". The page also states that "[p]olls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner" are acceptable additions. This film article rule about polls can also be applied to games. According to Facebook, Picaboum is a developer. I don't know if Picaboum can be considered a reliable source. However, the manner in which this online poll was carried out indicates that it could easily be subjected to vote stacking and demographic skew. I don't think winning this award, which is ultimately determined by an online poll, confers notability. Cunard (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should add your assessment of the source to the AfD. --The Σ talkcontribs 20:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 07:52, 28 June 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, A7. postdlf (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Larry Jenkinz[edit]

Harry Larry Jenkinz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax article created with a series of false citations to give the appearance of being sourced. No matches for this name in GBooks or GNews archives. Fæ (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At best just a non-notable individual, but likely a hoax. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:03, 22 June 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 23:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 394[edit]

AfDs for this article:
London Buses route 394 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do bus routes really need a separate article? When I added bus routes to an article, it was wiped off citing notability issues, and another time saying that Wikipedia is NOT a directory. An article, or a list will all bus routes with destinations, routes, a rollover map maybe, might be handy, but individual article PER route sounds silly to me. Please by all means, let me know your opinion. Regards, -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—I'm inclined to agree with the nominator. There's nothing specific to this article to establish notability for this route. The list of bus routes in London covers the pertinent information from this article already. If a notes column were added to the table on that list, the few historical facts could be added to that page as well. In the meantime, a footnote for that information could be appended to the service provider name in the table. On the whole, this article though does not satisfy WP:GNG, so delete, or redirect it back to the list. Even the one article (the birth on the bus) doesn't establish notability. Imzadi 1979 → 06:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Imzadi1979 would be quite right that this wouldn't establish notability if it were the only source in the article. Combined with this 670-word feature about the route in a reliable magazine, however, there's enough to meet WP:GNG by a decent margin. Also covered offline in Buses Magazine but not included in the article for some reason. If this is kept I'll use that piece to expand the history, which is currently a little bare. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Buses in London. Are there specific reasons why this bus is particularly well known above all others in London by the local community? If there are notable social issues or history surrounding this route, then I think they would sit better as a paragraph in another article that describes that. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's a completely invented set of criteria based on your opinions, and completely ignores the general notability guidelines. If Time Out magazine, Buses magazine and the Daily Telegraph all consider the route worthy of note, so should we. That's how WP:N works - a bright-line test based on consensus established by the community as a whole, rather than a set of arbitrary criteria based on one person's opinions. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. I'm not sure the Daily Telegraph article considers the specific route anything more than a mere incidental detail and The Time Out article reads like an advertisment. However, I'm happy to accept that the Buses Magazine article can push it into acceptable notability. Generally, I like to see articles (both on WP, other sites, in source, wherever) that describe why a route is special, rather than just a simple account of where it goes! --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Strictly tongue-in-cheek)... would that be like seeing articles that describe why a road is special, rather than a simple account of where it goes? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Buses Magazine pieces are in the article now. Although both are mostly about the mechanics of the route, they do devote a fair number of words to its unusual history (introduced by an operator as a low-frequency route providing new links, but so successful that it was brought under the wing of TfL and massively expanded) and the rare vehicles run on it when it began. It seems like a fairly special route to me, if only at a local/industry-wide level. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' - While one source, depending on how in-depth on the topic it is, can be sufficient to pass WP:GNG, Alzarian16 and demonstrated two in-depth sources on this topic so there's no question at this point.--Oakshade (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the coverage in Time Out and Buses magazine are sufficient to meet GNG. I agree that the Daily Telegraph mention on its own would be nowhere near enough, as the route is inconsequential to the story. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:57, 23 June 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, whether SPEEDY as a recreation contra Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of descendants of Nazi officials, or per WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Major Nazis[edit]

Descendants of Major Nazis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article simply resynthesises existing material from other articles. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can be done in a category if it's important.--v/r - TP 23:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A category would accomplish the same thing but would have less detail, which would be a disadvantage. There's also nothing wrong with having a list article - that alone is not a valid deletable item. -OberRanks (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a bad idea for many reasons (for one, it will inevitably have unsourced names put in it, and is it vandalism or slander? So don't go there.).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I stated below, fear of future vandalism really isn't a valid reason to delete an article. Although, I can appreciate the feeling that that is likely to happen. -OberRanks (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a list article for notable descendents of major Nazis, most of whom already have articles on Wikipedia or have links to external sites. My main thought here was a type of index page. A category would work too, I suppose, but there is no reason at present to delete the article. -OberRanks (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Vote Withdrawn: The fact that there was a previously deleted article on the same topic changes everything. That answers my original question about why Wikipedia didn't have an article about this. This actually now DOES fall under Speedy Delete criteria. -OberRanks (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's one of the reason for deletion. You're just repeating what already exists. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, as the article's creator, isn't it a conflict of interest that you're !voting on your own article's AfD? I'm not sure on the policy here. I would appreciate clarification. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly certain it is not only allowed but encouraged that the creator participate. WP:AFD says that the nominator "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." It also says of the discussion "Please disclose whether you are the article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor, or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article"--v/r - TP 02:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this violates Conflict of Interest either. The article is actually written in a very neutral tone and makes no negative or disparaging remarks about the subject. It is certainly not an attack page as was originally suggested shortly after the article was created [126]. -OberRanks (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looking at the Wikipedia guidance and instructions, I have one further comment about this. What we have here is basically an index-list article. The original nominator of the article deletion stated "article simply resynthesises existing material from other articles" - however that is what a list article does - the entire purpose of a list article is to index existing articles into sections for better location and study. There is nothing in WP:DELETION which states that it a valid deletion to delete an article. Furthermore, a LOT of this seems to be stemming from the subject matter and (dare I say) personal feelings about this. While I can understand that, distaste of a topic is not a valid deletion reason - neither is fear of future possibilities of vandalism as was brought up also. On top of all of this, the article is also technically sourced with links to existing established Wikipedia articles and external sources as well. So, really, why is this article up for deletion? What policy of Wikipedia does it violate or what principal of WP:DELETE applies here? If that can be firmly stated, then I will fully endorse deletion; but right now, I don't see a valid reason for deletion. -OberRanks (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We deleted a similar article a couple of months ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of descendants of Nazi officials. Among the reasons cited for doing so was that such a list violated WP:BLP by calling "particular attention to a group of people solely by a feature that is both (i) highly negative & (ii) beyond their control". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People saying a category would be better need to read WP:CLN. Seig Heil. Lugnuts (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of descendants of Nazi officials Agathoclea (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy directoryAgent 86 (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments made for the last list of descendents of Nazis. And by the way, none of the html links in the article (as distinct from the wikilinks) support that these individuals are in any way linked to the Nazi figures with whom they share their surname. For all we know, we're currently smearing a set of random individuals as being descendents of Nazis. Also, if we've got a link to Albert Speer Jr's article, why do we also need a link to his company from a page whose seeming point is to identify him as the son of a prominent Nazi? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What we have here is a list of living people that are only notable for who their parents (or uncles, or whatever) were, in an extremely negative sense, violating WP:NOTE and WP:BLP at the same time, and without even sourcing most of the comments made about non-notable people with unfortunate ancestors. Kate (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 22 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ROC 34[edit]

ROC 34 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable MMA event featuring non-notable fighters. Routine sports coverage. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep: Was the event itself significant? If not, then DELETE per Notability Guidance. -OberRanks (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable event. Routine sports coverage is not notable. Jakejr (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable event. ROC is pretty much a regional promotion that has 35 events, only one, this one, has an article. The card is full of non-notable fighters. Nothing suggests the event itself is notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:51, 24 June 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. joe deckertalk to me 15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SbsFoot[edit]

SbsFoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources that attest to the notability of this company per WP:CORP. References given are for the footballer that they manage, not for the company itself. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 04:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)<br\> <br\> Delete - After a lot of searching I found one reference - Transfermarkt - to suggest that Sbsfoot actually exists but nothing to satisfy wp:gng. This company is not notable. MarkDask 10:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 22 June 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 and redirect. There was unanimity that the page cannot remain due to failure to meet WP:V. A subsidiary discussion took place around whether a redirect was appropriate and this was inconclusive. However, I note that Windows NT Advanced Server 3.1 was released and Windows Server 3.1 seems a plausible search term for someone seeking information about a server release. Redirects are both cheap and potentially helpful so I have created it. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to take it to WP:RFD. TerriersFan (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Server 3.1[edit]

Windows Server 3.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources whatsoever, not MOS Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - MOS compliance has no bearing on whether an article should be deleted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I searched Microsoft's website and Google for "Windows server 3.1" and there appears to have never been any such OS. So delete unless sources can be found. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment there is a Windows NT Server 3.1, so a redirect should be in order. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please provide a reliable source.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was Windows NT Server ever referred to (by Microsoft) as Windows Server 3.1 (with citation)? If so, Redirect otherwise Delete — Safety Cap (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would say no relation.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The standard for having a redirect is would someone type it in to the search box be looking for the target. And that seems to be a likely condition, since if you forgot the NT part you'd miss the article 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This operating system is totally bogus. The only source given in the article miserably fails verification. What are you waiting for? Delete it, now! Fleet Command (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect--There is no need for the red tape; any user has the power to redirect the page to the article that has information about the only true 3.1 version of Windows Server. The article contains nothing but lies. - Josh (talk | contribs) 05:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct: The user who has written this article is blocked for doing it. I am about to go BOLD and do it now! 15:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I am opposed to a redirect, as above, because there is no relation, and I see almost no-one referring it to Windows Server 3.1.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I was about say the same thing; but I changed my mind when it occurred to me that regardless of this AfD, simply Windows Server 3.1 may be a plausible candidate for redirect. But I am willing to give up my view on this matter. Fleet Command (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Get rid of the current version one way or another. - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Fails WP:V. Source cited [127] does not verify this server product ever existed. The creator of this article is currently blocked for abusing multiple accounts. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Windows NT 3.1. —Ruud 18:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ruud, can you explain why we need a redirect? Almost no-one (in a Google search at least) calls it by that.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not the correct name, but it's not an entirely implausible mistake either. Redirects generally don't hurt. —Ruud 00:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article you linked mentions little about server-related stuff.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • A redirect is not a good idea because "Windows Server 3.1" could plausibly refer to NT Advanced Server 3.1 or to Windows for Workgroups 3.1, the first of the 16-bit Windows versions to have server functionality. Given who created this article, I suspect it was hoax that still amuses the creator with this discussion. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I initially wanted to propose to create a disambiguation page between NT and WfW, but WfW was mainly intended as a client of NT, not a server OS. I really couldn't care less what the creator does or doesn't think of this discussion, seems quite irrelevant to me. —Ruud 03:26, 28 June 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 withdrawn. withdrawn (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Langrish[edit]

Katherine Langrish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong and Speedy Keep. Multiple trade books from major publisher with multiple reviews in major genre and general publications.[128][129][130][131][132]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Going on WP:AGF, article creator is stating this is an internationally recognized author. Unless proven to be untrue, I would say keep the article. -OberRanks (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found reviews of her works by The Guardian and The Times in the first half dozen Google News Archive hits. Then, the first page of a Google Books search showed two author profiles by other writers (not her books), plus a review in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. That was quick. She's notable. Cullen328 (talk) 05:34, 22 June 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 23:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy NSS models[edit]

List of Playboy NSS models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages because these pages are the components of the overall list involved:

List of Playboy NSS models A-F (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy NSS models G-R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy NSS models S-Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOTDIR violation. This is simply a (partial but detailed) index of the contents of various lesser Playboy publications. It provides much more detail (specific pages on which photos appear, etc) regarding these generally nonnotable models than we provide about either genuinely notable Playboy models or about the contents of the notable magazine itself. Similar page-by-page listings were removed, by consensus, from the Playmate articles quite some time ago. There's really no independent sourcing for the articles, and many of the names appear likely pseudonyms. The encyclopedic value is therefore negligible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NSS models certainly don't achieve the level of celebrity of Playmates, and I can see no point to listing them all in the absence of notability for the group or for a substantial number of them individually. If there are any featured models who merit their own articles (for whatever reason), I suspect the list is short and they can be listed in Playboy Special Edition, which is about this branch of Playboy publishing as a whole. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We as Wikipedia editors must send a message to the good faith users who come here looking for this kind of information. That message is: FLIP OFF! We welcome you with open arms if you come here looking for articles on some things, but not this. Why? Because we like some things, but not others. If you boo-hoo that Wikipedia is "not censored", we are forced by policy to agree. But we do have Notability and other guidelines which allow us to remove things we don't like. You got a problem with that? FLIP OFF! Have a nice day. Dekkappai (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you mean to use the more current form of that euphemism, FORGET OFF!? 18:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The above is either a hoax message or the individual Dekkappai might want to have a look at WP:Civility. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consider myself fortunate that I have never heard of FORGET OFF! "Flip off" is Dekkappedian dialect, as in "Flip off, you old fizzer!" ... or the more vulgar variant: "Fizz off, you old flipper!" (Careful where you use that one. Them's fighting words.) Dekkappai (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CIVILITY prevents me from saying anything stronger than: PERSONAL ATTACK! and a COPYVIO one at that... Dekkappai (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The video is quite disturbing, and I regret that it caused you so much distress that you missed the otherwise obvious fact that it was uploaded to the official, copyright-compliant youtube channel of the rightsholders. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:34, 22 June 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. joe deckertalk to me 14:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislaw Wisniewski[edit]

Stanislaw Wisniewski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person referenced is not notable, son is notable. Another person with the same name, currently living, seems to be more notable. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Ajh1492 (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 22 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Worlds: Goliath[edit]

War of the Worlds: Goliath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, fails WP:NFILM and WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — ukexpat (talk) 01:48, 22 June 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pricelock[edit]

Pricelock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. I have tried to clean-up the article, removing non-notable claims, inappropriate external links, etc. and add references as best I could. I am having trouble finding reliable sources to establish any claims of notability. The only claims currently in the article are an IMA Outstanding Achievement Award, which I can only find a primary source reporting for; Risk & Insurance Magazine named the CEO an innovator, which I can not find any reference for at all; and winning the Platts Global Energy Award of Excellence in the Rising Star Category, for which I can only find the primary source. Considering the lack of secondary coverage of any of these awards, I can not find any other notability factor to keep the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It looks okay, but references are news about the company and the others don't look like releable sources. Decent work on the article itself, though. –BuickCenturyDriver 20:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The IMA Outstanding Achievement Award, 2010 Risk Innovator™ and Responsibility Leader, and 2010 Platts Global Energy Award of Excellence in the Rising Star Category look to me like canonical examples of the sort of trade award that does not make a business notable; rather, reliance on these things to support claims of notability only make the article look more like advertising. The one news story that looks fairly independent [134] doesn't really establish that this business did anything that will make history, and the other [135] is essentially a press release based story announcing that financing has been acquired. No showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance of the kind that makes for long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article has been speedily deleted 4 times already, including twice during March 2011. WP:SPAM applies since the author is a professional PR firm. Swim900 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it's a borderline case. I was going to suggest deleting until I found this article on Bloomberg which would not exist for a completely non-notable entity. Bloomberg is a reliable source, and coverage there reaches the notability bar, at least for me. Antandrus (talk) 02:31, 20 June 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) 01:26, 22 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Edmondson[edit]

Winston Edmondson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page has numerous issues. Being in newspaper articles does not mean meeting Wikipedia Notability Standards. Most "sources" are broken links. Clearly self-promotion.AndLibertyForAll (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —AndLibertyForAll (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Most of the criteria listed for deletion are actually issues for cleanup, mostly already handled and the broken links removed. Subject is the focus of multiple articles in reliable third-party publications. Just crosses the line on strength of being a former professional wrestler and a local radio host and an entrepreneur. - Dravecky (talk) 21:39, 9 June 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) 00:30, 15 June 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) 00:57, 22 June 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. Unsourced BLP. Will userfy/incubate upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Pierce[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tim Pierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't seem to find enough sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines which are required for inclusion as a stand-alone aritcle. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:10, 8 June 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) 00:37, 15 June 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) 00:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep He's got a lot of credits. At the very least, he's in a ton of liner notes, so you can establish notability as a session guitarist. When it comes to making a proper biographical article, that would be trickier. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:27, 23 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verah Falls[edit]

Verah Falls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:BAND, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Gurt Posh (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added some 3rd party ref's - I'd say the tag can now be removedThat might be enough Nikthestoned 11:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything from this band is 100% legitimate. Blkheart Group can confirm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.75.77.68 (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the band being legitimate. This is about the band meeting Wikipedias notability guidelines Nikthestoned 13:36, 8 June 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) 00:40, 15 June 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) 00:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, highwire daze is just them talking about themselves. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – per the small amount of third-party coverage, including the magazine HighWire Daze which chose to publish an interview with the band. (It is not at the level of press-release-type material, in other words.) Thanks are due to Nikthestoned for adding the references. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:07, 28 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Securitainment[edit]

Securitainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources included in the article are insufficient to establish the notability of the idea. Kevin (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One man's label for a bloody obvious idea that existed long enough before he came up with a clever non-notable neologism: a form of popular culture that combines entertainment with instruction in managing the risks of the post-9/11 era, and which typically deals with anti-terrorism or military activities. Does this mean that if I go out and buy a bag of 100 green plastic toy soldiers and glue them to the hood of my car, I'm helping win the war on terror? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google Scholar search for "Securitainment" reveals a number of results, most are in German, so this article needs a German speaker to go and have a look at these sources and import relavent material. See also [URL http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Reichertz] in the German-language wikipedia, where "Securitainment" is part of a title of one of his works listed. Govynn (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The German citations appear to relate to a journal that itself bears the name "Securitainment", and which seems to be about "media as agents of inner security"[136]. The subject of this article is quoted above; apparently it was planned to be, at least at first, a list of TV shows and films with police, military, or anti-terrorist themes. This article mentions no German sources, and credits the invention of the word to a professor in Australia. It is not obviously clear that the two neologisms are the same thing. Any deletion should be without prejudice to the creation of an article about the German idea, whatever it is about. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:29, 16 June 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) 00:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability does not seem to be established. - SudoGhost™ 20:13, 23 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Schmitt[edit]

Jesse Schmitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Concern was "Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE." Subject appears to have only bare notability A Jesse Schmitt has won an award but unsure if same person. Also, IMDb and article do not reflect each other's claims (again, may be different people). Article is poorly referenced and makes few significant claims. Tagged for notability since 2007(!) so I'm hoping this AfD won't result in a "No consensus" LordVetinari 03:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on WP:BARE and WP:CREATIVE, but if the consensus is to delete, I'd go along with that. There are enough good sources to document that he approaches notability. He's run an off-off-Broadway theater company, and has written at least one play that has been performed around the United States. WP:CREATIVE doesn't really address the issue of when a playwrite is notable due to performamces in different states (unlike, say, a musician or band), but I would lean in the affirmative. That being said, I am not the radical inclusionist some claim me to be. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing as the reference you added to the winner of the Spirit of Anne Frank Award appears to be an entirely different person, I'm not sure what it's doing in this article. And that's the only reference which does any more than mention the words "Jesse Schmit". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The content really is execrable - "His most oft produced play", "His fiancee Katharine Poklemba voyaged to New Orleans" - and his own lack of notability is emphasised by a lack of notable collaborators: other than geographic and vocabulary wikilinks this article is an orphan. If there were better sources the article could be pruned and rewritten as a much shorter stub, but as there are none the best option is to sweep this horrible article away. Exok (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per User:Bearian -- Assuming good faith, I ignore the possibility of autobiographic edits by a couple of editors. It does need better confirmation of notability assertions, however. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my nom, and based on the recent removal of the subject's most significant claim to notability. Apparently another Frankenstein. LordVetinari 14:30, 20 June 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) 00:43, 22 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dream Team (warez)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Dream Team (warez) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable warez group. Ridernyc (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 15 June 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) 00:43, 22 June 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 23:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Byterapers[edit]

Byterapers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable warez group. Ridernyc (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 15 June 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) 00:42, 22 June 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centropy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Centropy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable warez group Ridernyc (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Centropy was directly referenced by CNET and other sources in regards to their piracy of The Matrix Reloaded. They were among the targets of an eleven nation government operation in Operation Site Down. This operation and its results also were national news: [[137]] - State of Love and Trust (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
anything beside WP:ONEEVENT? Ridernyc (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite certain that I just listed two events. - State of Love and Trust (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite certain you presented one source in which the total coverage of this group is the following sentence "Among the warez groups targeted are RiSCISO, Myth, TDA, LND, Goodfellaz, Hoodlum, Vengeance, Centropy, Wasted Time, Paranoid, Corrupt, Gamerz, AdmitONE, Hellbound, KGS, BBX, KHG, NOX, NFR, CDZ, TUN and BHP." So you have only presented coverage of one event and this group was only one of many groups. So even the one event you have provided a source for falls short of significant coverage for this group. Ridernyc (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what's going on here... if there are seperate articles for Echelon and Kallisto on Wikipedia why shouldn't this be here too? 71.205.46.122 (talk) 00:55, 17 June 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) 00:42, 22 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compress Da Audio[edit]

Compress Da Audio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable warez group Ridernyc (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 15 June 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) 00:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. May be worth a mention at History of warez. "The first ever MP3 group" is not really a notable achievement outside that niche. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:47, 28 June 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

First let us say clearly that this was a terrible nomination. It does not link to relevant policies, and does provide evidence for the claim "non-notable." The more meat you put into the nomination, the better the quality of the debate that ensues. Ok, I'll get off my high horse now.

The claim is that the General notability guideline (and thus the larger Wikipedia:Notability guideline) is not met. Please note these guidelines support but are subordinate to the verification policy.

Since this article does have sources, the debate here is "Do these sources rise to the level intended by the policy?" This is, are these reliable sources?

The sources themselves:

  1. Mendham, Scott. "Alt.net: Cracking Up" PC World (December 1999)
    • It's important to note that nowhere is the requirement that sources be online.
    • So just because an editor couldn't find a particular source to verify doesn't mean it "doesn't count." We believe in the source by default. Somewhat like trust but verify.
    • Online, there is partial archive available, see this search that appears to confirm that this edition does cover December 199, on page #103 at least.
    • Looking at a sub search I get "Your search - phrozen - did not match any documents."
    • However, the whole text is not included, so perhaps it's just not searched. I look some more...
    • The lead three paragraphs are available at [138]. No mention of Phrozen.
    • Now, what to do with this? I'm going to make the logical leap that if the article was primarily about Phrozen they'd have shown up in the lede. If anyone has access to this material and can provide counter evidence, please do so.
  2. The Dark Art of Cracking by Vinod Unny, PCQuest (magazine), March 1999.
    • See comments by FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2011. He's totally correct.
  3. a b http://www.defacto2.net/dl/documentsweb/tKC_history.html
    • The quality of the material on that page should in of itself give anyone even remotely familiar with Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source serious pause.
    • From What is defacto2 about? "Why cover this area specifically? To be honest, because no one else has." There's nothing further there to give any indication of editorial oversight that raises to the level of "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
    • Not a reliable source.
  4. a b c http://members.fortunecity.co.uk/phrozen/profile.html
    • It's a fortunecity link. The distance between this and a reliable source is vast enough that it is difficult to convey succintly! From "about us" : FortuneCity offers ad-free web hosting, domain names, free web site and email address services. Our affordable hosting makes FortuneCity the best place to host your small business website or personal web site.
    • Not a reliable source.
  5. InfoWorld‎ Magazine - Mar 24, 1997 - v. 19, no. 12 - 150 pages
    • This meets the absolute minimum bar for inclusion as a reliable source, and leaves a good deal of skin on the bar while doing so.
    • It's three paragraphs on page 122 of the "Notes from the Field" section of Infoworld. The coverage is neither positivly attributable (Cringely is a pen name), nor is it "in depth."
    • Special outrage goes to the adder of this link for not putting "p. 122." I, like anyone who wants to confirm a source, should not have to scan through over a hundred pages of scanned text to find this material.

In the final examination of these, we have on incredibly weak source and one source of unknown quality.

There have been long-standing request more more sources, and from the talk page it appears that effort has gone into locating sources. Despite that, it doesn't have multiple, reliable, sources.

Please do note that I, like most adminstrators, will provide copies of deleted material for the purposes of writing an article if more sources are found (or verified) and that all deletion decisions are subject to Deletion review. I encourage User:67.175.211.114 to continue to contribute to debates in the good faith manner that they have done so here, and hope that they won't get discouraged by this decision.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phrozen Crew[edit]

Phrozen Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable warez group. Ridernyc (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be 17 mentions of Phrozen Crew in books. --Hm2k (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not single one of those seem to be significant coverage. Most only give a list of names of various groups. Ridernyc (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
InfoWorld Mar 24, 1997 contains significant coverage. Combined with the trivial mentions in other books and press coverage mentioned in the Phrozen Crew Archives should suggest it's significance. Although many of the references no longer exist online, they will exist in archives offline. --Hm2k (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Anyone who knows anything about the history of reverse engineering software knows who the Phrozen Crew is, and that they're an enormously important part of history. If you don't know who they are I personally think that you shouldn't be voting to remove it, just as if I didn't know anything about fixing the exhaust manifold on a 1923 Ford Model-T I wouldn't go randomly recommending to delete IT. the only thing I might recommend here is to get someone who has actual past experience of PC to beef this article up some more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.211.114 (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

have any significant coverage in reliable sources? Ridernyc (talk) 03:24, 16 June 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) 00:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you discount Wikipedia copies, the number of books mentioning this is less than 10. None provide in-depth coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've updated the article to contain more in-depth coverage which should satisfy this issue now. --Hm2k (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which references besides defacto2.net, a warez catalog, provide in-depth coverage? FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you care to look: PC Quest, PC World and InfoWorld magazines all offer substantial in-depth coverage of the activities surrounding this group, with summaries that acknowledged this. --Hm2k (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the PC Quest one, and the coverage is very brief and not really specific to this group:
Extended content
"As the world turns towards the Internet for almost everything, so will the software. This will make server authentication the trend for program registration. But knowing how resourceful crackers are, I’m sure they’ll find ways of circumventing these checks too. Already cracking groups like Phrozen Crew, United Cracking Force, the Exterminators, and others are working toward this goal. The first successful Internet program crack I know of was the release of an alpha version of ICQ 99, which was released on many Warez sites. Although I’ve not seen the uncracked version of this alpha, which is supposed to use a different authentication server method, the cracked version works just fine, with all the new features enabled.

Cracking is truly an art, even if it is a dark one. Ask any programmer who has had to understand code written by someone else without any documentation or comments, about what a nightmare it can be. Crackers, on the other hand, thrive on this, and many crackers, like tKC(founder of Phrozen Crew) and Saltine (who first cracked the commercial wrapper RS Agent), have become legends in their own right.

To end this article on cracking, I cannot but use the tagline of one of the most popular cracking groups around, Phrozen Crew. This explains the psychology of the cracker in one simple line, "We always get what we want!""
It's not even clear from that if Saltine was a member of Phrozen Crew or if the Crew cracked the alpha version of ICQ 99. It's basically a garbage article with hardly anything citable in it; I'm not surprised PCQuest isn't in the computer journalism business anymore. -- FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The original issue was the claim that the group was "Non notable". Again, anyone who is familiar with the scene knows that in order to even be mentioned as one of 2-3 groups in any article, especially magazines as large as PC World and Infoworld (mainstream magazines mind you) demonstrate how those groups have broken out, ahead of the pack, which as anyone IN the scene can tell you, it's a dog eat dog world. Only the best of the best break out, so that is notability. You have to remember that practically NO groups get much attention from the mainstream media, and when so, it's done very briefly and in a toned down manner due to the OBVIOUS nature of the groups. They want to be careful not to PROMOTE such things. Also, we're talking about roughly 1995-2000; the media may be slightly more willing to discuss groups now thant they were at that time period. Times have changed. Regarding the mention of the ICQ99 crack, I may be mistaken, but I do believe that that crack was created by ThE STaRDoGG CHaMPioN, which was a member of Phrozen crew. I highly recommend that this discussion only involve people who are familiar with the scene, as opposed to people who have no idea about it, otherwise there's a strong chance of losing important parts of history, that these people are simply unaware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.211.114 (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the PCQuest article, they are indeed still in business, so I can only assume that you are mistaken. --Hm2k (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - References seem adequate to establish notability - perhaps barely so, but still enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:34, 28 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sector Incorporated[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Red Sector Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable warez group. Ridernyc (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As spammy as it was when I nominated it for an AfD. Not much has changed, either. Delete. User:MCB three years ago pretty much put it in perspective: " this barely if at all escapes speedy deletion (A7) and contains no assertions of notability or importance. It consists entirely of a list of people, subgroups, and BBSs, with a history/chronology of unremarkable facts. I have been unable to turn up any significant reliable sources that provide verifiability of even what little is in the article." I brought it to a speedy that was declined. Frankly that's what should happen. Raymie (t • c) 05:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 15 June 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) 00:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability; created by an SPA, so possible spam. Dialectric (talk) 23:48, 26 June 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 23:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Letters from Utopia[edit]

Letters from Utopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NALBUMS. no evidence of charting or indepth third party coverage. all I could find was directory listings and customer reviews. [139]. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 15 June 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) 00:40, 22 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janghun Troy Choi[edit]

Janghun Troy Choi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has created just one low, low budget film, Blind Love in 2006. Film won some awards at a few minor film festivals. Article has a section about his upcoming film that hasn't been made. Can't find any good information about him. Article was last updated by the creating editor in March 2010, a week after article's creation. The creating editor appears to be or associated with Choi. Bgwhite (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:23, 17 June 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) 00:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of reliable sources. I found one article that briefly mentioned him. There doesn't seem to be enough to support an encyclopedic article. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 23 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Barry (tennis)[edit]

Sam Barry (tennis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 17 June 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) 00:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Failing a subject guideline like WP:NTENNIS does not mean that the article must be deleted, it simply means that the subject often does not satisfy the WP:GNG. There are always exceptions, and the sources dug up by Jenks24 indicate that this is the case here. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:04, 22 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acacia Park[edit]

Acacia Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references in >3 years, web search reveals many places with same name Stuartyeates (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 15 June 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) 00:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references, couldn't find any third-party coverage other than mentions in directories of accomodation. Caveat: a notable article could perhaps be written under this title referring to the parliamentary village discussed in, for example, this report; no prejudice to recreation of such an article. - htonl (talk) 13:24, 24 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Collins (journalist)[edit]

John Collins (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no references for >1 year, can find no reference on the web to the "Net Visionary Technology Journalist" award except using wording that looks lifted from wikipedia Stuartyeates (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 17 June 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) 00:34, 22 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Employment Law Alliance[edit]

Employment Law Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant claims of notability, other than existence. References are all primary sources. No significant coverage found from independent publications. MikeWazowski (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 15 June 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, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you look into the section regarding what it tries to show as notable actions is actually stuff that is done by other organizations in the same area of expertise. Company A pours concrete. Company B does the same thing. Not seeing what is notable here. Phearson (talk) 02:51, 23 June 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Fields[edit]

Ken Fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD declined. Article makes absolutely no assertion that this individual is notable. This person is not Army's 1933 triple-threat back nor the spokesman for the Firestone tire company. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Under your search criteria for news subject does appear in multiple articles specifically in 2008 and 2009 Miami Herald. Two were referenced with the update - forgive me for being a relative newbie not sure how to pull those articles from archive at Herald. Kbursten (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator References to assert notability don't usually include press releases. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Kbursten I don't believe any of the news articles are press releases. There are at least four found in the Miami Herald and multiple others from local / community news papers. I would be happy to post links to the archives, however, once again, I do not know how to pull the full story from the archives. Kbursten (talk) 11:52, 18 June 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, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I have to agree with user Kbursten.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 26 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La Taberna Lúpulo[edit]

La Taberna Lúpulo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable establishment. Article created by banned user, using citations to Cabalaza Music Magazine, a publication whose existence cannot be verified, and to the Puerto Rico Sun, whose website does not return a result for a search on this term. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 15:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 June 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) 00:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. A search for independent news sources on the establishment (in English, roughly translates to "Hops Tavern") resulted in the following (translated from Spanish):

1

2

3

All of the articles come from El Nuevo Dia, an online newspaper for Puerto Rico. However, each of the articles only covers the fact that it is a bar that 1) exists and 2) serves -- surprise surprise -- various kinds of beer and nothing more. Current information in the article is not supported by the above news article. A bar cannot be in Wikipedia simply because one newspaper mentions it a few times. I Jethrobot (talk) 23:33, 22 June 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. soft deletion Spartaz Humbug! 05:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vadaanya janaa society[edit]

Vadaanya janaa society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

When there was refs ([140]), the refs weren't really top notch. The web source wasn't third-party and the two newspaper ones seemed to be local papers; not (inter)national ones. Island Monkey talk the talk 15:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 15:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 June 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) 00:32, 22 June 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Immigrant Ancestors Project[edit]

Immigrant Ancestors Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod declined. Academic organization with no significant claim to notability and all references to it in google searches are from internally published sources at BYU Sadads (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Example of a externally published source: Ryskamp, George R. (2008), "European Emigration Records, 1820-1925", in Hedegaard, Ruth; Melrose, Elizabeth Anne (eds.), International Genealogy and Local History: Papers presented by the Genealogy and Local History Section at IFLA General Conferences 2001-2005, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, ISBN 978-3-598-22036-4. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second example: Wright, Raymond S, III (2009), Ancestors in German Archives, vol. 1, Genealogical Publishing Com, pp. ix–x, ISBN 9780806318158{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though the Ryscamp is a peer reviewed article published outside the university, it still is written by a BYU professor, presumably working for the project. It is a little bit like saying press releases prove that an organization is notable, professors promoting their own projects in journals, doesn't mean it actually means something, it just means that it is an acceptable route of research, and their peers can decide if it is useful. I have not accessed the Wright, so I am not sure what to make of that, Sadads (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Equating a self-serving press releases from a PR flack with a peer reviewed article by a distinguished scholar published by one of the most prestigious organization in their field? Really? That's a bridge too far. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review means that the methods and ideas are feasible and reasonable within the field, not that they are accurate or accepted (especially in Humanities fields, where other people are not expected to be able to reproduce the methodology). Scholarly publication is just as messy, if not more so, then publishing information from press releases in news articles. Publishing about pet programs or centers at a university doesn't mean much unless someone from outside is commenting on it, Sadads (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The author of this paper was invited to present it at the annual conference of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions; this isn't some accidental publication that somehow slipped thru the cracks. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 June 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) 00:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Ryskamp paper is included in a conference report published by Walter de Gruyter – K. G. Saur, a major academic publisher. I think that is sufficient. --Hegvald (talk) 20:16, 25 June 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 23:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke and the Void[edit]

Luke and the Void (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short film that does not meet criteria of WP:NFILM. Search of Google brings up 37 "unique" results. First version of article claimed that it had won a Cannes Film Festival award, something that I was not able to verify. Now that claim is removed but I can't find any reliable source that verifies it was screened at the Swansea Bay Film Festival. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 20:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Grant userfication request if made by article author User:Fergito for continued work. Caution contributing editor User:Mattfreeth about WP:COI as his username is the same as that of the film's writer/director. Granted, I took the article as nominated and corrected it for style and format, but I was unable to do anything more than confirm its existance. As the article asserts multiple festival screenings and multiple awards, these need to be properly cited. And if userfied, the author might find and offer the sources I could not. AND, of off of mainspace, he might seek input and assistance from others. But as it currently stands, the article fails WP:Notability (films). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:38, 17 June 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) 00:30, 22 June 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 Sam Axe. Spartaz Humbug! 06:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Finley (Burn Notice)[edit]

Chuck Finley (Burn Notice) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable alias for a fictional character. Information is better suited at Sam Axe. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Sam Axe. The fact is, both articles currently don't show why they should exist (WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:MOSFICT etc.), and both should be trimmed and merged to a character list until they satisfy the core criteria. But since only "Chuck Finley" is up for AfD and is a suptopic of "Sam Axe", it's better to clean up from the bottom before dealing with the top. – sgeureka t•c 08:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect with Sam Axe (no preference). szyslak (t) 08:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Sam Axe: The fictional character as an individual subject does not meet the general notability guideline and the article is mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work that does not provide reception or significance for the fictional character. Per sgeureka's argument and to generate consensus, a merge to Sam Axe is an acceptable outcome. Jfgslo (talk) 15:20, 18 June 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) 00:30, 22 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socket (Quoting Software)[edit]

Socket (Quoting Software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested on the grounds that this product, although newer, is gaining popularity, which, according to the contester, means it is notable. Not so. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 June 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, 22 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Gunderson (artist)[edit]

Henry Gunderson (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the substantial coverage test; another WP:UPANDCOMING youth. Orange Mike | Talk 23:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Userfy Not currently notable- but may be in the future. Collect (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 9 June 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, 15 June 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, Sumsum2010·T·C 00:18, 22 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Fight (album)[edit]

The Good Fight (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Disputed PROD indicating album had a "proper release". That doesn't make this album notable and I failed to find substantial coverage in reliable sources for the album to pass notability requirements. I question the notability of the band itself based on available sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, band currently up for prod. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both the album and the band article. I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles but did not find any sources that would help to support WP:N notability of the subjects. Even searching laweekly.com (for this LA-based band) all I could find were directory-type listings. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:54, 28 June 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.
  1. ^ http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=25674&tip=sid
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_June_22&oldid=1142637758"