Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 4

< 3 September	5 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unix Amiga Delitracker Emulator[edit]

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

No notability was shown in the first AfD. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This would seem pretty basic. The previous AfD had comments such as "Appears to be notable" and "its popularity is 2655/45000" absent a single reliable source saying so. The article had no reliable sources two and a half years ago, it has no reliable sources today, and apparently has never had any reliable sources supporting any assertion of notability. Absent such sources, an article cannot be sustained. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 08:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 6 September 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pain in da Ass[edit]

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

A hip hop artist and actor. Unable to find any reliable sources. Unable to find any album of his. Only done bit parts in a couple of movies. Bgwhite (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A one-liner and a list of youtube projects and minor film appearances. While his projects might be verifiable,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] the most I was able to find was an MTV quotation,[16] Where is anything from which to build a Biography of a Living Person? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He gets mentioned here and there but there is no significant coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Neither the person or the music passes the notability requirements. --Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 12:46, 7 September 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. 05:18, 10 September 2011 Fastily (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Frank Scaglione" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Scaglione[edit]

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

A 19 year-old who is on his way to create a business empire. Has a web advertising company and is a weather presenter on a TV station. Unfortunately, that does not make one notable. Only able to find two reliable references and they are in the article. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ambitious and talented to be sure, but not yet notable. Pburka (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Much though I'm not sold on the subject's notability, there are multiple reliable references which discuss him in significant detail. That satisfies the GNG, whether or not we think the kid's important. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 08:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

query — Ravenswing, would you mind linking to some of the refs you've found if you have the time? there are so many hits on google news which are clearly not this guy that i'm having trouble isolating the ones which are. i'm not taking a position on this article at all, but would like to see more evidence than is found in the actual article is all. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I'm somewhat surprised. Looking at just the first screen for advanced archival search by date for "Frank Scaglione," [17] you see articles from the Des Moines Register and the Omaha World-Herald which satisfy the GNG. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 21:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks — evidently i'm just dazed. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — really, i did want to think that this should be deleted, but there are at least three solid sources discussing the dude. the article is in terrible shape, though, and is gag-inducing promotionalism. that, however, is not the question at hand. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure two articles from community sites in which he is from is independent or verify as multiple. Patch is a web site only for a town of 11,000. Dallas County news has a subscription base of 1,700 and publishes weekly. One of the articles is reprinted in the Omaha World Herald (paper covers parts of Iowa). In sports notability, usually hometown or college papers are not counted towards GNG, but can be used for referencing facts. I had 4 articles about me in my hometown (pop 4,000) paper while growing up and I'm not anywhere near in notable. Bgwhite (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Two reliable sources has long been held as multiple in every pertinent AfD. The particular articles to which I referred came from the Des Moines Register and the Omaha World-Herald, as I stated above - both daily newspapers with circulation over 100,000, the largest newspapers in their respective states, and winners of multiple Pulitzer Prizes; inferring that they do not constitute reliable sources is well to the left of farcical. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 00:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undoubtedly an ambitious and impressive young person, but non-notable. There are thousands and thousands of people similar to Mr. Scaglione. Neutrality^talk 20:12, 9 September 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 WP:SNOW keep; obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Ironholds (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Words With Friends[edit]

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

Non notable game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilOne93 (talk • contribs)

Fixed incomplete nomination. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination is one of several games by Zynga nominated for AfD: Treasure Isle, The Pioneer Trail, FarmVille, Friends for Sale, Empires & Allies, Drugwars, CityVille, YoVille, Texas HoldEm Poker. See also relevant WT:VG section. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable, secondary, non-trivial sources exist, such as [18] or [19]. Notability and WP:GNG satisfied. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article, plus this one allow it to meet bare bones of the WP:GNG. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No it isn't. It has sources that pass the relevant guidelines. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 07:39, 5 September 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 WP:SNOW keep; obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Ironholds (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure Isle (video game)[edit]

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

Lack of third-part sources. Unlikely to change any time soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilOne93 (talk • contribs)

Fixed incomplete nomination. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination is one of several games by Zynga nominated for AfD: Words With Friends, The Pioneer Trail, FarmVille, Friends for Sale, Empires & Allies, Drugwars, CityVille, YoVille, Texas HoldEm Poker. See also relevant WT:VG section. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. The article already has reliable, secondary, non-trivial sources. Notability and WP:GNG satisfied. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes it is. It has 1+ reliable 3rd party sources. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 07:38, 5 September 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 WP:SNOW keep; obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Ironholds (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Pioneer Trail[edit]

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

Lack of third party sources, non notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilOne93 (talk • contribs)

Fixed incomplete nomination. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination is one of several games by Zynga nominated for AfD: Words With Friends, Treasure Isle, FarmVille, Friends for Sale, Empires & Allies, Drugwars, CityVille, YoVille, Texas HoldEm Poker. See also relevant WT:VG section. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the source already in the article, other reliable, secondary, non-trivial sources exist, such as [20] or [21] (or [22] for development). Notability and WP:GNG satisfied. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are more sources out there. Forbes even covered it. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. speedy keep (non-admin closure) Odie5533 (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FarmVille[edit]

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

Non notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilOne93 (talk • contribs)

Fixed incomplete nomination. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination is one of several games by Zynga nominated for AfD: Words With Friends, Treasure Isle, The Pioneer Trail, Friends for Sale, Empires & Allies, Drugwars, CityVille, YoVille, Texas HoldEm Poker. See also relevant WT:VG section. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. The article already has reliable, secondary, non-trivial sources. Notability and WP:GNG satisfied. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: I call bull shit. SL93 (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be one of a group of disruptive nominations. Perhaps an administrator might evaluate if this and other similar nominations qualify for a speedy close? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Is this nomination a joke? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Wretched excuse for a "game", but undeniably notable. Hugely popular and has accordingly seen plenty of mainstream press attention. No lack of sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the above reasons. I would non-admin close these debates, but I consider myself involved in these articles. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I echo the opinion of Starblind to the letter. ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate_(talk)(spy) 04:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is properly sourced, and the subject is obviously notable. I fail to see a good argument in favor of deleting among the last seven so let's just close this... MuSiClOvEr (talk) 05:23, 5 September 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 WP:SNOW keep; obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Ironholds (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friends for Sale[edit]

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

Bearly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilOne93 (talk • contribs)

Fixed incomplete nomination. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination is one of several games by Zynga nominated for AfD: Words With Friends, Treasure Isle, The Pioneer Trail, FarmVille, Empires & Allies, Drugwars, CityVille, YoVille, Texas HoldEm Poker. See also relevant WT:VG section. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. The article already has reliable, secondary, non-trivial sources. Notability and WP:GNG satisfied. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 21:35, 4 September 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 WP:SNOW keep; obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Ironholds (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empires & Allies[edit]

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

Non notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilOne93 (talk • contribs)

Opposite view

This article should not be considered "not notable". This article gives information for those who are starting to play this game. This also gives further information to players like me. And this informs the public that Zynga has a new game which is Empires and Allies. Now to the person who wrote the statement above this section I made, Please consider my argument and elaborate your reason. Thank you. Christian Mac Juane (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed incomplete nomination. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination is one of several games by Zynga nominated for AfD: Words With Friends, Treasure Isle, The Pioneer Trail, FarmVille, Friends for Sale, Drugwars, CityVille, YoVille, Texas HoldEm Poker. See also relevant WT:VG section. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. The article already has reliable, secondary, non-trivial sources. Notability and WP:GNG satisfied. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has plenty of reliable, third-party sources. The article could probably use more secondary sources, but it clearly passes WP:GNG. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:45, 5 September 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 WP:SNOW keep; obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Ironholds (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drugwars[edit]

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

Barely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilOne93 (talk • contribs)

Fixed incomplete nomination. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination is one of several games by Zynga nominated for AfD: Words With Friends, Treasure Isle, The Pioneer Trail, FarmVille, Friends for Sale, Empires & Allies, CityVille, YoVille, Texas HoldEm Poker. See also relevant WT:VG section. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Per [23]. You said that it is barely notable. So you agree that it is notable? SL93 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. (edit conflict) An apparently "bunched up" nomination with the other Zynga games. However, this is not made by them and is only tangentially relevant as a Zynga variation of the game, and even that is notable on its own. Just reading the article I can see this is notable, if painfully hard to find sources on the spot. I'll return to this if there's any contention about that. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:38, 4 September 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 WP:SNOW keep; obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Ironholds (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CityVille[edit]

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

Non notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilOne93 (talk • contribs)

Fixed incomplete nomination. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination is one of several games by Zynga nominated for AfD: Words With Friends, Treasure Isle, The Pioneer Trail, FarmVille, Friends for Sale, Empires & Allies, Drugwars, YoVille, Texas HoldEm Poker. See also relevant WT:VG section. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. The article already has reliable, secondary, non-trivial sources. Notability and WP:GNG satisfied. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep: Yeah right. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies notability. It's only September and it looks like the WP:SNOW is already falling. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:49, 5 September 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 WP:SNOW keep; obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Ironholds (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YoVille[edit]

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

Non notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilOne93 (talk • contribs)

Fixed incomplete nomination. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination is one of several games by Zynga nominated for AfD: Words With Friends, Treasure Isle, The Pioneer Trail, FarmVille, Friends for Sale, Empires & Allies, Drugwars, CityVille, Texas HoldEm Poker. See also relevant WT:VG section. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. The article already has reliable, secondary, non-trivial sources. Notability and WP:GNG satisfied. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Another notable "Ville" game. SL93 (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nominator's first edit apart from creating their user page was to tag this article for speedy deletion. All of the user's subsequent edits have been to Zynga related articles and their AfDs. This single purpose account seems to be nominating disruptively, possibly enough to qualify for speedy keep criterion 2. Quasi human | Talk 21:46, 4 September 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 WP:SNOW keep; obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Ironholds (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Texas HoldEm Poker (Zynga game)[edit]

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

Non notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilOne93 (talk • contribs)

Fixed incomplete nomination. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination is one of several games by Zynga nominated for AfD: Words With Friends, Treasure Isle, The Pioneer Trail, FarmVille, Friends for Sale, Empires & Allies, Drugwars, CityVille. See also relevant WT:VG section. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources already in the article, other reliable, secondary, non-trivial sources exist, such as [24] or [25]. Notability and WP:GNG satisfied. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 07:40, 5 September 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. Copyvio issues, unattributed copy-paste from other articles and WP:SNOW, it's clear where this is headed. —SpacemanSpiff 18:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphate transistasis[edit]

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

This term has apparently been made up for our benefit, since there are no Google hits, Google books hits, or Google scholar hits (apart from Wikipedia mirrors). Also, the entire article seems to be an incoherent assembly of direct quotes (that are, rather questionably, not indicated as quotes) from the sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most articles by this author are problematic; at first glance this is an exception. But, on closer examination, it's a WP:SYNTH of out-of-context quotes (not in quote marks) on a range of disconnected topics, and the title is a WP:NEO occurring nowhere in the literature. -- 202.124.72.211 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the continued saga of this user's WP:SYNTH farm--Cerejota (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ramblings. Neutrality^talk 20:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article also contains copyvio: verbatim quotes from cited works, not indicated by quote marks. -- 202.124.74.191 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In light of this ANI thread, it seems like this deletion nomination should be speediable for copyvio reasons. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If it also contains copyvio then that's the icing on the cake. bobrayner (talk) 16:19, 10 September 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zapoppin'[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (music). Band does not have two albums from a major label and no evidence of "non-trivial, published works appearing in sources". Recently added citations remain trivial passing mentions of gigs. It is possible that there is non-trivial coverage that has not been cited here, but a good faith search has not turned any up.SabreBD (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to reinforce the non-trivial coverage of Zapoppin' by 247 Magazine, I have amended the link to point to a digital version of the magazine (rather than a web-post hosting this version). I have also included a link to a BBC playlist including Zapoppin's track 'Hoisted' as further evidence of notability. Mymyyada (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Mymyyada[reply]

Comment It looks like it comes down to whether the published works meet the criteria of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". Now it can be seen, I think the 247 entry probably meets the criteria of non-trivial, which means one more is needed and I think most of these including the BBC are largely just listings. I am not sure about the Clash citation, which doesn't look much more than an entry, but to would be useful to have opinions from other editors on that one, or, dare I say it, another unambiguously non-trivial source.--SabreBD (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. In an effort to remedy these issues I have expanded the text detailing the response to Zapoppin's album Antiquarian Party Ballads For Dames with a reference to the - arguably unambiguous - review and inclusion as a 'Favourite of 2010' by Jam Records. Additionally, I have included a reference to Zapoppin's radio play as part of Resonance FM's 'Pick of 2010' show. I'm confused as to the difficulty accepting the Clash citation as it is a national magazine offline with a significant online presence, also. This reviewer dedicates 100 words going into some depth describing the band, their set and the lyrical themes of their songs. Though, am happy to hear of further issues and to hear the opinion of another editor should the more recent changes not be adequate. Mymyyada (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Mymyyada[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the 247 review plus the Swiss radio interview and also the Jam Records favourite pick (note, this is not their current label) the band has sufficiently been covered, even internationally, to be notable. De728631 (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that the record company site can be taken as third party, even if they are no longer with them and unfortunately I cannot get the Swiss interview to play, but I am willing to take De728631's word for it on that one. It is still near the margins, but I think there is now enough here to change my nomination to keep and I have stuck it through accordingly. Good luck on improving the article.--SabreBD (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Jam is in fact not a record label at all, but rather is an independent shop (online and offline), blog, cafe and venue. I have amended the page to account for this confusion as the Jam website more often refers to itself simply as 'Jam' rather than 'Jam Records'. Thanks for input from both editors. Mymyyada (talk) 10:20, 7 September 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. Apparent consensus--no delete's except the nom., and copyvio has been addressed DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faruk Türünz[edit]

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

Craftsman who makes ouds: this is not in itself notable, not could I find any indication that the subject is an exception. This article was recently deleted per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7 but has been recreated in the same form by a newly registered user; A7 was this time contested. However the only supplied reference is to a BBC blog (which briefly talks about one of the subject's instruments, not the subject himself) and no other significant and independent references could be found to assert notability, still less verify any of the article content. The main claim to notability is the invention of the "Brace Tuning System" which should - if it really is notable - easily be found in reliable sources, but all that turns up appear to be the subject's own sites (such as myspace), and the biographies there are so similar to this article as to make this a possible candidate for speedy deletion as a copyvio (though I am taking this to AfD as an A7 has already been contested, and so that consensus can be properly reached on the notability issue). RichardOSmith (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Note: I am the admin who declined the most recent A7 on this article. I don't know about any copyvio, but in the meantime I've rewritten most of the article--it's a pity no one else did that in the article's first incarnation. OK, I do believe it is noteworthy if we have an article on an established oud maker. Those luthiers are rare, and given the part of the world they're from it's well-nigh a miracle if you can find English-language material on them. In this case, we have a BBC Radio 3 blog where Khyam Allami describes how he well in love with one of Turunz's instruments. We also have a brief but meaningful comment in a Turkish magazine: "Un Turc, Faruk Turunz, est maintenant considéré parmi les meilleurs, sinon le meilleur fabricant de l’oud (le luth oriental)." That I cannot produce any more sources is right now is due to two reasons: a. I do not know what the relevant magazines and journals are for this area and b. my Turkish sucks.
What I ask of nominator and others is that they consider that this is a field in which it is simply difficult (for me, and I imagine for others) to find references for such a subject. What I found so far and have included in the article, however, certainly suggests notability. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is enough sourcing here to indicate notability. I expect that editors fluent in Turkish could help provode some more content and sourcing. LadyofShalott 20:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Scholar gives a couple of Turkish language results that might be useful to someone who can read them here. LadyofShalott 21:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lady, I hope you're not suggesting I learn Turkish on my day off, tomorrow? BTW, thanks for the help on the article. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if you choose to interpret it that way, Drmies, who am I to stand in the way of your learning another language? Oh, and you're welcome. LadyofShalott 23:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drmies and LadyofShalott. The article would benefit from the attention of a Turkish speaker to track down and verify some sources, but there seems to be sufficient indication of notability. --Deskford (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can't read Turkish, but notability appears to exist. SL93 (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The current sourcing available appears to indicate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 03:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo[edit]

The topic is not notable, being just a vague phrase, similar to the way things were. The article has no reliable sources - just Wiktionary and a self-published website - and there doesn't seem to be anything much for this out there. The phrase seems to be just dictionary material and it is our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Warden (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of Latin phrases (S). No evidence of any particular notability, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --S Larctia (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per S Larctia. ItsZippy (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Opinion on keeping or deleting the article, but if deleted I suggest a Redirect to Status Quo (band) instead of List of Latin phrases (S) as a likely search term. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per S Larctia. Definitely do not direct to the band article. -- PBS (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that people might confuse it with the band gives enough reason to describe the original meaning. Agreed that it shouldn't redirect to the band. Groogle (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - not your run of the mill Latin phrase. Very easy to add sources. Sheesh! Bearian (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so easy then how is that you have not cited any sources? Warden (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep This phrase is used regularly. 654,000 news results and 1,560,000 book results for instance. This article isn't just a definition, but explains where the expression came from. Dream Focus 18:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this also something taught in political or social studies classes? Dream Focus 19:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge with some of the related articles (e.g. status quo ante bellum). Those articles are better targets for deletionists and their historical material could be included here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Latin list. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep basic concept, not just a phrase. Suitable for Wikipedia. (and, for that matter, I think many of the other phrases in that list are also. Thee is no sharp distinction between a dictionary and an encyclopedia , DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 12 September 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 now clear, after the relisting. I thank Ravenswing for his thorough analysis. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Edmondson[edit]

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia Notability Standards. Being in articles does not mean standards are met. Running for mayor of Lewisville, for example, is not notable, especially if the mayor himself has not earned a page. AndLibertyForAll (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Last AfD was just one month ago. 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) 19:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The previous AfD closed as a no consensus, after multiple relistings, with only one editor commenting on it; under the circumstances, it's not obnoxious to try again to seek a consensus. That being said, the subject is mentioned in the local small-town weekly newspaper's website (both articles in fact come from the same source); said paper does not have an article of its own, and the premise that this constitutes a reliable source is shaky. But let's examine them anyway.
The first source is to back the assertion that the subject created the "World’s Largest Suggestion Box," which is entirely backed by the subject's own claim that it is. The same source is also used to support the article's contention that the subject invented a "RadioName concept," once again solely backed by the subject's own claims. No evidence is proffered, however, as to what makes this concept notable, or any sources suggesting that the world has heard of it.
The second source mentions the subject along with several other local mayoral candidates. Were he to have won the race, that would fail of notability under WP:POLITICIAN given the small size of the city; failed candidates, of course, garner no presumptive notability.
As far as Dravecky's assertion that the subject being a former professional wrestler contributes to notability, no reliable sources claim that he was. The article states that the subject wrestled for a loop called the "CWA" operating out of Dallas, but the only such loop I could find was the Continental Wrestling Association, an outfit operating out of Memphis that folded when the subject was 17 years old. Perhaps Dravecky did some research into verifying this claim, and I invite him to share the research with us.
Sorry, but this adds up to a 0+0+0=0. A failed mayoral candidate in a small city gains no notability under WP:POLITICIAN, which sets the minimum bar at a successful candidate for a large regional city. A purported professional wrestler from a loop that (if it exists at all) is desperately obscure and/or defunct gains no notability from that, even if supported by reliable sources, which the assertion is not. A local radio host gains no notability under WP:ENTERTAINER, which requires a "large fan base or a significant "cult" following," for which no sources have been proffered. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 09:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Ravenswing's excellent analysis of the given sources. Coverage is weak at best and many of the claims of importance ultimately cannot be corroborated from evidence other than the subject's own claims. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable figure, vanity article. Keb25 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Psycho Holiday[edit]

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

Nonsense attack page. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody is trying to make up a new, negative nickname for the Bohemian Grove and establish it via Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has no clue what they're talking about and is flagging articles for deletion ignorantly. — Odessious 23:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that anybody uses this term. Even the external link does not use it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Psycho Holiday. WP:NEOLOGISM. Pburka (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that this is a notable term, and none proffered. Created by a SPA who has not improved the article in the month and a half since its creation. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 09:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard this term before, where have you guys been? Busy working at the CIA I'd imagine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.116.58 (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, INLESS someone can prove that said term really does appear in the Alex Jones film mentioned. Linguogeek (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reznor's Edge[edit]

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

Non-notable parody website. Ridernyc (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't seem to be find notable sources aside from that Phoenix New Times and and this mention, though it seems to talk about the group and Reznor himself. Other than that, I didn't see anything solid notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:19, 4 September 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 Porcupine Tree. not that much discussion, but the redirect seems obvious & will avoid the need for a second relisting. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupine Tree Sampler 2008[edit]

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

non-notable self-release —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Porcupine Tree. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Porcupine Tree. Neutrality^talk 20:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 03:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have Fun, Go Mad[edit]

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

Prodded, prod removed. There is no supporting article for the band, no references Richhoncho (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps not an all-time classic song, but it did manage to be a hit single TWICE--for two different artists no less-- hitting the top 40 and then later the top 20. That's a notable song. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: That there is no article for the band is irrelevant to the notability of the song ... although as the performers for two singles which charted on the UK charts, it certainly qualifies for one. That being said, the most cursory attempt at research supports the article's claim that this song is a two-time UK Singles Chart tune, which is all that's needed. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 09:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A song article without a supporting artist page is grounds for speedy deletion under A9. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Why, look ... here's one right here. And it was even mentioned in the article as the other group that did a cover of the song which made the UK Singles Chart, at the time you filed the AfD.

That being said, perhaps you should reread A9, which holds, "An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist (both conditions must be true)." (emphasis in the original) I rather expect that most editors, myself included, would view a mention that a song had twice over made the top 40 of a national singles' chart as a valid assertion of significance. Cheers back atcha. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 12:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The speedy argument is wrong, since the article asserts notability. But as far as I can tell it doesn't meet either WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. Both require significant coverage in reliable sources, and I didn't find any. The closest were three one-line mentions, none of which really count as significant. NSONG does mention that "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable", but this would appear to be an exception. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That's not an "exception." That's one of NSONG's core tenets. This song meets it. Ravenswing 17:18, 11 September 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 Red Flag (band). v/r - T P 03:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halo (Red Flag song)[edit]

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

Notability tag added March 2010, prod'ed 24 July 2011, prod removed without changes to article. Article still lacks sources and no claim of notability. Richhoncho (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is unnecessary - it could be merged with other articles in Category:Red Flag songs to form part of a discography. Peter E. James (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You only removed the prod notice, which states, "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page." As you made no edit, other than removing the prod, no edit comment, nor anything on the talkpage I could only assume you wanted it saved it its present format - and given we have two editors already querying its notability wasn't quite right. If you want to redirect I have no problems with that, it does fail WP:NSONGS in any event. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in the Red Flag (band) article so I wouldn't object to it being redirected. Peter E. James (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree to a redirect, unless other editors have alternative suggestions.--Richhoncho (talk) 19:48, 6 September 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sufficiently notable. Neutrality^talk 20:05, 9 September 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 Mel Mermelstein . I know there is little discussion, but the redirect is really quite obvious. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By Bread Alone[edit]

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

2009 PROD declined without reason, current text violates WP:COPYVIO, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Would support redirect to Mel Mermelstein as alternative. Yunshui (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Mel Mermelstein. The existing article fails WP:NPOV, citing only one source (and a hostile source at that). Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have removed the POV text from the Institute for Historical Review. Yunshui (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search, and the closest thing I could find to an independent source discussing this book was this review done by a student for a university class. I still don't see enough material to establish notability for the book separately from notability of the author, and I still think this article should be redirected to Mel Mermelstein (after merging what few tidbits are here but not already there). Richwales (talk · contribs) 14:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 17:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Near Earth Asteroid Reconnaissance Project[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a particularly notable organization. One of a series of articles whose main purpose seems to be to publicize the work of Les Golden, and in fact this article was created by a now-blocked sockpuppet of Drlesmgolden (talk · contribs). Astronomy magazine mentioned them once in 1994, and has apparently had noting to add in the intervening 17 years, suggesting they are not notable or important even within their field of study. The 2010 ref is a puff piece about how great Les Golden is from a local paper. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "puff piece" isn't from a reliable source, and the author is probably Golden himself. He even created a "Diane" account on Wikipedia to edit his article that was proven to be a sock-puppet. I've removed the puff reference from the article since it's not from a reliable source. Rklawton (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, lots of evidence that this is a promotional piece written by the article's subject. Rklawton (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable ghits, no book or scholar hits, and no evidence of notability, unlike Near-Earth Asteroid Tracking, Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research, Catalina Sky Survey, etc. -- 202.124.75.240 (talk) 02:05, 5 September 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 Saathiya (TV series). v/r - T P 17:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rucha Hasabnis[edit]

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

Delete as the person doesn't satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER, no significant major roles. Even her role in Saathiya (TV series) is not really the major female role. Muhandes (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ENT.SL93 (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Athlete?? yes, this actress fails WP:ATHLETE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant ENT. Chill. SL93 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was funny. And I agree. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saathiya (TV series), the one place for which she has any context and might merit a sourcable mention. The acrtress currently fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. I found one article on her in French language source 24 heures [26] that tells how she and other Indian stars were filming 5 episodes of Saathiya in Lausanne, Switzerland, and I did find a bio at TV Basti that actually states that she plays the lead role in that series. But apart from that... only blogs and forums. This one is simply Too Soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a redirect would work. I was careful to use the term "not really a lead role" since I saw the TV Basti source (which is identical to this version, I don't know who copies whom), but the current page says it is not a lead role, and searching the web I always saw her mentioned as secondary to Gopi (Jiaa Manek). But all this is insubstantial, it would be too soon even if was a co-lead role.--Muhandes (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipeida author may likely have gotten his inspiration from the TV Basti bio, but yes, it is too soon for us to base a BLP on the one short paragraph, no matter its claim. If she does get more coverage, the redirect can be reverted and her article fleshed out sccordingly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hollowland[edit]

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

No indication of meeting the WP:NB notability guidelines. A Web search finds no substantial coverage about the book, such as reviews, that are not self-published (blogs etc.). Mainstream media coverage is limited to mentions of the book in the context of reporting the author's success. Sandstein 15:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A database search for criticism turns up very little. There is an article in the New York Times Magazine ((Jun 19, 2011): 26-29,4.) about the author, and she is apparently referenced in a piece called "Who wants to be a self-published millionaire?" (Cramer, Theresa. EContent 34. 4 (May 2011): 4.) Those do not seem sufficient to establish notability of the book. LadyofShalott 18:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 14:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Airlines Flight 523[edit]

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

This article handles a runway overshoot leading to a full right off of the aircraft, but with no fatalities. It was in the news extensively -for a few days- and now (> 1 month later) no wider implications to the airline or aircraft industry have been shown. As such it seems merely a news-item which is not valid per WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:notability has not been shown. L.tak (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nominator L.tak (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a hull-loss it meets WP:AIRCRASH, the cited refs also show that it meets WP:GNG and WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused how it meets the essay wp:aircrash. That says for stand alone articles "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports.", so it requires a specific notability (including WP:NOTNEWS rationale). Could you indicate how notnews is satisfied (or where I am mistaken in my reasoning?)L.tak (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As explained below, it meets the AIRCRASH, "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;" to be included in a type article and also "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports." for a stand alone article. As far as NOTNEWS goes there will be further reports issued on this accident as time goes by, no airliner hull loss is simply news reports and nothing more, which is what AIRCRASH acknowledges and why it differentiates airliners from light aircraft, which often do not have any further follow up. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: As it falls within the scope of these WikiProjects, notification of this AfD discussion has been made at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; extensive coverage by independent sources show that it passes the GNG. However, WP:AIRCRASH is just an essay, not policy. Also, as far as standalone articles are concerned it only says "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports". So, the essay is redundant here, as it doesn't set a lower bar than the broader rules on notability which have been agreed by the community. bobrayner (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nomination is too soon after the last one IMHO. The airframe was written off, which adds weight to the case for a stand-alone article. Whilst a large number of deaths makes weight for the case for notability, a lack of them does not necessarily mean a lack of notability - British Airways Flight 009, British Airways Flight 38. Investigations into aircrashes take time, 2 years is not uncommon, and in exceptional cases can take over 8 years. Also, keep per arguments raised in the original AfD discussion. Mjroots (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's the same answer as the last deletion discussion: The airliner broke in half. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents, the longstanding notability guideline for airline accidents is that if the hull is written off the accident is notable and the article is to be kept. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for keeping asking again about it, but where exactly did you read that in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents? I saw "loss of hull" nowhere to be interpreted as an argument for an article to be standalone; could you point me to the paragraph? L.tak (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second bullet of WP:AIRCRASH in all three sections. N419 BH 04:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But those bullets are preceded by "should only be included in airline/airport articles if:" and thus specifically do not handle standalone articles, where -accordng to wp:aircrash- the normal notability rules apply (including the events-guideline...)... L.tak (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, specifically, "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports." As has been already argued here, hull loss pretty much equals notability sufficient for an article, even if that isn't what the guidelines says verbatim. In the end what we're dealing with are guidelines, not policies. N419 BH 05:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for clarifying the line of thinking. I think it makes clear we agree i) that the second paragraph of the guideline applies (as you have quoted) and ii) that GNG/EVENT/NOTNEWS should be satisfied. We just disagree whether "loss of hull + signficant -shortterm- news coverage + (a yet to be concluded investigation)" makes enough claim to satisfy GNG/EVENTS/NOTNEWS... L.tak (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I haven't actually !voted here, but I would generally consider the hull-loss of an airliner to be notable. The other thing about aviation accidents is there is almost always a highly reliable, detailed, and authoritative source: the accident report. N419 BH 06:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oops, I should look better at the signatures! agreed on the quality of the reports/sources in general (and in this case) though... L.tak (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough real-world coverage to pass WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG. Haus^Talk 08:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG (a subset of the WP:N guideline): 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. The article satisfies that criteria, as it has significant coverage in reliable sources such as AP, BBC, CNN and FlightGlobal. In most cases, an airliner hull loss will also meet those criteria. While it's not a deciding factor in the absence of meeting the other guidelines, it is a good indicater of "likely notability". - BilCat (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the guidelines at WP:GNG. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does this really need to run a full 7 days? - BilCat (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of preventing further WP:DRAMA down the road, I'm gonna go ahead and say yes. N419 BH 20:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let's let it run the full time and get a clear result and perhaps we can avoid doing this again in another two weeks time. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the previous one ran for just 4 hours only and was speedily kept. That's a different perspective (I had the impression not enough people could way in and the deletion was/is justified) than if we would now go for a snow keep after 4 days, which I could support in view of the clear consensus... L.tak (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L.tak, if you accept the arguments for keeping the article, you could strike through your nomination and state that you have withdrawn the nomination. Any editor would then be free to close the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 14:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hale[edit]

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

Fails WP:SCHOLAR, links to lists of his books and articles do not support his notability, and there are no reliable sources to support notability. PK T(alk) 14:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 14:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 14:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — has h-index of 14 per this google scholar search. this may be a little low for these discussions, but two of the items are books, one with blackwell and the other with oup. each has over 40 cites, even though they are only 4 and 3 years old, respectively. other articles of his have around a hundred cites or more and they are in the absolute top journals in the field. this seems to me to satisfy WP:PROF#1. no question but that the article needs work. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would submit that this statistical analysis of h-index could provide indication of the possibility of notability, but it would be much better to find an independent reference that says "Prof. Hale is influential". PK T(alk) 16:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:PROF. This fellow hasn't satisfied it. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS cites start 137, 131, 98... with h-index of around 15 in low cited field. Fair pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep In addition to the GS citations and H-score, the content of the reviews of the books, which are now in cited in a little section on selected publications, seems to me sufficient to establish that Hale is a notable scholar in his field. The reviews of the books indicate that might well pass, in addition to WP:Prof, WP:Author #3 (he.. has created ... a significant ... work ... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.) (Msrasnw (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I guess you're referring to Melchert as Author #3 - is there any way to get a citeable reference to which the Mark Hale article can refer so that the significance of Hale's work can be supported? PK T(alk) 18:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear (too often I am not!). I meant that his work as an author (WP:Author) seems to me WP notable because his works have been the subject of multiple independent periodical reviews (THES, Melchert, Kramer and de Lacy). (Msrasnw (talk) 19:36, 6 September 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 List of Decepticons. v/r - T P 13:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slugslinger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slugslinger and closed as no consensus on the basis of a source that was arguably refuted at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_27. However, there was no clear consensus to overturn the article and delete but some support for a merge as well as an endorse. The overall consensus remains unclear. I am therefore relisting this using my discretion as the DRV closer to try and force consensus. As a guide to participants, I believe the discussion would benefit from a close analysis of the sourcing and consideration on whether there is enough sourced content to allow an article or even to justify a merge. As this is a procedural nomination I am neutral on the outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ Procedural closure Invalid claim of a procedural nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're going to have to explain that one. As well as this edit from the first AfD... Black Kite (t) (c) 15:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see why there is a necessity for concensus. There are pleanty of articles on Wikipedia lacking concensus on keep or delete. Is there any rule that requires us to re-nominate it forever until we get a concensus? I just forsee a relisting of the same arguements, and a concensus will come about when some people from one side or the other of the arguement don't go online that week, so the other side wins.Mathewignash (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before, there are still no reliable sources here - the first one is a brief footnote on a single page of a book, and all the rest are sources about Transformers (and even then don't go into much detail apart from plot summaries). Having said that, a Merge to List of Decepticons would be a reasonable compromise - I realise that Mathewignash has suggested a merge to Targetmasters but that's practically unsourced as well.. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT, We can add sources to it from any Targetmaster characters who get merged there, if Slugslinger's article is boarderline, then surely an article with him and OTHER sources would be acceptable. Mathewignash (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, the article has demonstrated notability in unrealted media. I realize this article is boarderline, and the people who tend to just vote "DELETE" in all Transformers articles will show up with the common arguements, meanwhile the people who worked on the article and voted "KEEP" for it before vote the same again. This nomination really won't settle anything. I'd prefer it close as no concensus again and then let's just debate the merge proposal Black Kite has made. Mathewignash (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - Sources seem to meet the definition of significant coverage, as defined by Wikipedia, see below:

"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.

"Addressing the subject directly in detail" seems to have been done. In a more general sense, the *overall* topic of Transformers has received incredibly significant coverage, so the only question is when to split or merge the content. A single article about Transformers would leave out scads of material that readers would like to have, and splitting too much might leave us with multiple tiny articles that make it harder to search. I think the current treatment of this toy/character is fine, but I would readily defer to a merge. -- Avanu (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are of dubious quality and unreliable or as a compromise merge. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, precisely as I said during the DRV. There is clearly insufficient sourcing for a separate article, but a lack of sourcing doesn't mean "delete" when there are reasonable alternatives such as to merge or redirect.
I'm not overjoyed that this was relisted. Editor time is a resource, and this rather unimportant matter is consuming a great deal too much of it. I suggest that if there's no consensus this time around, we archive this debate and leave it. We can come back to arguing about transformers once Category:All unreferenced BLPs is empty. If that means the transformers-related articles stay in this state for a while, then the world won't come to an end.—S Marshall T/C 21:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Later) I want to add, in response to Reyk, that a "merge" outcome obviously doesn't have to mean keeping all the text.—S Marshall T/C 22:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that's one of the two typical outcomes. The other being that nothing whatsoever is done for months and months. Discriminate merges, where large amounts of inappropriate material are not kept, are far more rare and generally only happen when there is strong consensus that the article is mostly junk- such as at AfDs like this one. Reyk _YO! 23:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- discounting a single passing mention, the subject of this article is covered only by the same kinds of sources that have generally been shown to be insufficient- toy catalogues, price guides and the works of fiction themselves. I'm still not seeing the substantial, independent sources that Wikipedia requires for an independent article. This is clear from the lardy structure of the article itself: plotsummaryplotsummaryplotsummaryplotsummary This character appeared in primary source X^[1]. This character appeared in primary source Y^[2] plotsummaryplotsummaryplotsummaryplotsummaryplotsummary. I'm also not convinced of the merits of a merge because the suggested merge targets would not be improved by including material from this article: they are already way too long, have many of the same kinds of sourcing issues this one does, and are also too heavy on plot summary. Copy and pasting more of the same would make those articles worse rather than better. Reyk _YO! 22:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question here, but you said "the same kinds of sources that have generally been shown to be insufficient- toy catalogues, price guides and the works of fiction themselves. I'm still not seeing the substantial, independent sources that Wikipedia requires for an independent article"

I quoted the Wikipedia definition above of "significant coverage", and this seems to fall 100% into that definition, so in what way do we decide that it is insufficient? Just because? Is there an editorial standard we're supposed to be looking to? Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you look through some of the previous Transformers AfDs you'll see the general consensus is that these kinds of sources prove the thing exists, but that they do nothing to establish notability. This is, IMO, a sensible position to take because the works of fiction themselves do not confer notability. Neither should catalogue type sources whose purpose is to slavishly list each and every one, just like my local phone book does not bestow notability upon me. Here is a list of previous Transformers AfDs that show this principle. (1, 2, 3, and many others). Reyk _YO! 23:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per S Marshall. A selective merge obviously. My one worry about such a merge is that we'll likely lose the (very helpful) image due to NFCC concerns. But that's a separate problem. Hobit (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fuckin' Deleyte. I for one am quite overjoyed that this was relisted. It does not have proper sourcing, alleges no notability of the subject matter, and plainly is nothing more than fanboy wankcruft. It's time that we install a strong leader to extirpate these transformer articles unworthy of life on wikipedia and thus usher in a glorious thousand year era of peace. Mobaod (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT, it should be noted that the editor above just joined and has made no other edits to articles other than to try to get this article deleted. These articles were previously targeted by sock puppeteers, which makes me suspect his edits. Mathewignash (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If an account is a single purpose sock or something, you can tag it as one by adding {{spa|Username}} after their comment (it might make your life a bit easier).--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - sources do not seem to provide the significant coverage needed to show the notability of the subject, but a merge to one of the list articles seems logical to me. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if and only if anyone cares enough to do it. As has been shown again and again, closing as a merge just equates to it being kept with a banner saying "this article will be merged" for an indefinite period of time. If you want it merged, do it. Otherwise, delete. Yeah, there's a passing mention in a reliable source. I could find far better sources (analysis from academics) on hundreds (I am not exaggerating) of quotes by Nietzsche or Hobbes- do we need articles on each and every one of them? J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 6 September 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. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have been called "polymaths"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of people who have been called "polymaths"

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

Problematic list. The definition of a polymath is broad and subjective. Quote: “... A polymath may simply be someone who is very knowledgeable. Most ancient scientists were polymaths by today's standards”. I can't see the added value of listing all these people, not to mention all the bias and objectivity problems additions and changes have. It has become over 110 people long and the end is not in sight, as many want their favourite polymath on it. I am by far the first to question this article (see its talk page) Joost 99 (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC) (add. see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_polymaths for a discussion of its predecessor). Joost 99 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this list details individuals who have had been referred to as polymaths by reliable sources, and hence there are few problems with inclusion. If it gets too large, we can break it up alphabetically or chronologically. Being a polymath is subjective, but being "called" one is not. --S Larctia (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see the added value of deleting this list. The topic is notable as Robert Root-Bernstein, for example, has studdied thousands of polymaths — see Multiple Giftedness in Adults: The Case of Polymaths. Dealing with disputed cases is just a matter of ordinary editing not deletion, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Robert Root-Bernstein studied thousands of polymaths". Thank you for supporting my point ;-) That the topic is notable, is not being denied. Genius is notable and no doubt we can find a lot of people who were called that by a reliable source, but does that make a long list of Geniuses of any value? The reasons for inclusion may be objective, but that does not add any value to the list imo. Joost 99 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List on a notable subject with substantial references. Criteria for inclusion does not seem as squishy as the nom suggests. I disagree that calling someone a "genius" and calling someone a "polymath" is comparable. Most people don't throw the latter term around like they do with the former. I support the reasons for KEEP given above. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that in practice Genius is different, but in essence it is exactly the same: a subjective term to describe a persons abilities. I don't think you or I can decide that a subjective term is used wisely and coherently enough (i.e. not using the squishy definition from Wikipedia itself) throughout the world by reliable sources to give this list value. The list theoretically cannot stop including non-polymaths who were named as such (I know, verifiability not truth). If we want that, okay...Joost 99 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transform to Category It's much easier to maintain categories than lists like this, particularly with tools like HotCat that seems to be getting lots of use. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rules state that favoring category is not a valid reason to eliminate a list. No reason not to have both. A list also offers more information than just a name and is thus more useful by far. Dream Focus 18:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listing all the famous polymaths throughout history is notable, and notice all the blue links? Dream Focus 18:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. If the real William R. Moses has a problem with this article, he should read WP:ASFAQ and WP:FEFS. Favonian (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William R. Moses[edit]

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

99.203.15.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) repeatedly blanked this article, eventually leading to a block. This edit indicates they are the person the article is about and wish to have it evaluated for deletion, so I am nominating it on their behalf. My own opinion is below. Dcoetzee 10:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant roles in a number of well-known television series, including six seasons as major character Cole Gioberti on prime time soap opera Falcon Crest. Refs could use some work but definitely notable. Dcoetzee 10:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Dcoetzee (talk · contribs). Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems notable, could do with better (for that read more reliable) sourcing, however would like to hear from the IP as to why he thinks it should be deleted, from my experience actors like publicity, so if this one (if the IP is indeed this person) feels it should be removed am willing to hear for what reason before !voting. Mt king ^(edits) 11:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I suspect that the IP editor who tried to blank the page is related to Billy Moses, who has had editors try to commandeer or alter this article many times. (See this and this.) The actual Moses this article refers to is notable. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:12, 4 September 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. Neutrality^talk 20:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evading Justice - Perjury as a related offence[edit]

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

Long unsourced personal essay. Hard to see how this is encyclopedic material, frankly, and it seems to overlap with the existing Perjury article. Prioryman (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Long unsourced personal essay. Plus it's not a topic, it's a specialized connection/confluence between multiple topics. Not encyclopedic. Zero sources. Near zero chance of notability or this particular combination/confluence of topics and angle created by the editor. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay / original research. Fork of perjury. Too specific to Nigeria. Etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An essay. SL93 (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's an essay -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original-research and opinion essay. Probably WP:SNOW at this point. TJRC (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takuhon[edit]

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

Takuhon doesn't sound like a topic that's notable. How the article is in any way notable and encyclopedia-worthy hasn't been implied in the article. The article itself is a weak stub; nothing links to the article and Google gives no hits for Takuhon. Ratibgreat (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&client=safari&rls=en&sa=X&ei=gIVjTsKJBo6QiAea2fDFCg&ved=0CBMQvgUoAA&q=takuhon&nfpr=1 for more hints on Takuhon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.86.218.225 (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This weak page adds nothing to Stone rubbing, which already explains this very technique, though without mentioning the name "takuhon." I found what seems to be a reliable source on this topic (see this), but the technique is still the same as the one described at Stone rubbing. In other words, takuhon (托本, pronounced either tuoben or taben in Chinese) doesn't refer to a peculiarly Japanese technique that would deserve its own wiki. It's simply the Japanese word for "stone rubbing." If "takuhon" deserves its own page, let someone WP:PROVEIT, perhaps by showing that "takuhon" has a special meaning in the study of Japanese calligraphy that "stone rubbing" doesn't have. If that can't be shown, we could add explanations of the term "takuhon" to the Stone rubbing wiki. Because "takuhon" is used in some reliable sources, we should create a redirect to the relevant section of the article on Stone rubbing. Madalibi (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Madalibi (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Madalibi. Oda Mari (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No demonstration of notability. --DAJF (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adelberg (Victoria, Australia)[edit]

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

Author of promotional piece for Adelberg villa (http://www.adelberg.com.au/) has removed 2 separate speedy delete tags [inadvertently]. A whois check of domain here confirms that User:Hodgkinph is almost certainly the owner of this business. The article subject is a business whose notability is not credibly asserted in the body of the article. Moogwrench (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not indended to be a marketing piece but rather an information piece for the guests to the property relating to the history of the area and information. I have rewritten it so that there is absolutely no links to the commercial site. I trust this is acceptable as this is the intention. First time user of Wiki so some latitude would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodgkinph (talk • contribs) 09:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, Hodgkinph, the subject of the article is a private commercial property/villa. And your last post says that the article is written to be a guide for the customers of the Villa. This does not mean that it's a bad or un-informative article; the question is whether or not it belongs in Wikipedia. The core operative criteria there is wp:notability.

If you need understanding the lay of the land in Wikipedia (you being new) ping me and I'd be happy to. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am failing to understand the difference between this and say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JW_Marriott_Hotels or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peninsula_Hong_Kong In fact, I would say by providing visitors to Adelberg with information on the history of the area and background to the district is more in line with Wikipedia's objectives (from what I can read). If it needs to be deleted then let me know and I will take it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ([[User talk:|talk]]) 14:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Believe it now passes notability with insertion of reference of business.

First, to clarify I am only trying to help a new person in the ways of Wikipedia rather than debating for a particular decision here. The main guideline that determines whether an stand-alone article for a subject is allowed to exist is whether or not it meets the wp:notability guideline. And, VERY roughly speaking, what's needed for that is a few third party sources having covered the topic (as such) in reasonable depth. And please note that the is for THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT. For example, in order for me to create an article about rock stars who do knitting, I would need to show sources who covered rock stars who do knitting. It would not suffice to find sources covering just rock stars, nor sources for knitting. Sincerely, 15:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)North8000 (talk)

It looks to me like you have interesting and encyclopedic material in there. Possibly that would be good to include in the article on that geographic unit (e.g. town, province) rather than in an article on a nearby commercial property. The property could be worth a mention in that article. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an interest in preserving this material if it were not to stay as this article? If so, I could help you work it in somewhere else. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article makes no assertion of notability, and "Adelberg" is not mentioned in most of the refs. If such notability can be demonstrated in reliable sources, then I would be open to changing my !vote, but as it stands it is a borderline speedy. No redirect (implausible search term).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Adelberg is a rural property in Victoria". Sorry, no notability there. Not much more to say about the subject. Zero Google website hits. Zero Google news hits. Bleakcomb (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe McStravick[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography of a living person created in 2008. Despite a thorough search, I cannot find any reliable sources to support the awards mentioned in the text. IMDB listing not enough. Does not meet WP:FILMMAKER. CharlieDelta (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CharlieDelta (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —CharlieDelta (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Doesn't sound notable. Ratibgreat (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the very kindest, the asserted awards are minor, if even heard of. And while Joe has a pervasive presence in social networking and user-editable sites,[27] he otherwise fails WP:GNG,[28] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lay It on Me[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an album track with no other notability. Fixer23 (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references that indicate any notability. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately (as I love Paul's Boutique and the Beasties in general), I can find no significant coverage for this track in reliable sources. I suppose Lay It on Me (song) can be moved with a hatnote directing people looking for this to "B-Boy Bouillabaisse". Gongshow ^Talk 23:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excelbeats[edit]

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

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

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

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

~~A non-notable musician that fails the relevant guideline.~~ No reliable sources could be found by me. This was a contested PROD. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 04:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excelbeats is a relevant producer/artist if you take a look at the information provided in the article which i am touching up on you can see that this is a real producer artist with real qualifications to be apart of wikipedias database .. also by looking at the external links and checking other articles such as uni5:the worlds enemy excelbeats is credited to creating the first single for a grammy award winning group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbbbylove (talk • contribs) 05:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reliable sources that can verify the article excelbeats if you check the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/See_Me_Shine
http://www.theblendartists.com/excel-beats.php
http://www.reverbnation.com/page_object/page_object_photos/artist_1134147?sel_photo_id=3721967 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbbbylove (talk • contribs) 05:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love Excelbeats.. i worked really hard getting all his info together for this wiki article there is no reason to terminate my article he deserves to be searchable on your platform--206.29.182.250 (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)— 206.29.182.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - can't find any WP:Reliable sources for the claims of notability made per WP:MUSICBIO, nor any significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Can't find any mention of him on the RBC records site, or in the YouTube clip cited. WP:Sockpuppetry by the creator and repeated removal of the AFD tag by the sockpuppets is not making this discussion any easier. Gurt Posh (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

at this point i have added more than enough evidence and significant coverage to the Excelbeats article. I Placed proper verifiable references and there is even a photo with Excelbeats and Dr.Dre in the studio together. There is also a photo of Excelbeats performing along with other links. The page has been orginised and no longer contains errors. The last thing i have to say is that there has also been other people editing my article other than myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.213.151 (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — 198.228.213.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I dont understand why this is even a debate at this point. I have given you reliable sources a great Bio section and yeah there is no mention of Excel on the RBC site but i can post The itunes link that shows RBC distributed his song.. Excelbeats was apart of a group in 2008 and he wrote and produced a song called Lean'n which RBC sold to the masses and here is the itunes link look under the release date and you will see RBC records http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/leann-single/id293421317 .. oh and i only removed the AFD tag because i thought this was debate was settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.213.151 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — 198.228.213.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

this link also shows the song was released by RBC.It shows that Brian Whittaker aka Excelbeats is one of the writers on the song and that it was featured on a major motion picture release http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1433108/soundtrack

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
""DONT delete"" there is coverage in reliable sources to establish notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.38.69 (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC) — 98.149.38.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Commnet - Perhaps you can point out some of them to us. Simply stating they exist isn't helpful. -- Whpq (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - DONT delete perhaps you can look at the link,references and bio on this article compared to some artists Excelbeats is much more qualified to be on here but you allow them without giving them hassle.. Excelbeats produced a record for a grammy award winning group that sold over 50 million records worldwide that should be enough but even then still i show you proof that excel is a legitimate full time music producer/artist by adding the imdb link and the rbc link .. Excelbeats is a growing producer artist and is starting to make a name for himself and deserves to have his own wiki article.. at this point it seems like youre trying to bully me off of here when I have given you more than enough material to show excelbeats qualifies for this site.there must be some kind of favoritism or some other kind of discrimination going on when a legitimate person cant be treated equally amongst his peers and co workers--98.149.38.69 (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)— 98.149.38.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Reply - I did look at the references in the article. They are not reliable sources. The existence of other articles which may or may not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria isn't relevant. Nobody is trying to bully you off Wikipedia. However, sourcing is a must, especially for biographies of living people, and at this point the sourcing is not acceptable, and does not establish that the inclusion criteria is met. In particular, as of this version, the sources are:
      1. Another wikipedia article (not a reliable source)
      2. An itunes link (not significant coverage, and not independent)
      3. A sales chart shich makes no mention of Excelbeats (not significant coverage)
      4. An album review on DJBooth (probably not a reliable source, and not significant coverage as Excel is just a passing mention)
      5. An IMDB link (the link is broken, and should be [29]. IMDB is not a reliable source, and credits aren't significant coverage)
    - What is needed are things like newspaper or magazine articles written about him, or which feature him prominently. Are you aware of any such coverage? That is the sort of coverage that would satisfy the inclusion criteria and help keep this article on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other non-notable articles exist isn't a reason to keep a new non-notable article. If you have found an article that also fails the notability guidelines, give me the link and I'll nominate them for deletion. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 22:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - okay Excel was in music connection magazine http://musicconnection.com/amp/Excel it was physically and digitally distributed and was an article which featured him prominently.--98.149.38.69 (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)— 98.149.38.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        That is not an article. It's a profile. Anybody can submit their profile to that site. -- Whpq (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've had my delete comment above deleted twice now by two separate single-purpose IP editors. Disagree if you want, but DO NOT remove other editors' comments from this page. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i noticed excelbeats had this notice on his page .ive been following his career for years now and i would hate to see his article get taken down. he deserves it and the world should know who this young man is he is on the road to changing the whole music industry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.38.69 (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AfD semiprotected to prevent disruption. Sandstein 07:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources provided suggest notability. ItsZippy (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common Dead[edit]

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

The whole page went through WP:AFC, sadly that one reviewer accepted the page as it was. After I cleaned up the page, I noticed that there are no real independent third part references talking about that music group with the exception of one small review of one album. mabdul 15:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Unfortunately, this should not have been passed through AfC. Topher385 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mabdul is completely wrong. "No real independent third party references talking about that music group with the exception of one small review of one album"? The citations blatantly prove otherwise. There are two separate reviews from two separate legitimate third party sources, unbiased and uninfluenced from the band, for one album in particular, and then an entirely separate review for a second, additional release that you apparently failed to see. Numerous credible third party citations are obvious for other press, containing reviews of albums, interviews, and activity updates, that the band did not do itself, which have been posted on the following reputable and followed websites: Metal Buzz, The Gauntlet, Metal-Rules.com, Metal Forge, and Jam Magazine Online. Additionally, directory posting in Billboard Music Guide, the Metal Archives, and Spirit of Metal have all been provided. This band has also already had a Wikipedia page on the Spanish version of the site, started by another listener, I was merely taking it upon myself as a metal fan to translate an English addition.

This does in fact meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines and Wikipedia regulars unfamiliar with more obscure yet documented acts in metal should not let their bias or unfamiliarity with the content influence snap judgments like this deletion suggestion. I've dealt with this exact situation with countless music pages.

Also, just added yet another review source, this time a scathing review from The Gauntlet, on a single released by the band. 96.22.223.106 (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE deleting this article is ridiculous. as for the claim of there being only one album and review (which is wrong), The Sex Pistols only ever had one album, so that's really a moot point. since when did the body of work in terms of numbers ever matter?? this artist has plenty of coverage from all over and i myself added another reference. also, there is clearly another album out and another on the way, making it clear that if this article is deleted it is only a matter of time until it's back up. deleting this band from wikipedia is pointless. it's a legit band/artist. i also saw this guy myself in north montreal shred it up during the same weekend of Heavy MTL fest and it was kickass.

honestly sometimes, you wikipedians behave closer to trolls more than anything else. 70.30.239.100 (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It I saw the deletion debate header on the article and almost laughed. This site has gotten so fascist lately with the new articles. I vote "keep". Albeit a new band, there are already more journalist and forum outlets I've found on Bing talking about this band than I expected and apparently it is still well and active on new material. Therefore I agree @user above on the remark about the inevitable re-submission of this subject in the future, so Common Dead's deletion is not worth it. Consider these accepted articles with even less 3rd party ref's than Common Dead at the moment: Toxic Holocaust, Genghis Tron, Exit-13. 66.131.199.156 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:music - Off2riorob (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:music as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It According to WP:music: " A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. "

Not sure where the "fails WP:Music" has any credibility because the artist meets this statute. 66.131.199.156 (talk) 11:12, 7 September 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. Stubifying per North8000 seems like a great compromise, but there is no consensus to do so. v/r - T P 13:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S-Chips Scandals[edit]

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

Attack page. Should be speedily deleted. Seems designed to denigrate the companies it mentions and the "scandals" are not adequately sourced. This is potentially defamatory. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users commenting in this discussion might also want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P Chips Frauds and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of fraud involving Chinese stocks, which are related. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stubify. Companies going bankrupt? In a global recession? Corporate corruption? Not quite notable as a concept in and of itself. Add in minimal sourcing, extreme POV commentary and this is simply beyond salvage. There might be something there as a concept, but this would need to be hammered back to a stub and re-written from scratch. Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These scandals have significant media attention in Singapore. The Singapore Exchange (SGX) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore have both launched investigations. SGX has ordered trading freezes and delistings. Censoredchinese (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The S-chip companies have received coverage. But only you (the article creator) are calling it a scandal. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely accurate. The Straits Times is doing so as well. Censoredchinese (talk) 00:27, 5 September 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, Cerejota (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbify The current article is crap; it has nothing encyclopedic in it. It's an uncited attack/rant. The "references" are just a long string of bare URL's not tied to the text. But the subject appears wp:noptable. North8000 (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references are tied to the text. For example, one of the WSJ articles is about an S-Chip company saying that its CEO had inflated the company's sales and cash balances. Furthermore, that article mentions that some S-Chips "have run into corporate governance problems." Censoredchinese (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with north8000, needs references. but keep per wp:noptable.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's notable if there is an "S chips scandal," but how do we know if there even is one given the absence of sourcing? I ask that the administrator closing this take into consideration the substance of the article and its sourcing, the quality of arguments for and against deletion, and the amount of time that has elapsed since creation of this article. It is not going to get any better, so stubbifying is not a solution. Wikipedia is not a tip sheet for short sellers. This article belongs in a blog, not Wikipedia. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since some sources are professional newspapers, you might need to subscribe in order to have access to their full content. Censoredchinese (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not have access to the source, how can you represent what the sources say? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Scandal? To quote one of the "sources", "a handful of China firms" have delisted from the SGX. Hardly a scandal or an event having wide effect on the global markets - at least according to the sources provided in the article. The major effect appears to be that investors now avoid a once darling sector of the SGX. The content of the article is simply a collection of unsupported general statements. The sources are inconsequential at best and do not support the content of the article. Perhaps a userfication is in order.

I have a question for BabbaQ and North8000, how can this be notable if the article subject lacks support? To quote WP:NOT, "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. " reddogsix (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll not pretend to understand to politics of this, but the article as it stands is an attack article. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 13:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Morris[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Elliott Morris

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

Article on a non-notable young guitarist whose works are self-issued. Page has been vandalized since being created. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Profiled by the BBC in 2008 and 2010--from what I'm gathering, you can't get much more notable than that. Blueboy 96 01:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Two profiles in the same source doesn't count as multiple independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has appeared at a notable event, the Cambridge Folk Festival; The Northern Sky Online Music Mag would appear to satisfy WP:RS for folk music subculture; notable folk musicians and folk events may often have relatively small audiences, as per article Cafe church. Also, top ratings on iTunes would appear to be a significant source of public recognition among younger people. Morris is featured in the article about the guitar builder Martin Harrison and demo videos by Cort Guitars, with considerable praise, because he "Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre," as per the criteria "For composers and performers outside mass media traditions." WP:COMPOSER Trilliumz (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the guitar maker has exactly one sentence about Elliott Morris. It's really a stretch to claim that he was "featured" in that article. It is a passing mention and not significant coverage. The guitar company demo videos are promotional in nature and do not constitute a reliable source to establish notability. To claim that he has "established a tradition or school in a particular genre," as per the criteria "For composers and performers outside mass media traditions" would require a citation to a reliable source that says that, and its a stretch to point to BBC coverage and then go on to claim that he is a performer "outside mass media traditions." That language in intended to refer to performers active before the time of recorded music, or those active in aboriginal cultures.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Northern Sky Music Magazine, it is a self-published blog by a fellow named Allan Wilkinson. Its a nice, informative blog but it is not a reliable source of the sort that establishes notability on Wikipedia. As for his appearance at a notable folk festival, please be aware that notability is not inherited. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation on "mass media traditions" includes "non-commercial genres" like folk music; not sure why a blog couldn't be a legitimate source for folk performers. The American Folklife Center of the Library of Congress calls its folk concerts the Homegrown Concert Series, indicating that DIY is a legitimate part of certain genres of music. Regarding notability purely as a singer-songwriter, then I'd agree with your interpretation, he's not that far along in his career yet. My take on this performer is that there's a strong case for notability because he's breaking some new ground for the folk fingerstyle guitar. Sure hope we're not holding folk genre musicians to commercial music criteria! Trilliumz (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please, let's get real and take a look at the many articles listed under Category:Folk music and its several subcategories. Reliable sources have covered folk music in great detail since long before I was born, and I am 59 years old. A musician doesn't get a free pass from our notability requirements just because that musician claims to be part of the folk music tradition. Wikipedia has many, many article about notable folk musicians. We shouldn't keep articles about not-yet-notable musicians just because they claim to be a part of the folk music genre. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the BBC he was also covered at http://thelinc.co.uk/2009/05/spotlight-elliott-morris/ Dream Focus 05:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TheLinc describes itself as "Lincoln's premier student publication", and as such is not a reliable, independent source to establish notability of a musician associated with that campus community. In addition, the item has a two sentence lead, and the remainder is an interview of the musician. Accordingly, it is not significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Student newspaper coverage is not irrelevant, though. He is not reported to be a student at the school, he is local to the area.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above cite states "most prominent of the local scene of a city," as per WP:MUSICBIO. Trilliumz (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP How about Virgin?! That is quite a notable page! http://www.virgin.com/music/reviews/summer-sundae-weekender — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.11.163 (talk • contribs)

Delete - Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. No prejudice to recreation as it appears that he may become more notable in the future. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added some additional sourcing as well [30]. He is beyond a run of the mill singer-songwriter article (that we do see frequently created, so I do have sympathy for new page patrollers) based on the extensive coverage from BBC and other British media.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no need why this artical should be deleted, it could use a few more sources but those could be easily found– Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response If those additional sources could be so "easily found", then would you please find them, Phoenix B lof3, and add those references to the article? If you do so, then I will withdraw this nomination. So far, though, all I see is sparse coverage of an up-and-coming and promising young musician who may deserve coverage on Wikipedia in the future, but hasn't yet crossed over the notability hurdle. Larding the article up with references that don't meet our requirements for reliable sources is not good enough. My recommendation to delete this article does not mean that I will oppose in the future if and when the coverage in truly reliable sources is more abundant. I wish this musician and his fans well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 11 September 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. Any decision to convert this into a category or a placeholder et al can be undertaken within the talk page of the list. At this point, there is no consensus to delete. Wifione ^Message 17:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of NIT alumni[edit]

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

Redundant to the lists existing for each of the institutes and requires double the maintenance. Maybe at the time of creation when there were few alumni in each NIT this had a point, but now that there are so many of them this ceased to make sense. Muhandes (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like a valid redirect/search term. Why not make this a placeholder sort of article. which links to the individual alumni articles?--Sodabottle (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems with this, which I believe can be addressed. First, there are no individual alumni articles, there are sections of alumni listings in the NITs' articles. If this seems suitable, I don't think there will be much harm in making it a list of links to sections. Alternatively, it can be a list of lists, where each article links to the relevant section. Second, the new NITs don't have alumni yet as they just started operating. That means quite a lot of red links in that list. Not a biggie either. Bottom line, I wouldn't mind. --Muhandes (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Sodabottle that seems like reasonable thing to do, the red links shouldn't be an issue just place a note next to them saying the schools just starting operation. The Terminator p t c 12:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about keeping the article, and breaking down alumni by individual institution. Then link the Notable alumni sections of each article to the appropriate section of the master list? Monty ₈₄₅ 22:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how will that prevent redundancy? We've been through this exact thing with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian Institutes of Technology alumni. There are lists in each institute's article. What you are suggesting is to copyright those lists from the articles, which is redundant and requires double the maintenance. --Muhandes (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was unclear, what I mean was that the sections in each article would be replaced with a linking to the relevant section. The list would then only be maintained in the one place. It is usually used when the list of people is too large and starts to overwhelm the article, so it is not a standard approach to use in a case like this, but it may be workable here. Monty845 17:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say "usually used", but I can't say I am familiar with this way of doing things, can you give some examples? I believe that when the list of people is too large and starts to overwhelm the article, the thing to do is to create an article "List of alumni of X" (random examples, List of alumni of Villanova University, List of alumni of the University of Chile and many more) and link to that, not to a list which combines many other institutes. What's the benefit of doing that? --Muhandes (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that a joint list of alumni (people associated with a place) was a common occurrence, only that splitting out the list from an individual article into an individual list was normal. Creating a join list that way may be a novel approach. But it could be useful to have a list of the combined graduates of the associated institutions, and the joint list with the see also links would be a way to achieve that without duplication. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is possible, but what's the benefit of using a form never used in any other list? Resolving duplication would be achieved just as easy in the standard way, and we can keep the original per Sodabottle proposal. --Muhandes (talk) 15:12, 4 September 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, Cerejota (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a category Lists like this rarely seem to get maintained. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:24, 7 September 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 & redirect. Given that none of these three articles cite any sources and the targets of any redirects already contain plot summaries, merging doesn't appear necessary. I will create redirects to the individual story pages. — Scientizzle 16:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three Act Tragedy, Agatha Christie's Poirot[edit]

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

Unnecessary article. Topic can and is sufficiently covered by Three Act Tragedy, Agatha Christie's Poirot and other articles. Another editor redirected this article, however the original author reverted the redirect. Since the redirect has been rejected, I am taking this to AfD. My view is that this is not needed or plausible as a redirect, so I would prefer Delete. Safiel (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also nominating The Clocks, Agatha Christie's Poirot under same general criteria. Safiel (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also nominating Halloween Party, Agatha Christie's Poirot under the same general criteria. Safiel (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge While the original author may have contested the redirect, community process can establish consensus to enforce such. Hence, I recommend useful content be merged to the respective articles mentioned by the nom, which includes redirecting the source article. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. Encyclopedic information about the TV adaptations is covered sufficiently in the articles about the novels (indeed, more than sufficiently in the case of The Clocks), and these articles are basically nothing more than extended plot summaries, running afoul of WP:NOTPLOT. I agree with the nominator that the articles' titles are implausible as redirects. Deor (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - The subject itself is not notable. Any information that editors of the main articles find pertinent from these adaptions should be added and these articles redirected to those articles (that even confused me, hope it makes sense). OlYeller^Talktome 14:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no reason to have separate articles on the book and TV episode - the TC episode has not exceeded the book in terms of notability. I see no reason to merge, as the article contains only a summary of the plot, which is present in Three Act Tragedy. ItsZippy (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 13:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. Cantù G.S. San Paolo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS, fails WP:GNG. Amateur club with no claim of notability. Cerejota (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - NSPORTS covers athetes, not sports clubs, so this club CANNOT fail it... Giant Snowman 21:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments at this AfD and this AfD; WP:COMMONSENSE shows that Serie D teams are notable. The article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Snowman, who has the same opinion as me. Kefalonitis94 (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman's AfD links, which indicate a consensus that Serie D clubs should be considered notable. Following recent discussions about club notability on WP Football, there is a draft guideline in development here (the current version states that Serie D clubs are notable). Deserter1 talk 14:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 13:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.S.D. Aquanera Comollo Novi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS, fails WP:GNG. Amateur club with no claim of notability. Cerejota (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - NSPORTS covers athetes, not sports clubs, so this club CANNOT fail it... Giant Snowman 21:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments at this AfD and this AfD; WP:COMMONSENSE shows that Serie D teams are notable. The article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Snowman, who has the same opinion as me. Kefalonitis94 (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman's AfD links, which indicate a consensus that Serie D clubs should be considered notable. Following recent discussions about club notability on WP Football, there is a draft guideline in development here (the current version states that Serie D clubs are notable). Deserter1 talk 14:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous AfD and notability criteria draft --Juanm (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 13:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.S.D. Albese Calcio[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS, fails WP:GNG. Amateur club with no claim of notability. Cerejota (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - NSPORTS covers athetes, not sports clubs, so this club CANNOT fail it... Giant Snowman 21:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments at this AfD and this AfD; WP:COMMONSENSE shows that Serie D teams are notable. The article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Snowman, who has the same opinion as me. Kefalonitis94 (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman's AfD links, which indicate a consensus that Serie D clubs should be considered notable. Following recent discussions about club notability on WP Football, there is a draft guideline in development here (the current version states that Serie D clubs are notable). Deserter1 talk 14:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 13:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.S.D. Acqui 1911[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS, fails WP:GNG. Amateur club with no claim of notability. Cerejota (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - NSPORTS covers athetes, not sports clubs, so this club CANNOT fail it... Giant Snowman 21:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments at this AfD and this AfD; WP:COMMONSENSE shows that Serie D teams are notable. The article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Snowman, who has the same opinion as me. Kefalonitis94 (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman's AfD links, which indicate a consensus that Serie D clubs should be considered notable. Following recent discussions about club notability on WP Football, there is a draft guideline in development here (the current version states that Serie D clubs are notable). Deserter1 talk 14:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per evidence presented above by various users and, Serie D clubs are indeed notable. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Castro[edit]

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

No notability (per WP:NFOOTY) established. Also, his club's official website doesn't list him as an LDA payer. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league, and has not received significant coverage. Therefore he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond A. Watson[edit]

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

Election to a unremarkable county board of supervisors doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN, especially without significant third-party coverage. JaGa^talk 05:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we might be able to get more info about him. See these links. Three WP articles link to this gentleman. Special:WhatLinksHere/Raymond_A._Watson. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom, there are neither sources WP:RS nor offices held WP:POLITICIAN to establish notability. Googling suggests they don't exist. Msnicki (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't seem to have attracted any coverage at all of outside of Bakersfield. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - the subject may not be notable outside of the campaign, therefore it is maybe WP:TOOSOON (although it primarily deals with entertainment related articles, some of the essays statements maybe relevant here). Perhaps the article should be redirected to the article United States House of Representatives elections, 2012. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? He's a county supervisor. If he has anything to do with the Congressional elections, the article doesn't mention it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, I made these comments after my web browser had crashed, and previously I must have been looking at a AfD regarding Ricky Gill, and reposted here by mistake.

Delete - subject does not appear to be sufficiently notable to pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:POLITICIAN. Perhaps at best this article can be redirected to an article about the Kern County Board of Supervisors. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unremarkable? Anybody who thinks Kern County, which is larger than many countries and has more oil than most of them, is "unremarkable" should spend a hot summer there. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Kern County could be agreed by all as "remarkable", that wouldn't make every county supervisor job in Kern County or every individual who held one of those jobs remarkable. County supervisor is not a top political office anywhere in the US. Msnicki (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

California contains 58 counties, each of them "remarkable" in its own way, but that does not mean that every member of every county board of supervisors is notable. "Just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability," per WP:POLITICIAN. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. rereading nominator's comment: I don't think they were saying that Kern County is unremarkable (the county does, after all, have a Wikipedia article). I think they were saying that the Kern County board of supervisors is unremarkable, and that may be true. Nobody seems to have written a WP article about the Kern County Board of Supervisors. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN's point is valid; maybe an article of that title should be written, now that she has red-linked it. Nevertheless, it seems to me that these remarks demonstrate a rather snobbish attitude toward rural areas in America and writing off a large segment of potential WP readers. Also, distancing Wikipedia from any kind of Notability, rural or not, is not helpful toward Building the Encyclopedia. As for boards of supervisors not being "top political offices anywhere in the U.S.," that is really a matter of opinion: I urge everybody to look at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors as well as the "Five Little Kings" of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Anyway, Mr. Watson seems to have had his share of references in reputable publications, large and small, and he is linked to other WP articles. It is true that just being an elected official does not guarantee Notability, but it certainly depends whether the elected official is a policy-maker, as is a Supervisor, or the county dogcatcher or tax collector. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs improvement, but the Google News sources provided by the nominator show the subject's notability. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism: [31]. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of a board governing a population under 900,000, apparently not chair of any committees (do they do it that way?). Seems of purely local interest. And per Herostratus's good arguments below.Johnbod (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Local or not this guy is a character: and because of that reliable sources are covering him. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all, this guy is county supervisor, and that is his sole and only claim to notability. It's not like he's even the county executive. We don't go down to this level, and it'd be crazy to start doing it. Kern County is large, but bear in mind that Bakersfield (and Delano &tc.) have their own municipal governments. People in the area who would meet the lowest criteria of WP:POLITICIAN would be 1) the Mayor of Bakersfield (probably) and the county executive of Kern County (possibly), and that's it. If you want to broaden WP:POLITICIAN, fine, but do that first.

Second of all, essentially all of his coverage is in the Bakersfield Californian. That's not multiple sources, and its a local paper, not notable outside the county and questionable even as reliable source. There is a little other coverage, in the Mountain Enterprise, which describes itself as "this tiny mountain weekly newspaper", some quotes in stories in the Central Valley Business Times and the local TV news station and a website, and mere mentions in some other small publications of the "Supervisor Ray Watson was then invited on stage and made brief comments" variety. If there were articles about this guy in the San Francisco or Los Angeles papers or in Time Magazine or whatever, that'd be different. But there aren't. If you want this guy to be notable, get someone outside the county to write at least one story about him.

Third of all, what's the utility of this article? Is this just an excuse to put a bunch of gossip about this guy into the Wikipedia? Looks like it:

"Carpool, 2011. Watson told newspaper columnist Inga Barks that, despite having posed for a billboard urging residents to carpool or walk in order to "Make 1 difference" in the fight against air pollution, he did not walk to work but would be glad to carpool if 'someone is also going in.'"

Oh, OK, Carpoolgate. This is sub-notable local gossip. It's not part of our encyclopedic mission of documenting the historical record of the United States to get down to this level of detail.

Fourth of all, to synthesize all the above, if we go do down this path, it'll be a nightmare. "Residents of Pine Mountain Club were angered by Watson's opposition to the county paying for a permanent ambulance or firefighter paramedics in their small town in the mountains above Frazier Park". OMG. We're going to have to deal with sorting out the reliability and neutrality of material for every local county council feud about whether to hire another deputy or a school secretary in East Jesus, Montana? I sure hope not. Herostratus (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. If East Jesus, Montana, had as much oil, cotton, prisons and country music as Kern County does, I should hope somebody would write an article about the Notable people who make up its governing body. (Being new to this county and having lived in metropolitan areas all my life I have never before experienced such rank prejudice against rural areas as I have in reading some of the comments above. Now I know what discrimination feels like.) OK, I will add the part about Ray Watson being elected chairman of the Board of Supervisors — there is no county executive—but you'll have to settle for The Californian again, since it would be hard to cite the local radio station and TV station, which also use that news, and, believe it or not, kinda find it Notable.. And last I looked, there is a citation to the Los Angeles Times in the article. I must say that this nomination is resulting in the article's getting better and better. And I don't even like the guy's politics; I would vote against him in a flash. Sincerely, still your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anyway, I found some television-station cites, and stuck 'em in. GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The population of Kern County is about the same as Indianapolis, and I wouldn't want or expect an article on a city councilor in Indianapolis. But it's worse than that: Bakersfield has its own city government. They hire their own police and fire and teachers and pave their own streets and have their own city ordinances and so forth. Because of this, the county government doesn't have that much effect on Bakersfield which has about 40% of the population of Kern County. And ditto for Delano and Arvin and so on. So it's more like a city councilor in Indianapolis if Indianapolis neighborhoods mostly had their own mayors and budgets and provided their own services. Also, I don't see the LA Times in any of the refs. There are (at this writing) 14 refs, and 7 of them are the Californian. Of the other 7: 2 are KGET-TV, 2 are the Taft Midway Driller, and the others are the Mountain Enterprise, Frazier Park Online, and Watson's page at the Kern County website. These are all local refs. Herostratus (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suspect that the subject might be a borderline case with respect to WP:GNG, although I don't feel very strongly about deleting the page or not. However, I have a WP:BLP concern about the page. Much of the sourcing refers to events that can be construed as presenting the subject as a sort of crackpot, with the result that the page comes across as mocking the subject a little bit. It seems to me that BLP permits such a page, but only if the sourcing meets a very high standard, and that might not be the case here. Either there needs to be more material establishing the subject as a substantive public servant, or there needs to be more sourcing of a clearly non-local and non-gossipy nature. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Times link Somehow that paragraph got deleted. It has now been returned to its rightful place. Also, WP:Reliable does not require sources to be in metropolitan newspapers that are headquartered some 112 miles away from the subject of the article. (Click the link to see how far.) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm not talking (now) about WP:RELIABLE but WP:NOTABLE. Let's take a look at the article Joe Blow (schoolbus driver). Mr Blow drove a school bus in Quincy, Massachusetts for 40 years, and when he retired the Quincy Patriot Ledger (circulation 66,000; the Bakersfield Californian has 70,000) published a feature article on him in the Our Town section ("Local School Bus Driver Drove 3 Generations of Quincy Schoolchilren"). About 20 years ago there was an accident where a child was injured, and this was a big deal in Quincy, and Mr Blow (who was involved but not at fault) was interviewed, briefly profiled, and extensively quoted in a front-page article. There were a couple of smaller articles about the incident where Mr Blow was mentioned, and his testimony at the inquest was quoted in another article. In addition, Mr Blow was an active in the local Elks Lodge and was noted on the paper three times in this connection: once when he was made Exalted Ruler of the local lodge, once when he announced that the lodge was making a large donation to a charity building schools in Afghanistan, and once when he was feted for long service. He was mentioned and briefly quoted when his son was drafted by the Detroit Tigers, and again when his wife won a blue ribbon at the Quincy Flower Show. He was quoted in a article describing a rally protesting the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health ruling, there were a couple of other mentions of his name in various notices, and then there was his obituary. That's 14 refs, two of them being extensive pieces substantially about him and several others quoting him. So my question is should Joe Blow (schoolbus driver) have an article? If you agree with Brandon Mendelson he should, and in that case Mr Watson is in also along with a substantial percentage of the population of my town (and yours). I think that'd be unsustainable and any ability to maintain these articles would collapse under the weight. Granted, we're not going to actually add 40,000,000 new biographical articles under the new "Raymond Watson" precedent, but that just highlights that there's no reason we should make an exception for Mr Watson. Herostratus (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Representation. Commenting on some statements made by my friend Tryptofish: There are only three incorporated cities in Mr. Watson's district—Wasco, Taft and Maricopa. Wasco contracts with Kern County for fire and police. Taft and Maricopa for fire only. Health, libraries, social services, etc., in those cities go through the county. Mr. Watson may represent just a tiny part of Bakersfield, but not much that a squib, according to the map at http://www.taftmidwaydriller.com/highlight/x1249735123/Kern-Supervisors-district-being-redrawn?photo=0. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean me, or someone else? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are electoral districts, not administrative districts, I assume, so that doesn't matter. Herostratus (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Tryptofish: I am so sorry. I had your post confused with that of Mr. or Ms. Herostratus. Mea culpa, mea iterum culpa. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "OK" in Latin, but I don't know how! :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 10 September 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. (WP:SNOW) -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group (astronomy)[edit]

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

Another Dominantgroupcruft WP:SYNTH violation, none of the sources join Dominant group and the topic together. Cerejota (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. Searching does not suggest this combination of terms is a notable topic. -- 202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a topic, it's someone using a search engine to find the phrase "dominant group" and tossing a lot of unrelated stuff into an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't exist. SL93 (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incoherent OR. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SNOW. OR. Glrx (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "dominant group" is a phrase in the English language that has its normal meaning; it is not a special concept in relation to astronomy. LadyofShalott 04:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smacks of WP:NOR.AstroCog (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:NOR. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AN/I thread, SYNTH article created for strange 'research' project Jebus989 ^✰ 14:56, 9 September 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. (WP:SNOW) -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group (economics)[edit]

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

Another Dominantgroupcruft WP:SYNTH violation, none of the sources join Dominant group and the topic together. Cerejota (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —202.124.74.247 (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Again, this is just someone using the "find" function on a bunch of economics papers and gluing what they find together without regard to whether "dominant group" is actually a thing in economics. Insofar as it is a thing, it's the sociological term - economics does not have its own definition - as used in section 1, and the other sections are useless. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dominance (economics) covers the topic, and there is nothing here worth merging into there. -- 202.124.75.81 (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is pure WP:SYNTH-by-Google (and not especially coherent). Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR. Glrx (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Grab bag of unrelated bits. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AN/I thread, SYNTH article created for strange 'research' project Jebus989 ^✰ 14:56, 9 September 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. (WP:SNOW) -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group (meteoroid)[edit]

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

Another Dominantgroupcruft WP:SYNTH violation, none of the sources join Dominant group and the topic together. Cerejota (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. Searching does not suggest this combination of terms is a notable topic. -- 202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a topic, it's someone using a search engine to find the phrase "dominant group" and tossing a lot of unrelated stuff into an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't exist. SL93 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incoherent OR. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SNOW. OR. Glrx (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "dominant group" is a phrase in the English language that has its normal meaning; it is not a special concept in relation to meteoroids. LadyofShalott 04:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not prove its topic. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AN/I thread, SYNTH article created for strange 'research' project Jebus989 ^✰ 14:56, 9 September 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. (WP:SNOW) -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group (petrology)[edit]

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

Another Dominantgroupcruft WP:SYNTH violation, none of the sources join Dominant group and the topic together. Cerejota (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. Searching does not suggest this combination of terms is a notable topic. -- 202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole lot of them as OSYN. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This is not a topic, it's someone using a search engine to find the phrase "dominant group" and tossing a lot of unrelated stuff into an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the examples given are anything more than descriptions of groups that are dominant, with no other special meaning. Mikenorton (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Vsmith (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incoherent OR. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH —hike395 (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SNOW. OR. Glrx (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not a concept in petrology; it's just a use of the English language. LadyofShalott 04:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disparate concepts stuck together with library paste. No topic here. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AN/I thread, created for strange 'research' project Jebus989 ^✰ 14:54, 9 September 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. (WP:SNOW) -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group (stars)[edit]

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

Another Dominantgroupcruft WP:SYNTH violation, none of the sources join Dominant group and the topic together. Cerejota (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. Searching does not suggest this combination of terms is a notable topic. -- 202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a topic, it's someone using a search engine to find the phrase "dominant group" and tossing a lot of unrelated stuff into an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incoherent OR. I strongly feel we are being trolled and that the matter should proceed to ANI. These new articles are clearly disruptive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SNOW. OR. Glrx (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "dominant group" is just a phrase in the English language; it is not a special concept in relation to stars. LadyofShalott 04:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOR.AstroCog (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- clearly a lot of original research and novel synthesis. Wikipedia is not for presenting your new ideas and classifications. Reyk _YO! 21:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incoherent rambling. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AN/I thread, SYNTH article created for strange 'research' project Jebus989 ^✰ 14:56, 9 September 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. (WP:SNOW) -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group (anthropology)[edit]

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

Another Dominantgroupcruft WP:SYNTH violation, none of the sources join Dominant group and the topic together. Cerejota (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. The basic idea of dominance is already covered at Social Dominance Theory. -- 202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as keen on deleting this one as I am on the others, since this is actually a topic in sociology/anthropology, but I'm a big advocate of WP:TNT. If the creator would agree to step away from it and other people were interested in working on it, I could support a keep, but otherwise I'd have to go with delete. 202.124: yes, that article exists but it's not very good, particularly as it's almost totally unreferenced –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deletion reasons mentioned by Roscelese. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same OR/SYN problems as the other articles in this series. LadyofShalott 04:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR. Glrx (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was prepared to accept this, but a closer look at the sources convinces me that there is SYNTH going on here. The strongest source (no. 1 in the current version), which promises a kind of definition, is less than it seems: "Observes that while elites and minorities in Canada are clearly defined, the category of "dominant group" has unclear limits and varies from one geographical region to another." The article itself is clearly an essay, there is no doubt about it--but the question is, is the topic itself notable. I am not convinced. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsalvageable synth. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AN/I thread, SYNTH article created for strange 'research' project Jebus989 ^✰ 14:56, 9 September 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. (WP:SNOW) -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group (evolutionary biology)[edit]

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

Another Dominantgroupcruft WP:SYNTH violation, none of the sources join Dominant group and the topic together. Cerejota (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. Searching does not suggest this combination of terms is a notable topic. The basic idea of dominance is already covered at Dominance (ecology). -- 202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The IP is right that insofar as this is a topic rather than a two-word phrase that appears in some evolutionary biology articles, it is already discussed in an article which is actually readable. Do not merge. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Roscelese. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't even exist. SL93 (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incoherent OR. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "dominant group" is a phrase in the English language; it is not a special concept in relation to evolutioary biology. Relevant concepts are covered elsewhere. LadyofShalott 04:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR. Glrx (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incoherent, unfocused. No topic. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AN/I thread, SYNTH article created for strange 'research' project. Out of all these DG articles, this is the one I should understand the most, but it's incomprehensible. Searching 'The Origin of Species' for "dominant group" and "dominant groups"... undeniable OR Jebus989 ^✰ 14:56, 9 September 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. (WP:SNOW) -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group (extinction)[edit]

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

Another Dominantgroupcruft WP:SYNTH violation, none of the sources join Dominant group and the topic together. Cerejota (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. Searching does not suggest this combination of terms is a notable topic. -- 202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a topic, it's someone using a search engine to find the phrase "dominant group" and tossing a lot of unrelated stuff into an article. As in the moon one, the first example is actually an incorrect parse, so it wouldn't belong even if this were a thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is pure WP:SYNTH-by-Google (and not especially coherent). Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SNOW. OR. Glrx (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "dominant group" is a phrase in the English language that has its normal meaning; it is not a special concept in relation to extinction. LadyofShalott 04:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as pure synth, someone needs to alert User:Marshallsumter to stop creating these article unless he has some real content. his user page lists dozens more on the way.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bollocks, synthesis, and original research. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AN/I thread, SYNTH article created for strange 'research' project Jebus989 ^✰ 14:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pepa Letuli[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Received little to no coverage as a college offensive lineman and has been released by the Cowboys during final roster cuts. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While college athletes can pass muster if they have been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media, a good faith search reveals no such coverage on Letuli. If such coverage has been overlooked, and is pointed out, I'd be willing to reconsider. But it's not showing up on my searches. Cbl62 (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Cbl62. cmadler (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above.--Giants27(T|C) 14:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selling a restaurant[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a guide -- $Σ talk contribs$ 03:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably more suited to PROD, but agree with the nominator. --Deadly∀ssassin 04:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original essay. Unfortunately, no CSD criteria apply. Safiel (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR Bazj (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unformatted userguide. Maybe PROD would have been more appropriate --Juanm (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But PRODs can be removed. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 17:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR. Racconish^Tk 13:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a guide. Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Jarkeld (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first phase is deciding why and what you're selling. The second phase is marketing the restaurant and finding a buyer. And the final phase is closing the deal. O RLY? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not WikiHow, nor is it an essay depository. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like a WP:SNOWBALL here. Safiel (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. -LtNOWIS (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Maidana vs. Robert Guerrero[edit]

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

Repeatedly tagged for WP:G7 by page creator (but not main author). Reason appears to be "the fight is off". Purely procedural nomination. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the notability of a fight that didn't occur. It looks like WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't really know why this article exists (or wasn't speedied). I agree with Papaursa's comment. Astudent0 (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know, if there were sources that documented the fight's history, and its cancellation, then an article might still be viable. The simpler option would probably be to mention this cancelled fight in the text of the fighters' articles. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Westlakes Wildcats FC[edit]

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

Insignificant junior football club. Page appears to have been written by members of the team Jevansen (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youth team. Giant Snowman 21:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This is pretty clearly a non-notable youth club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Deserter1 talk 10:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathanson and Young[edit]

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

This article focusses on the collective work of Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young both of whom have their own articles. There are a number issues here:

This article suffers from original research by synthesis. It relies on mainly primary sources (the books themselves), and 2 newspaper reviews (of individual books) to talk about the body of work by these authors. There has been no scholarly 3rd party work doing this thus far.
The content herein should either be covered in the biographical articles for the authors or in articles about the individual books where notable.
There is coatracking going on here especially in the 'Responses' section.
The major scholarly contribution made by these authors (misandry) has an article of its own and the information relating to that subject could merged to that article--Cailil ^talk 01:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nom's arguments are correct, particularly the fact that most of the references are to the books by the individuals concerned; any worthwhile issues can be treated in the other articles. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very-well argued nom and per Nomoskedasticity. Surprising that this has survived this long. --Crusio (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect and Comment. My reading of the article's talk page is that the article was created to try to improve our Misandry page by removing excessive use there of the particular point of view pushed by Nathanson and Young. I have made a little section on Nathanson's page Paul_Nathanson#Misandry and I think we could usefully redirect there or to Misandry. I think redirect might be better than delete to avoid loosing what appear to me some possibly useful good faith contributions. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:13, 7 September 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 Maple_Grove,_Minnesota#Economy. v/r - T P 13:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Square[edit]

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

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I haven't found any real significant, third-party coverage of Grove Square. A search only turned up some local hits from Maple Grove, and I'm not finding anything beyond that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I found + added 1 Cite in a Trad Mag. so I do believe a few are out there for this one. no !vote at this time though. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any inherent or inherited notability here and without sources I see no reason to keep. I would have suggested a merge to Maple Grove, Minnesota but I don't know how that would be possible--Cailil ^talk 12:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Notable information in the article to be merged with Maple_Grove,_Minnesota#Economy. I merged the following data into the Maple Grove article:

"One prominent retail complex is the Grove Square shopping mall, which has a JCPenney anchor store. Opus Northwest, the developer of the property, selected the location of the initial property development due to the fact that "it’s the first major city in upstate Minnesota" and serves as "a major hub for that submarket" drawing consumers from the entire upstate region.^[1]" Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:59, 4 September 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 Jaguar SS100. v/r - T P 13:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steadman TS100[edit]

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

Twelve replicas of the Jaguar SS100 using modern components by a (possibly obscure Kit car) manufacturer. What a great idea - I'd love to drive one! Article would nevertheless appear to fail the general notability guidelines. Shirt58 (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. Has a reference, and seems closely linked with Jaguar SS100 which could stand some more content. Haus^Talk 02:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Jaguar SS100. I agree with Haus - this is an obvious case for merging IMHO--Cailil ^talk 12:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A passing mention of 12 kit cars in a book by a no-name publisher that you can pick up for AUD$ 2.50, marked down to AUD$ 1.00 at a cheap books stall in the Indro Shopping Town? Delete, delete, delete!--Shirt58 (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. (Though there's not much to merge). As the nominator says; I'm sure it's a fine product but we can't justify having an article on every obscure product. bobrayner (talk) 08:20, 8 September 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 Shōnen Rival. v/r - T P 13:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buster Keel[edit]

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

Search for reliable third-party sources turns up with nothing. Fails WP:BK and WP:BOOK. Disputed prod. —Farix (t | c) 13:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: CSE hits. --Gwern (contribs) 14:13 1 September 2011 (GMT)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the magazine it's serialised in - the title of this article is a plausible search term. While it has been licensed in Italian by Star Comics, I can't find reviews of the manga as of yet to show that it meets the GNGs. --Malkinann (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shōnen Rival, I believe that is the magazine this series is serialised in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ladykiller[edit]

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

This work seems not to meet the notability guidelines for books. Slashme (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to Martina Cole. Currently reads as a plot synopsis & original analysis rather than a record of 3rd party sources about it--Cailil ^talk 12:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Lady[edit]

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

No evidence for notability. Slashme (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are several news articles (about 25 in Google news archives, but that includes some duplicates) about the author Martina Cole that mention this book, for example here and here. Cnilep (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:32, 7 September 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 Zoé. v/r - T P 13:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoé Unplugged World Tour[edit]

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

This is unencyclopedic information about a band's current tour. Not notable by any measure. Completely fails the general notability guideline. Slashme (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoé status ϟ ^talk 21:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Zoé. SL93 (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Active Transportation Alliance[edit]

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

The article (started by the organisation in 2008) does not show that the organisation is notable. It lists goals, but no achievements or recognition. Only organising Bike The Drive is a notable thing, but that has its own article, and all information would better suit there. While the article uses the reference templates, they are not used in the proper way, and should be restyled as "external links". I tried to find Reliable Sources on the organisation, but could not find anything on them. (I could find RS mentioning the things they organise, but not about the organisation itself). EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From McDonald's Cycle Center, we know that they sponsor the Chase Bike Valet (or at least use to under their prior name).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - I didn't see any notable links about the company itself on Google, Google News and Yahoo aside from this small mention here.SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment did you check the former name?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 13:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LaFarr Stuart[edit]

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

Reading the article this gentleman certainly seems notable but unable to find any independent coverage to verify the contents of this unsourced BLP. Searched Google News Archive, Scholar and Books plus Credo, WorldCat.org and my public library without any success. J04n(talk page) 19:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to find some sources here, here and here confirming that he was involved with the development of the Forth (programming language) in the 1970s and 1980s. I am not sure if this is enough to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created this page and apologize for not having included adequate citations. (Yes, I am a bit biased.) I just requested a copy of _Monitor (Take 2): The Revised, Expanded Inside Story of Network Radio's Greatest Program_ to be loaned from CSU Fresno; that should cite the appearance on the radio show. Cullen328: Thanks for the link to Leo Brodie's "Thinking Forth"; I'll add a citation. Let's discuss the matter further. Johnlogic (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you created this page in 2006, John, no one would have conceived of it ever being up for deletion. Computer pioneer types like Stuart have always been treated kinder on wikipedia than some other professions. I'm not in favor of deletion, but would like a source or two added.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: apparently there's little appetite to delete this article, which doesn't really bother me.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ortez[edit]

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

Does not appear notable at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This individual is notable based on the ties to prominent figures he is involved with and the extent and size of the charitable organizations he belongs to, he also serves as a role model and an example that individuals in the financial services industry are not all corrupt and there are some that are in it based on goodwill and are try to make a difference for the better of society. Due to the nature of the financial services industry, client names and additional references cannot be discussed in a public forum per U.S. government privacy laws, limiting the ability to include additional evidence in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcoastpress (talk • contribs) 00:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. Personal and/or professional associations with prominent persons do not establish notability. Could not find references to support claim of being honored as "U.S. Army Athlete of the Year". Notability is additionally not established through significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. Notability is definitely established by association and the relationships held with notable personalities and organizations. For example, take a look at Eugene E. Parker, sports agent for NFL players such as Deion Sanders and others, Mr. Parker is notable for being excellent at representing and making great deals for this athlete clients, Just like Mr. Ortez is notable for running top-tier investment strategies for his athlete clients and helping them grow their wealth. Other examples, Judy Harrison Barry, philanthropist known exclusively for her desire to make a difference in her North Carolina community, has ties to politicians is not a politician herself, but is notable for her drive and her philanthropic efforts, think Martin Luther King, another great figure known for philanthropy and advocating rights. Last example, Kirk Sommer, entertainment agent for William Morris agency, notable and made notable by the A list clients he represents and for the quality and caliber of his work for them, just like Mr. Ortez is in the field of wealth management for his A list clients. These are professionals known and notable in their respective fields as experts that excel at their craft. They may not be notable to all of us, but they sure are notable in the specific niche industries and areas of expertise. Do not delete, thank you for your input. (West Coast Press) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcoastpress (talk • contribs) 02:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Notability is a metric term used on Wikipedia to identify topics warranting an encyclopedia article. In general, notability is an attempt to assess whether the topic has "enduring notability", as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic. Stating that a subject lacks notability as it relates to Wikipedia guidelines is not a statement made to discredit the individual in any way. While an individual may be successful, prominent, or important in their profession and personal endeavors, they may still lack notability, as defined by the community guidelines for editing Wikipedia. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 06:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm afraid this article fails wikipedia's standards for notability of biographies and thus should be deleted--Cailil ^talk 12:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Googling suggests there aren't any. As Cindamuse explained, notability has a much more technical definition on WP than many new editors expect. It's not enough that the subject seems notable, i.e., worthy of note. To be notable on WP, other people with no connection to the subject have to actually take note and they have to do it in reliable sources. But take heart, WP:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. Msnicki (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability has been shown. Notability is not inherited. SL93 (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inland Empire (Georgia)[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources. Also, I am from Georgia and have never heard this term before. Presidentman talk·contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Presidentman talk·contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am finding indications that there are a number of Georgia businesses using the phrase "Inland Empire" as part of their business names, indicating to me that the term has at least some local currency. Is it notable in Wikipedia terms? That's more difficult; I'm not finding anything. The phrase refers to a very concrete area in California and Washington states; the Georgia use seems more sketchy. Still, Wikipedia typically makes use of a very low bar for geographic places, so I hesitate to advise deletion. We'll leave it with this comment and a question mark... Carrite (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, things made up one day. Neutrality^talk 20:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 13:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Newport to the Ancient Empty Streets of L.A[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Dylan boot with no assertion of notability. Even if the performance is notable (which is not asserted), it's not clear that this release of the recording it. There are hundreds of Dylan boots and any one with an article on Wikipedia (e.g. Great White Wonder) needs to have sources to show notability per WP:MUSIC. The only sources are RateYourMusic (explicitly disallowed per WP:ALBUM), an Angelfire site, and bobsboots.com.

Speedy renominate, as allowed by the closer--someone please comment this time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Yes, I have been relisting AFDs for years and have seen many of your AFDs collect dust for 2 or 3 weeks. I'm beginning to wonder if your nominations are being boycotted by both the faces and the heels :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have added two sources to the article. The book details the recording dates and venues for each of the songs, while the Allmusic review offers a fair amount of coverage. If kept, the article's title should be changed to From Newport to the Ancient Empty Street in LA, as that's what the bootleg is named in both sources (as well as the passing mention here). Gongshow ^Talk 23:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the two sources. seems to be no interest in the true sense of the word to delete this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan McLeod[edit]

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

Unreferenced bio of a child actor fails WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NOTRESUME. I did find an article about the subject here in a community newspaper, but no other substantial coverage. Pburka (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio. I've just discovered that the article is a blatant copy of the actor's autobiography from his website. I've marked the article as such. Pburka (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyvio issue has been resolved by reverting to an older version. Thanks to User:Minimac. Pburka (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. I can't find any coverage in RSes. The one story linked above is just local interest. Reso lute 04:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles but did not find any sources that would help to support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daga Mrozek Kriek[edit]

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

Unsourced and vague claims. Nothing on google to establish notability. sources show she played tennis at college. noq (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Pburka (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanos Kapinos[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no reason given. PROD reason was "Non-notable youth player who has never appeared in a fully-professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY."

The few third-party articles about him [32], [33] (in Greek) are WP:ROUTINE. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 18:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 18:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because he is Panathianikos goalkeeper, who plays in the highest professional football league in Greece. (For example, look at this site.) Alex^{discussion ★} 18:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comment below. Alex^{discussion ★} 21:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated above, there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG, and contrary to the previous comment, he is not notable for his contract to Panathianikos does make him notable until he actually plays a game, which to date he has not done. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he does play games. His last match was on 28 August 2011. Alex^{discussion ★} 19:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm, it actually says zero games, which means he hasn't played... and to remove any doubt: [34] (ΚΑΠΙΝΟΣ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΣ) Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 19:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N.--Xyz or die (talk) 08:45, 5 September 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.

^ Jeselnik, Kevin. "FINDING ITS GROVE". Retrieved 2011-08-21.

[1] Jeselnik, Kevin. "FINDING ITS GROVE". Retrieved 2011-08-21.

[1]