Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 7 July	9 July >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 07:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate social media

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

This is an unremarkable concept that has only a single citation. Just because someone writes a book on some topic doesn't make the topic notable for it's own article. May as well have articles on corporate use of fax machines or corporate use of telephones. JOJ ^Hutton 23:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Corporate use of social networking for marketing and public relations is a major topic in the field of media/advertising/PR[1][2][3][4][5]. This article is very stublike and currently not very useful, but if expanded it's a valid topic and I can't see anywhere else that this topic is covered (not Social networking service or Facebook; and Social network advertising and Social Media Targeting are slightly different). (As for whether corporate use of telephones is a valid topic for WP, I don't see you arguing for deletion of business telephone system, call centre or cold calling.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Major? A little bit of puffery there. The use of social media by business is no more notable than the use of the telephone. Or the use of the stapler. I bet more papers get stapled by businesses than social media posts. The page is obviously redundant example of oversimplifying the importance of everyday mundane business practices. Its' new however, so therefore the business use of social media gets a few articles written about it. This is no more "major" than any other business technique. It's just new, but not notable for Wikipedia.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:GNG and WP:NRVE. The topic passes Wikipedia's General notability guideline with ease:

Joel Postman (2009), SocialCorp: Social Media Goes Corporate, ISBN 9780321580085
2011 Fortune 500 - UMass Dartmouth
Big Bird Tweets: How corporations use social media to gauge public persona - Computerworld
Social media is reinventing how business is done – USATODAY.com
How To Use Social Media To Promote Your Small Business - Forbes

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- There is no doubt that a few sources on the topic can be found. Thats great for inclusion in Wikipedia, but hardly a rationale for having a stand alone article, based on a single aspect of business. --JOJ ^Hutton 20:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR, regardless of whatever can be found on Google to show significant coverage in multiple good sources, which by the way, has been shown, per WP:GNG. It is axiomatic that our encyclopedia has articles on topics of interest to our core readership, who are students. Many otherwise odd yet commonplace articles exist here at WP, and have been kept over and over again at AfD. This is an obvious, commense-sense example. Northamerica has found several good sources and has added them to the article, which is now good enough for me. Please move on, nothing to see here except a few snowflakes. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So interesting for our core readership that the article only averaged 10 hits a day in June. Nobody's reading the article, or at least not that many. Even Farrell's had to give it up once they figured out that nobody was showing up anymore. Better to redirect this page to Social media marketing. That page receives a whole heck of a lot more traffic, and basically says the same exact thing.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Enterprise social networking Samsara (FA • FP) 16:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Holy cow!! Is that yet another article that covers the same exact topic. Yeee Doggie, that sure is a lot of articles about the same concept.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Philippose

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

References don't mention her. Doesn't seem notable. Rafy talk 22:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE Surely some kind of joke. The first link goes to a missing story/absent page and the second one has no mention of the subject whatsoever in a Google translate. It is about a dancer called Maya Plisetskaya and a ballet called Ave Maya. I would suggest that someone hoped that people wouldn't look too closely at the references and accept them in good faith. Zero material in Google News and zero usable stuff on Google, and the use of fake references causes zero sympathy on my part. Mabalu (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO #1, just because she was a contestant for a national beauty pageant does not qualify her for notability. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable: Search only returns social networking and public records MorganKevinJ^(talk) 22:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merger discussion can take place on the talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Corrugated

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

Non-notable company. All but two of the references are self-published. Albacore (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just so that everyone is aware, there is a discussion about the possible paid advocacy involved in this article ongoing at AN/I.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 19:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The firm has a sufficiently large market share to be notable. The Bloomberg reference supports the notability sufficiently. "All but two references are internal" is not a criterion for deletion--it argues rather for inclusion that two of them are third party. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company has multiple reliable sources and so satisfies notability. This went to AfD because people don't like paid editors and want to punish them. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG per:

New factory to bring more than 100 jobs to Lancaster | The Columbus Dispatch
KapStone acquiring U.S. Corrugated - Roanoke Rapids Daily Herald
"U.S. Corrugated Will Make 12 million Pizza Boxes Per Year for Donatos." PMQ Pizza Magazine.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The only reason not to keep this would be to merge it with Kapstone; from a quick look the article should be updated to reflect the new corporate parent. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kapstone its parent company it has acquired acquired with a section for U.S. Corrugated.The Company was called Four M Manufacturing in 1966 , then Box USA from 1994 till 2006 when it became U.S. Corrugated and 2012 again it is being acquired by Kapstone and I doubt whether it was noteworthy under this name it was founded and known by another name Four M for the longest period.The sources and news is largely about the merger ,internal and except for news about an order or a factory being opened which is relatively less for US company.As per WP:Otherstuffexists ,the argument is not that if a company merges that article should be merged in every case but feel it should be merged here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not merge. The company itself is notable from the time of its independence. There's no precedent for deleting company articles when they get taken over, and it's a ridiculous precedent to set - we don't delete the articles on Wang Laboratories, Trans World Airlines or British Satellite Broadcasting just because they've now been absorbed by another corporation. I can't see how this is any different - the only issue is whether the pre-takeover company was noteworthy, and I think it's been clearly shown that it was. Mogism (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mogism, I think you make an argument that's valid for big companies such as those you've cited. In this case, however, I think our readers are better served having one larger, more closely watched article; it's likely to be more reliable than 2 smaller articles about notable, but obscure organizations.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Kapstone, its parent company. Giant Snowman 15:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge per Mogism. What policy is there to support merging an article when it get's taken over? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kapstone, per Pharaoh of the Wizards.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 19:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kapstone. Clearly notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:N, notability is not temporary. Also, AfD is not Articles for Merger, take it to talk. Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mehtar (word)

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

Not sure how to check notability of a foreign word. Note this is not an English word of foreign origin but just a foreign word. I'll fall back on WP:NOTADICTIONARY and common sense. Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTADICTIONARY. No significant non-dictionary content here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTADICTIONARY Jason Quinn (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mehtar actually has several foreign meanings,[6] none worth an article. The title's too unusual to merit a redirect to Chitral (princely state). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as DICDEF. -- 202.124.72.209 (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NAD. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're Wikipedia, not Wikidictionary, and don't need this here, as per WP: NAD. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPECTRE (artist collective)

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

dePRODed by creator (possibly a WP:SPA) without addressing the issues. Concern = No media coverage, no WP:RS. This looks like a promotional exercise for some kind of performance art. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pretty blatant promotion. JIP | Talk 07:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment dePRODed by me (the creator). I gave explanations in the talk page of the article, I thought they were good enough to convince you to let the page live. I'm not trying to promote anything, I'm just describing the stuff they're doing. I even found cross reference in another Wikipedia article (predating the one about Spectre), can it be a reliable source? Egorain21

No, WP is never a source for itself. Please read WP:N, WP:RS and, perhaps, WP:COI before commenting further. EEng (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SMERSH it. No suitable coverage given in article, and impossible to search given the silly name. EEng (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CLUB. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. Coverage can be searched, content is notable, there are cross references inside Wikipedia, no promotion. This is turning into a trial where one must prove attackers wrong. Egorain21 —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Egorain21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's exactly what it is -- the WP:BURDEN is on you. Please, to avoid wasting your fellow editors' time, please take the advice already given and read the guidelines I listed earlier before commenting further. We need multiple, independent, reliable sources. EEng (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 18:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Reliable Source coverage found. Links in article are from blogs etc. The "collective" was only founded last year, so maybe in the future it will become notable, but at this point it does not pass the notability test. --MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan–Grenada relations

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

fails WP:GNG. the relationship is merely recognition. No evidence of state visits, trade agreements, embassies or significant interaction. Keep voters must show evidence of actual bilateral relations in third party sources. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Azerbaijan and Grenada do have a bilatral agreement and recognition and also they are proof from the link and the References. (Kylekieran (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

there are no agreements merely a communique. Please provide evidence of actual significant coverage which this relationship sorely lacks. LibStar (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the proof http://en.trend.az/news/politics/1755803.html#popupInfo (Kylekieran (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

one extra article does not mean significant coverage and this article merely confirms they recognize each other. Having relations is not the same as notable relations. LibStar (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge As with Armenia–Grenada relations, this minimal info could easily go in the articles on the diplomatic relations of the two countries. There's no history between them and they don't even have embassies in each others' countries. Do we want really articles on all 40,000-ish pairings of country relations? Or is this info better served by tables and lists in larger articles? I would say the tables. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not surprisingly, there's no evidence that the relationship between these small and geographically distant countries is notable. A Google search on Azerbaijan–Grenada returns almost no reliable sources, and most of the sources are about the initiation of a formal relationship about two years ago. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I favor retaining these "X-Y Relations" articles as a class if the nations are bigger than a bread box. Unfortunately, Grenada is not bigger than a bread box. Inadequate published sourcing available to maintain a piece on this topic. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't matter if Grenada is bigger than a bread box or not. This is a real relations with the two nations. (Kylekieran (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

real relations doesn't mean notable relations. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Keep'~~ - I saw many pages got not alot word, but not got the articles for deletion, but for this page it not fine for grow but other page is ok to be so little. example South Korea–United Kingdom relations. (Kylekieran (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

you cannot !vote twice. also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - They both have a bilateral relations and also this page would get more and more detail now and in the future. (Jope2 (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)) striking out blocked sock puppet of Kylekieran. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC) — Jope2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per LibStar and Colapeninsula. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. No attempt has been made to prove any significant bilateral agreements saying these countries mean anything to each other, and coverage is non-existent. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relations were established between Grenada and Azerbaijan less than two years ago, but I see several sources covering the establishment of relations here,here,here, and here. For the limited time frame, I would say coverage is significant enough. Relations are developing.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

first source is a blog and a direct copy of other news reports. The sources merely cover recognition of each other and confirm there is nothing else to this relationship like significant trade, state visits, or embassies. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage in reliable sources is not extensive, and as Colapeninsula notes, tens of thousands of trivial articles of this sort don't improve an encylopedia. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in any way. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An 'article' which says nothing what-so-ever not derived from the title. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while even two small nations could have notable bilateral relations, this is clearly not one of those. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–Grenada relations

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

fails WP:GNG. the relationship is merely recognition. No evidence of state visits, trade agreements, embassies or significant interaction. Keep voters must show evidence of actual bilateral relations in third party sources LibStar (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Armenia and Grenada do have a bilatral agreement and recognition and also they are proof from the link and the References. (Kylekieran (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

they merely issued a joint statement. Please provide evidence of actual significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This minimal info would be better copied to Foreign relations of Armenia and Foreign relations of Grenada, a sentence in each (the Armenia article has a table into which an entry could be added). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - They both have a bilateral relations and also this page would get more and more detail now and in the future. (Jope2 (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)) striking out blocked sock puppet of Kylekieran. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC) — Jope2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

having bilateral relations is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - This page very interesting to read and they are a lot of fact about the relationship. (Bbuk2 (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)) striking out blocked sock puppet of Kylekieran. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC) — Bbuk2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, does not need its own article. Any information can be merged into other articles. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact perhaps we could merge to Foreign relations of Grenada all of the following trivial articles

Grenada–Libya relations, Finland–Grenada relations, People's Republic of China–Grenada relations, Grenada–South Korea relations, Grenada–Holy See relations, Grenada–North Korea relations and Grenada–Japan relations as well. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cited reference is too thin a basis for significance. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while even two small nations could have notable bilateral relations, this is clearly not one of those. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I think People's Republic of China–Grenada relations and Grenada–Holy See relations, might be notable, and would deserve separate AfD discussions (China's trade with Grenada appears to be significant, and Grenada's population is 2/3 Roman Catholic). Grenada–Libya relations, Grenada–South Korea relations, Grenada–North Korea relations and Grenada–Japan relations are probably not notable, but to be fair, those articles need to be separately prodded or nominated at AfD for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I prodded Grenada–Libya relations, but Grenada–North Korea relations might be a keeper. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On further look-see, I think Grenada–South Korea relations are also notable. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise on Grenada–Japan relations - they have had some trade and high-level contacts. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Oliver (musician)

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

I can't find any non-trivial sources at all. Searches for "Tommy Oliver" + "Bandleader" found only unreliable sources such as other wikis and game show fansites. Likewise by searching "Tommy Oliver" + "Name That Tune" (first hit was, of all things, TV Tropes) and various other key words. I also can't verify that he was ever nominated for a Grammy. The article has had an unreferenced tag since 2006, suggesting that Oliver is rather below most people's radar — this alone seems to suggest that despite his supposed prolificacy, he was never high on our notability scale. (It has also had a very low edit history — nothing at all between 8/08 and 12/09, and all edits since have either been minor or by bots.) tl;dr: He seems to fail the WP:GNG due to a complete lack of reliable sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per TPH. I also find a lack of reliable third-party sourcing on which to base WP:GNG. I also can't find anything close to WP:MUSICBIO. JFHJr (㊟) 08:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you search for "Tommy Oliver" + "producer" you may find more. e.g. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. More on Highbeam. Clearly 'real-world notable'. --Michig (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of those give nothing but his name as a producer's credit or some other variation of "Tommy Oliver produced this song/album/etc.". They say literally nothing about him except that he produced a work, which is not enough to build a whole bio on. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, credited as a producer on a number of albums at allmusic. However, I do understand Tens point about little written about the man. On this point, i tend towards inclusionism, but policy may in fact say otherwise. i have added some of the actual albums he has produced to the article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying he gets to completely bypass WP:RS? Does anyone here have common sense anymore, or have we devolved into an anarchic mess of WP:IAR? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reliable sources - several are listed above. Perhaps you're confusing reliability with depth of coverage, for which there isn't a rule to ignore? --Michig (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I googled him and only found unreliable sources, so he fails WP: GNG. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks verifiable sources therefore failing WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 01:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

W. R. Hutsell

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

Frustrating because I believe I've even played one of this fellow's games many years back, but I'm unable to find reliable secondary sources which evidence his notability under WP:GNG. Additional sources gratefully welcomed, largely I saw the primary web site, download sites, and a reprinted press release. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources. Trackinfo (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2012 (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) 04:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after the sources have been added.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reluctantly. Totally fails WP:BLP as well as WP:GNG. The content is mostly about the games, not the creator. The added sources, with only one minor exception, are about the games and not the author. Hope someone with an interest in these historical computer games will create a new article, perhaps Hutsell Computer War Games. DocTree (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Chea

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

The subject himself fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG (significant coverage by multiple reliable sources), and most relevantly WP:MUSICBIO ("Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article"). The previous AfD discussion does not appear to have formed any consensus, though it was closed as "keep." The previous argument regarding WP:INHERIT is actually valid in this situation, unless coverage significantly about the subject individually could be found. At any rate, present guidelines and policies apply for this nomination. Given the WP:BLP-problematic content in the article history, I recommend deleting and then redirecting to Take 6. JFHJr (㊟) 08:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the points JFHJr makes. There isn't enough info out there to support a separate article and what there is can easily go in the article for the band. MarnetteD | Talk 00:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One thing brought up in the previous AfD was this search, which (for me) produces one single hit: 3VOOR12 is legit, but there is nothing mere than a mention ("Het repertoire wordt zesstemmig gebracht, waarbij vooral Alvin Chea erg opvalt met zijn ultiem lage stemgeluid") of his deep voice. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a fair number of references to Chea doing a Google archive news search and a Google book search. The latter is mostly issues of Ebony. In glancing at many of them (and some I can't see the whole article because you have to pay to do so), they all seem to be in the context of Take 6. In other words, they aren't about Chea as Chea but about Chea as one member of the band. That's not enough to justify a separate article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Santi Gubini

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

no indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources. Possible WP:conflict of interest. Google searches not revealing anything significant. noq (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete cut and paste WP:COPYVIO? from [14] Tigerboy1966 22:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For a 32 year old composer, there are no WP:RS for him. Facebook, myspace and this person's personal webpage are not reliable sources. I presume he is not notable at present. --Artene50 (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable enough, plus the text is likely copyvio. Mushroom (Talk) 07:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Artene50. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space Daze

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

This film fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM: there's no indication of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the makers; there's no indication of alternative notability criteria — a cameo by a famous person doesn't do it. JFHJr (㊟) 18:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Not a deletion criterion, but this article seems to exist because a friend and colleague of James Vallo, Z.D. Smith (Zedudems (talk · contribs)) created it for the sole purpose of promotion. JFHJr (㊟) 19:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Article was last edited by author nearly 14 months ago... on May 12, 2011‎. That old COI aside, what we do when an author with COI stops editing a film article with which he has a too-close interest, is to look and see if enough secondary sources exist to qualify that film topic as notable... even if just. Since this was first screened in 2005, we'll need some digging certainly... but as it is now a Troma release, reviews may not be all that hard to find. Back later. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete So far all I can find is[15][16]. Google Books throws up The Corey Feldman Handbook by Emily Smith, but it's through a print-on-demand service and can't be read online anyway. Rotten Tomatoes has no reviews, IMDb has only the Mindjack link which is on the article. Almost any vaguely culty DVD will have some online coverage, but I see nothing for this. If there's an acceptable merge target, then merge (maybe Troma or Corey Feldman), but otherwise as it stands there's no choice but deletion. Sorry, Corey. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I googled it and I can only find listings from unreliable sources. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failng WP:NF. It was made, it was released by Troma, and it seems no one took much notice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was '. Withdrawn by nominator in light of merge (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 18:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay makkal iyakkam

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

Article appears to be non-notable consisting of information from blogs and self promoted websites. I was not able to find anything peer reviewed which implies significance for the person or their charitable actions. Keystoner idin (speak) 18:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Article has been merged.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Moms

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

No indication of notability. No reliable sources provided or found in a search, only promotional announcements. This TV show may never become notable and thus violates WP:CRYSTAL. DocTree (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, we don't do rumors, and we can wait until news is released to make this article if it comes. No prejudice to re-creation if we get sources and a premiere date eventually (the trades do have talk about the show, but no confirmation beyond 'it's in development'). Nate • (chatter) 21:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone wants a user-space copy, ask me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010 in Football

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

This random list of match results was recently split from August 2010 in sports. It is nothing but with an incredibly long list with no inclusion or exclusion criteria. There are no sources at all, and nothing to indicate why an indiscriminate list like this would be notable. Should be deleted per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Big Dom 17:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Delete or Merge - the lack of a lead paragraph/inclusion criteria/references can be addressed as a clean-up issue. Unfortunately, judging by the proliferation of similar list articles, reinforced by the comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 in sports and the request to split the August 2010 in sports article, I doubt there's going to be much support to delete this new list. I don't think Wikipedia should be a place to list sports results, ~~but consensus seems to decide otherwise~~. Sionk (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my 'vote' based on the comments by the author on the article and its Talk page. If no-one knows the scope of the article, it will simply become an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of football results. The author argues on the article that they intend to significantly prune the list and return it to August 2010 in sports, which may be a sensible solution, perhaps listing only the major finals or fixtures? My only question would be how the numerous remaining 'Month in...' lists should be dealt with... Sionk (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT. This is just a list of results and statistics which is unencyclopedic. --Jimbo^[online] 11:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having taken the trouble to explain what I am doing, in Talk:August 2010 in sports, and why the articles are in the state that they are, I am disapointed to say the least to be in this position. My main concern was to extract a half decent article out of the pig's ear that was August 2010 in sports and remove the split tag. If this is incredibly long then I really don't know what BigDom would have made of the article before I started, all of his concerns apply to the original article, only more so. I would have preferred the easy way out and had August 2010 in sports deleted, but as pointed out above, it survived a previous deletion attempt. I would have liked to remove the split tag and put an improve tag on, but the article was just uneditable (whether or not there is such a word). The approach that I took was the only way. I would have prefered have spent my time improving the encyclopedia constructively rather than have to deal with this waste of time. Yes waste of time, because if my comments on the talk page had been read then you would know it was always my intention to have this article deleted when August 2010 in sports is completed. It is just an interim article. If this article is deleted before I can complete August 2010 in sports then August 2010 in sports will have no football related entries. If that is what is required then by all means, go ahead and delete it. It will only reduce my workload. Op47 (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to not seeing your latest comment on that page so apologies for that. Maybe it would be better to userfy the articles until they are in a more encyclopaedic state? I would be happy to help you do that. But IMO lists like these are far from useful. There's more happens in a month of football (and other sports) than can be summarised by an arbitrary list of results. Big Dom 21:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. If the events are notable in themselves, articles can be created and then grouped under one category. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't need an article listing every result that happened on a particular day of the year. – Pee Jay 11:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DigDom, Apology noted, I will take it that it is fine to remerge the football section into August 2010 in sports when I do that. Regarding "userfication", what advantage does that offer? I expect to spend about 3 manhours doing the merginge which I will have to do offline in any case (for a variety of reasons). I expect (internet connection willing) to have completed by Sunday at the latest. If there is a SIGNIFICANT advantage in taking that route then fine, however given my present understanding, I think it would be more trouble than it is worth.

Sionk, I have no idea whether this article is an anomaly in the series or whether they are all this bad. My view is international events only, and only extremely unusual events in domestic competitions. By extremely unusual events, I talking about things like the battle of Bramhall Lane or a giant killing by say a 4 tier difference (eg Barrow beat Arsenal). The most important thing is to get August 2010 in sports into an editable state (at the moment is just locks my browser when I try to edit it). In light of my experience here, a deletion exempt tag would be jolly useful. I could really have done without this distraction. Perhaps ther ought to be a project who will look after these lists (if there is support for the lists then it should be possible) and if so that project would define the standard for the lists. If there are any further comments to be made re August 2010 in sports then I suggest that they be placed on that article's talk page. That is where I will place progress rather than here. Op47 (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - This article is actually bigger then 2010 in association football, so it includes way too much information. I'd say that userfication is the best solution, so that Op47 can finish his work on August 2010 in sports. If lists like that should be deleted, it should be brought up to a wider audience in a mass-AfD per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 in sports. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If anyone wants to see those results he should just go to soccerway and browse that month. -Koppapa (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT Nfitz (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. How many in a day? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Islands Flight SI-308

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

Non notable incident per WP:AIRCRASH. WP:NOTNEWS also applies ...William 17:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally non-notable. Does this author realise how many minor incidents like this there are everyday?Petebutt (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No I don't. How many times a day does this happen? Danrok (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pete's being a little hyperbolic (and could be a smidge more tactful). But this is still an insufficently notable incident for inclusion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, just a bad day at the office. MilborneOne (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This stuff probably happens all the time. Even if it doesn't, landing gear collapses have happened for quite a while now, like what User:WilliamJE pointed out on the talk page. Zappa O Mati 21:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet a single criterion of WP:AIRCRASH. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Segall

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

Not notable, either under WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Refs are not reliable, consisting of social media, deadlinks, and unreliable sources. Previous deleted three times. Declined and contested CSD. Contested deletion comments included that he was an "actual musician," "SOME amount of an entry is better than nothing," "rising popular act," and "the most efficient way to find all of Ty Segall's musical projects." GregJackP Boomer! 16:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The article could use some improvement, certainly, and the potential for doing so exists given the significant coverage available in multiple reliable sources, starting with these dozens of album reviews. The subject easily passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 19:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This shouldn't have been speedy deletion material in the first place and the speedy was correctly declined. Arguments given by IP users who don't know Wikipedia rules are not grounds for deletion. The deletion history is similarly not grounds for deletion here. None of the previous deletions were AfDs and the final G4 deletion looks to have been improperly applied. Article has existed since December 2010 and has some references, albeit mostly poor ones. A cursory check of news sources shows there are many better sources though, especially for his newest album. I found numerous reviews, interviews and in-depth coverage in sources that should allow this to easily pass AfD. Off the bat, there's Chicago Tribune [17], Prefix, SF Weekly, Heave, Pitchfork, and Blare. There are also plenty more reliable sources that demonstrate notability, allowing this to pass both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. I'll add some of these to the article. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 18:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator

Vytenis Andriukaitis

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

Unreferenced BLP that reads like a resume. A complete rewrite would be necessary. Note that this article seems to have been created before the BLP PROD can be used Nouniquenames (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to [18]. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Decker has hit the nail on the head. A complete rewrite is not necessary. Simply undoing the complete rewrite that made this mess is what is necessary. (Note that it's written in the first person.) Always check the page history when nominating articles for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing to roll back. --Nouniquenames (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sandlin

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

Bio lacking notability, lacks coverage about Sandlin in independent reliable sources, refs are by him not about him or are not independent. Nothing better found. Nothing satisfying WP:BIO. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important member of the Christian Reconstruction movement, as this encyclopedia asserts. StAnselm (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't contain a biography of him, though, or even any more than that 1 sentence. So what's your argument for Wikipedia containing a biography of this person? All sources here, bar that 1-sentence source, were written by P. Andrew Sandlin, as was much of this very article itself. This is autobiography, plain and simple. Where are the independent sources documenting this person in depth? Uncle G (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Uncle G, lacks coverage by reliable third-party sources and therefore failing WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 6 July 2012 (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) 15:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are lots of independent reliable sources out there, as expected for a notable religious figure. New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America (Baylor University Press), Dictionary Of Premillennial Theology (Kregel Publications), and Encyclopedia of American religions (Gale), to name just three. -- 202.124.72.127 (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- sufficient publications. I have never heard of them, but his is not quite my theological position (I think). Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder Bhogal

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

Delete:Notability questioned.Phd8511 (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have refactored this nomination to include the normal AfD templates. It was not listed at WP:AFD so I have now listed it. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poorly referenced, but nothing a GNews search won't fix. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. A cursory search through the GNews links on this site substantiates that multiple, independent reliable sources exist, and should clearly be added to the article to demonstrate that notability. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2012 (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) 15:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources exist (and I've seen them) as noted above. To get you started, I've added two to the article. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

London Grand Prix (formula 1)

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

WP:CBALL. Article is composed almost entirely of speculation. Well sourced speculation, but speculation nonetheless. Soft news is not what Wikipedia is for. Falcadore (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also follows WP:IGNORE, which improves the proposed races of the 2013 Formula One season page, so should not be deleted. PCH17 (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You plainly haven't read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. It certainly isn't a free pass to do whatever you like, like image copyvios. --Falcadore (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As far as I can see, this "proposed" Grand Prix is entirely and solely a promotional stunt by the Santander bank. This is so ephemeral as to make a mockery of the entire concept of encyclopaedic value. Pyrop e 15:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is a concept race which is NOT a promotion by Santander it is actually an artists impression by the FIA, so i'am going to vote to Merge into the Formula 1 page under a concept GP along with a redirect as this race is highly sought after especially by Bernie Eccleston Seasider91 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's already detailed under 2013 Formula One season#Proposed races. --Falcadore (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would additionally note that a merger would leave this article name behind as a redirect, and I would think that "London Grand Prix (formula 1)" is an unlikely search option when there already is an article called London Grand Prix. As that article is on an unrelated subject, instead of a merge a hat note on the athletics article and this article being deleted would be more appropriate. --Falcadore (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Unconfirmed event that may or may not happen. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL which states, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.". From the recent coverage, it seems that this proposal may well be realised. And, if it should seem less so, then the matter might be merged into a relevant section such as Formula_one#Future or List_of_Formula_One_circuits#Proposed_circuits. The latter section is explicitly intended to hold such proposals and so deletion is inappropriate per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's a promotional event, nothing more. The proposal for an event is briefly mentioned on the 2013 Formula One season page, but even its presence on that is contentious among editors. In addition to WP:CRYSTAL, it's also in violtion of WP:COPYPASTE (though I have removed the offending sections) and WP:COPYWITHIN. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is something that's proposed every few years, usually as a promotional stunt, but has never come near happening. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It'll never happen, totally impossible - just one of a regular stream of similar publicity-seeking "what ifs". If it ever gets confirmed, then the article can be started again. As for it happening during the 2013 season, there's more chance of a Grand Prix on the moon. There, I said it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The event is unconfirmed and all the article can include is speculation/unconfirmed information. If it were to be kept (which shouldn't happen, unless it is confirmed by the FIA) it would need a title change. Editadam 16:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Let's be honest. It was a promotional event from an F1 sponsor. The article seems comes across as a promotional article. There was never any suggestion that this would happen at all, let alone as soon as 2013. One of the first lines of commentary is "...if there's one, we think it might look like this". Also to say "Jenson Button and Lewis Hamilton displayed enthusiasm for the idea" is, frankly, a bit daft. The whole thing was made by Santander, one of the main reasons they're incredibly well paid. They're hardly going to say "It's a stupid idea" are they? Any comments made about the project should be entirely independent. gasheaduk 15:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has now been renamed to London Grand Prix (Formula One); London Grand Prix (formula 1) is now a redirect. DH85868993 (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season of love

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

Not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, not yet WP:NOTABLE. Declined CSD A7. GregJackP Boomer! 14:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We never keep such proposed TV show articles. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball....William 19:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Blanton

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

Subject doesnt appear to met WP:AUTHOR, and book 'Stay Hungry' not in WorldCat. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article misrepresents the references. The reason Stay Hungry is not found in the library is because she hasn't finished writing it yet. Her only claim to fame is having an essay selected for an anthology, and winning a contest where the prize was to be a speaker at a conference. Not enough information on her - yet. All I am finding are blogs, etc. Once her book is published, she may become notible then, but I don't believe she is at this time. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She may achieve notability (as Wikipedia defines it) at some point, but she doesn't have it yet. She was a speaker at TED, she's had essays published in a few places (for example an essay in Salon plus a followup abouat the comments that essay received), that's about it. Maybe after her book comes out she will pass WP:N, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. Marshall Craig

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

This subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:MUSICBIO and WP:AUTHOR. There's some coverage as far as listings and adverts — even on the NY times — but it's far from substantial. There's very little as far as biographical content that seems to be verifiable. For example, the most in-depth review I could find of a book he co-authored ("with" not "and" the subject) does not mention him at all. It's unclear what this subject's contributions and claim to notability are; he doesn't seem to WP:INHERIT anything, and he doesn't seem very well covered either. JFHJr (㊟) 09:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything notable about him. No substantial coverage. Even IMDB, uusally generous in their coverage of somewhat important people and events, has scant info on him and his projects. From what I could gather, this guy functioned as a roadie of some kind. Perhaps a hanger-on, who takes credit for writing the Animal's "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood" though the fact is it was penned by Bennie Benjamin. One of the reasons the guy is in the Songwriters Hall of Fame, and "J Marshall Craig"...er...shouldn't have an article on WP due to not fulfilling WP:GNG.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are several verifiably wrong attributions in the article, such as falsely claiming co-authorship of Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one and only reference I could find about him in a search implies that he is primarily a ghostwriter [19]. That's also the implication of the title DON'T LET ME BE MISUNDERSTOOD, By Eric Burdon with J. Marshall Craig.[20] The rest of the claims in the article can charitably be described as unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It appears that he is claiming coauthorship of Burdon's autobiography, not of the song - although the article doesn't make that clear. To evaluate the degree to which he is "coauthor", see this link for how his name appears on the book's cover. You may need a magnifying glass. --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-See my comments above regarding lack of anything notable he's written, and I only found an interview on Youtube, along with some blog postings. The claim to fame regarding having a hand writing the hit song seems dubious, and although some search results pointed in the direction he helped write the memoirs for the Animals, still doesn't clear GNG.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Harris (album)

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

Contested PROD & declined {{db-repost}} despite the previous AFD result. No references or reliable sources. Still no indication or assertion of notability, still fail WP:NALBUMS. KTC (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KTC (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no confirmation of the albums title and false information i s included all over the page and the author has added other pages on wikipedia that are false --Mr JKX (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still an unsourced promotional article about a future release. The same author has also created this. --Ben Ben (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is an album due later this year but until there are confirmed details there is nothing to justify an article, and there's nothing here that constitutes confirmed details.--Michig (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Also, fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found no news of this on Calvins official website Seasider91 (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article will eventually have reliable sources. For example, Unsupervised was nominated for deletion in December 2011, but eventually, reliable sources were put in. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially summed up in WP:NEXTBIGTHING. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious WP:TOOSOON, no verifiable info yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't know about WP:NEXTBIGTHING, but I do feel bad for all the information that will be lost. A solution is to keep the article and find references. Please keep it. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:LOSE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nouniquenames (talk • contribs) 12:52, 11 July 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
  - If you could find some references 68, that would be great. In the mean time, if this article does get deleted, I could mail the content to you if you want, so that it doesn't go to waste. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't looked very deep, which is why I can't really place an informed !vote, but rather a comment, but I did find http://www.allmusic.com/album/calvin-harris-mw0002306017 (which is part of the reason why I rejected CSD). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that tracks are being added while this AfD is open, this also looks like Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Right Now (album)

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

Completely unsourced and apparently all speculation. Although DJ Fresh is working on an album, I can find nothing to confirm that anything in this article relates to it in any way. Michig (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KTC (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the newcomers. This article is from a new editor who was able to learn complex formatings within the first hour after his inital edit. And to give us informations about a future release only the label could know at that time. Delete the paid editors promotional work, this is still an encyclopedia.--Ben Ben (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that there's anything here that has come from the record label or that the record label would have paid someone to write this, and I very much doubt that the album will have a length of 8 minutes and 75 seconds, or will include a single from July 2011, but I could be wrong of course. This article has already been correctly prodded and then deprodded without comment or improvement, so it's time to discuss it here. --Michig (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Calvin Harris (album) from the same author.Fan with a narrow focus? --Ben Ben (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this article contains loads of false information e.g. the title of the album --Mr JKX (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL and as failing WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No (remaining) delete opinions. Opinion is split between merge to Oceanside Pier and keep; this can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 05:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Seau Beach Community Center and Bandshell

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

no evidence for notability of this minor local venue. DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I'm not seeing enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Seems like news due to renaming in honor of the late Junior Seau. Per this source, there are two separate buildings, the Beach Community Center and the Pier Amphitheater, named after Seau. I would otherwise say redirect to Junior Seau, except I'm not sure the name "Bandshell" in the title is even valid.—Bagumba (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Oceanside Pier per Arxiloxos below. Removal of ~~unsourced~~ "bandshell" name should be done; there should be one redirect for the community center, and another for the amphitheater.—Bagumba (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source below mentions band shell. Might be informal name, but I'll strike it being unsourced. Still see no reason why both are needed in the title. They are separate, aside for being named after Seau.—Bagumba (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Oceanside Bandshell,[21] or alternatively Oceanside Amphitheater,[22] was in fact the name of that structure before its recent renaming. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Oceanside Pier. The band shell, aka ampitheater, has been a significant local venue for decades (note, for example, this 2009 story about proposed renovation efforts, well before Junior's death)[23], and is also something of a cheerleading landmark since it was used as a set for Bring it On[24], but I think it makes more sense to use this material to improve the existing article about the pier. Unfortunately, one problem that currently confronts all efforts to improve San Diego County articles is that a portion of the online resources relating to the recently sold (and inelegantly renamed) U-T San Diego seem to have disappeared recently. This is not the first time that I've run a GNews search for a San Diego topic and gotten results with promising excerpts, only to run into a lot of "404" pages for Union-Tribune materials.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can try taking the article title from google and then go to utsandiego.com and search on the title there. —Bagumba (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the Bandshell being a significant local venue, it is also where graduation ceremonies are held for Oceanside High School, and it frequently hosts large concert events and an annual Tea Party rally. Maybe those details could be merged into this article to enhance it? (add a "History" section?) Gwsuperfan (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How soon does this need to be decided? the Beach Community Center and Bandshell are separate from the Pier, so I'm not sure that merging into that article is appropriate. I am in the process of contacting experts from the Oceanside Historical Society regarding the issue, and would defer to them on whether the 3 structures (Pier, Bandshell, and Community Center) should be considered a single complex, or if they should be considered separate. I would also like more time to continue to gather sources and flesh out the article before a decision is made. I was having to elbow my way between camera crews from several local stations and major networks to get pictures during the ceremony. Gwsuperfan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs usually stay open for a week. While consulting experts is great, articles ultimately need to be verifiable by reliable sources that other editors can access.—Bagumba (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's unlikely that we can find significant coverage under this name, since it was only named this yesterday! However it's possible that some features of the complex may be notable, per comments above. Maybe the whole article including the bandshell could be named for the community center, if sourcing for the complex can be found under its previous name(s). --MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to what? If we are considering a "merge and redirect" to the Oceanside Pier should this article, and the Pier article all be possibly merged into an article about the "Pier Complex," which would also include notes about restaurants, etc (the Tin Fish is in the process of renovating a location at the base of the Pier)? How far inland should the area encompassed by a "Pier Complex" article include? What about North and South along the beach? Should it include mentions of other facilities for recreation and other parks within 2 or 3 blocks? I think the idea of a "Merge and Redirect" is a slippery slope, however, I will admit to some potential bias being both an Oceanside resident, and someone who visits the area frequently, and someone who knew Junior Seau personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwsuperfan (talk • contribs) 08:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCAL is an applicable essay. We could merge to Oceanside Pier first. That article could be moved later if needed, or perhaps be included summary style in a new article "Pier Complex" if warranted.—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Research suggested that the bandshell is historic. I have added references and historic information, as well as cleaning up and de-cluttering the article. Please take another look; I believe this complex is notable and is now demonstrated to be notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a merge to the pier, probably with a rename as suggested above, would be a good idea. I should have thought of this initially, but I didn't, I do not think it can stand as a separate article--the content is mostly trivial--the exact vote of the and the names of the dignitaries present at the rededication are not encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie asked that I reconsider my comment. Even if the center is judged notable, I continue to think that which members of the city council voted for or against the project is not encyclopedic content & which local public officials were at the dedication is not encyclopedic content. This sort of bureaucratic trivia and namedropping is common in articles about organizations where there is insufficient actual material. Even when the organization is unquestionably notable , as for example a university, this is pure PR content, amounting to puffery. I normally remove it, as I do all puffery and PR. The work of professionals in public relations (on & off Wikipedia) trying to create publicity when there is nothing substantial has affected even the manner in which volunteers work.

However, her expansion of the information & referencing about the significance as a venue is possibly sufficient to make the subject notable--we have often but not always approved articles on such venues. I would be willing to withdraw the AfD and simply edit the content , but there are other delete !votes. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look. I agree with you that there is too much detail about the vote and the dedication ceremony. I put a note on the talk page of the article's author, he has responded, and I believe he and I can work together to make this into an article which is primarily about the facility, rather than about the renaming. For starters he agreed to get some pictures of the actual community center and bandshell, to replace pictures from the dedication, if the article is kept. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCAL advises "If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality." I'm not sure how much more comprehensive this could get. MelanieN has done well to add context, but can more be added aside from a running random list of all and any events ever held here? Or name dropping of notable people sighted? Two sources, U-T San Diego and North Country Times is not enough for me to definitively agree that the multiple sources required by GNG. I am all for WP:PRESERVE by redirecting and merging to "Oceanside Pier", with no prejudice to WP:SPLIT later if more comprehensive information is found. Also, I still maintain that the Beach Community Center and the Pier Amphitheater are independent entities, bundled here superficailly only because of news of the renaming to honor Seau. Linking them by their vicinity to the Oceanside Pier makes more sense to me. Google archives is down for me now, so unfortunately I am able to explore if additional sources exist beyond what MelanieN has identified.—Bagumba (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. Actually there are three different news sources cited, since there is a report from the local NBC station as well. (Not counting the merely fact-verifying links that don't add to notability.) But I think you are right that there is not a lot more to say. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be considered part of the news spike more related to Seau; I'm still borderline, waiting for maybe another non-trivial source unrelated to Seau to sway me. I'm just not feeling it yet :-( —Bagumba (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With Google News archives back up, I am not seeing anything additional beyond trivial mentions of it being the location for various events. I know that there are other articles on venues filled with random events hosted, but I'm not willing to support that lower standard for a standalone article.—Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a notable part of the civil infrastructure of a major city.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Beard

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

I do not see how what is claimed here makes for notability. One very minor role in a film, and 2 episodes in a sitcom. No references beyondO<MdfB DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Tentative~~ Keep. ~~while~~ Article is being expanded and sourced. Actress has done somewhat more that just one minor role in one film, or 2 episodes in one sitcom. Aside from doing a decent amount of voice artist work in notable animated series, she has appeared in major roles in several arguably notable films, some of which simply need their own articles. ~~We'll see if~~ Sources under her different names give us WP:GNG. ~~or if~~ Her body of work (radio, TV, & film) gives us WP:ENT. I'll be back to this discussion later. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcable. Expandable. Improvable.[25] My "keep" no longer tentative. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she was the only on-screen female cast member of The Red Green Show, and was a prominent media personality in the Toronto market. The article's really starting to pick up with sources, and I know over time, I can help find extra. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: withdrawn by nominator (non-admin). JFHJr (㊟) 22:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhi-Li Zhang

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

This subject fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. It's hard to tell what's notable; many publish a large number of papers, but he's generally co-authored (mileage varies). I'm getting an h-index on this side of stellar, though it shouldn't be a deciding factor either way. JFHJr (㊟) 07:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With an h-index of 40 this is a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1, even in this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (at least a dozen papers with over 100 cites each in Google scholar, clear evidence of academic impact) and #C5 (holder of a named chair at U. Minn.) —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G3 (blatant hoax) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mundi's World

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

PROD removed. WP:N Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible hoax; only Google hits bring up the Wiki article. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely a hoax based on this editor's previous contributions and block. Elizium23 (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence that the supposed series actually exists. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TellyJuice

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

I was unable to find any independent, significant coverage for this production company. I previously proposed it for deletion, but article creator removed the PROD tag. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also cannot find independent, significant coverage. Almost everything I do find is self-promotional stuff on social networking sites, forums etc.—A bit iffy (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything notable in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources. - Mailer Diablo 18:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3D Test of Antisemitism

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

This article about a purported social phenomenon is almost entirely unsourced, except for one citation which does not refer to the subject of the article. It is very poorly written, possibly a translation of an original elsewhere. It does not establish the notability of the subject, and does not even show that the term exists outside the writings of the term's originator RolandR (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This could eventually be notable once there are sources to cite that aren't original research... Delete. 81M (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is one person's opinion of antisemistism and nothing else. If the folks at Natan Sharansky and Antisemitism haven't seen fit to mention it, I don't see why it deserves its own article. Zero^talk 15:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Zero, your assertion that "If the folks at Natan Sharansky and Antisemitism haven't seen fit to mention it, I don't see why it deserves its own article" is utterly absurd and disingeniousness because as you well know, WP articles are not "born" 100% perfect, but rather they grow and improve as more information and facts are added in relation to or about that subject. Hundreds of thousands of articles have been written by later editors and contributors about related topics to subjects long after the creators of the original topics, who did not commit to writing as a first or last draft material connected to their original articles, as you well know. IZAK (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am not like you, I will not state my opinion of your response. Zero^talk 09:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still no reason has been provided for making this a separate article rather than an addendum to another. What other examples are there in Wikipedia where an opinion of one person gets such royal treatment? Zero^talk 09:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous - According to the standared suggested - special theory of relativity, photoelectric effect and general theory of relativity should be merged with Albert Einstein. Just because an idea originates from one individual does not mean it cannot become notable on its own merit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OrenBochman (talk • contribs)

Wow, you really need to adjust your significance meter. Zero^talk 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources that discuss or use the test [26],[27],[28],[29] and many more.--Shrike (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For the moment, I just want to note that a less restrictive search string yields potentially significant examples of others using and discussing this concept. For example <"3D Test" Antisemitism> yields Google[30], GNews[31], GBooks[32], & GScholar[33] that appear to include a number of journals and other potentially reliable sources mixed in among the many non-reliable sources. I haven't had time to sort through these yet, but based on the first few pages, something about the concept may belong in the main article about Sharansky, if not in a separate article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few citations to the article--Shrike (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the Natan Sharansky article because it's something important attributed to him that is quoted in WP:RS and fulfills WP:V. IZAK (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and deserves its own article, as evident by multiple reliable sources listed above. It's in its initial state, and may be expanded as most WP articles do. Noon (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Antisemitism, Redirect to Natan Sharansky. Both the term and the ideas are good but they fit better into a larger context then to stand alone. Joe407 (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Noon. Ankh.Morpork 18:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge what is retrievable. Wikipedia has numerous articles on antisemitism, most of them poorly written. Rather than endlessly forking out more themes, it would be advisable to select the central ones, work intensely on them, with an eye to a uniform GA and eventually FA quality. Proliferation is not encyclopedic, and distracts from our primary obligation to write strong reliable and comprehensive articles on core subjects like this.Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the sources that have been brought here, and the rest that are out there, I am not seeing a reason to delete or merge. Wikipedia should not be suppressing information on an interesting topic (this poignant test) that meets the requirements for having an article. Сол-раз (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2012 (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 06:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources are provided to show that the topic is notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claims made by the Nom do not hold water. For example being poorly written is not agrounds for deltion, but for compy editing. The lack of creditable sources now appears more like a lack of WP:Before or worse. The problem of sourcing does not require deletion/merge as its remedy. It should be handled by tagging the disputed facts, and since the article does mostly deals with defining the 'test', this is again does not hold water. BO | Talk 12:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable article and subject. Quality sources, such as those from Cambridge University Press are utilized. If an article is poorly written as the nom states, the correct course of action would be to improve the grammar or spelling and not to nominate the article for deletion. Sourcing issues, if any exist, can be addressed by requesting citations for disputed or questionable facts. The delete nomination is therefore without merit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The primary reason for the nominator's request was lack of adequate sourcing. My prior response to that was that if sources were lacking, citation tags could be added. However, it appears now that the article is robustly sourced with high quality, reliable and verifiable sources. I believed that the initial request for deletion was erroneous and continued retention of the deletion request by the nominator is somewhat disingenuous given the quantitative and qualitative improvement in sourcing.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're using google, adding the space in Anti semitism will yield many more results. --Bachrach44 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd been doing some research and waffling back and forth between keeping and doing a marge and redirect per IZAK till I came across this sentence in the Washington Post: ... the accepted definition of Jew-hatred (authored by Natan Sharansky and adopted by the State Department as U.S. policy). Being adopted as official US policy kinda cements it for me as a keep. I'll add that info to the articles lead in a few minutes. --Bachrach44 (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also Also see Criticism_of_the_Israeli_government#cite_note-86 other mentions on wikipedia where it was used on the house floor. I'm also seeing lots of references in books. I'll admit that the version that was initially brought here left much to be desired, but with some work, linking, and better citations this should be a perfectly good article. --Bachrach44 (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to meet the minimum requirements for WP:NOTABILITY as it has at least two WP:RSs (Judaken and Marcus). According to Judaken, it is the most well-known test of its kind. I do not know whether this is a mainstream view or not, as I lack the required expertise. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The author was premature in his taking his article out of mainspace, but returning a problematic article to its author is one of the acceptable alternatives, and he is now aware of concerns toward COI. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Mob Zombie

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

Contested prod. Movie with no assertion of notability. No non-primary sources. The article boasts a filming budget of $0. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could be potentially speedy deleted for pure unambiguous advertising, but something in me believes that this guy will try to come back on to use Wikipedia as his own personal publicity site, so I think it might be worth the time to salt the article. As for sources, there's nothing out there to show that this film is notable. I've found one sole source that could be used, but other than that it's all primary sources. [34]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also found nothing to make me think that this project has any notability. Quite a bit of self-promotion but nothing much (other than Tokyogirl79's cite, which I confess I would probably have missed, well done!) that qualifies as reliable sources. I'd be looking for more relentless recreation activity before salting but I agree, the potential seems close to the surface. Ubelowme _U ^Me 14:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, it's not written from an NPOV. "Our cast...." does not show an NPOV. Also, it seems someone promotional and spammy. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for all your input. I assure you that the problems with this article are the result of this being my first input on Wikipedia. I did not notice that the language I was using seemed biased, and I have removed all of the sections that were causing the problems. I have removed all the external links, and rewritten the content to try and fit the Wikipedia requirements. On the Wikipedia documentation it only says that a reference must exist from a non-biased third party, such as the reference found by Tokyogirl79. I happen to live in a small town with only 2 newspapers and I was featured on the front page of 50% of them. I find that to be notable. The one thing I do not agree with on this article for deletion is the unfounded claim that I would, "try to come back on to use Wikipedia as his own personal publicity site". If my article gets deleted according to the guidelines I assure you that I will not return to wikipedia with this article again. My article has been summarily dismissed by the commenters above. Also, the comment above has broken Wikipedia's own Wikietiquette rules which state, "Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people." Since no one on here knows me I take terrible exception to these comments, and I have made the edits requested by this panel. I believe my article should be kept on Wikipedia as long as it does continue to comply with the guidelines set up for this website. I apologize for any rookie mistakes I have made as far as this article is concerned, and I will continue to comply with the recommendations of this article for deletion. Also, thank you to who ever added my article citation. I also noted on the Flash Mob Zombie talk tab the article reference I just could not find the link and was not sure how to make a reference on Wikipedia.Dfoulk1 (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we need several sources to show notability per WP:NFILMS. One source does not show a depth of coverage enough for an article to be kept. For any given article we need about 3-5 sources to help show notability and in some cases that isn't even enough if the sources aren't in-depth enough, have all been released within the same time period, or use one source (press releases, other news stories, etc) as their subject. As for the comment, it was not meant to be negative. It was me calling it as I saw it, which was that you came on to Wikipedia to add your own personal movie to the website in an attempt to gain publicity. It's something that many people do, which is why I said it. Your edits seemed to suggest more than a passing familiarity with Wikipedia, so I assumed that you were somewhat aware of the protocol. Even if it was a little "bite the newbie", the concerns still stand that the article was written in a highly promotional manner (which has been dealt with for the most part) and there's only one source to the article, which isn't enough to show lasting notability. There's just no notability here and we can't keep articles on the basis that it might one day achieve notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a web designer and I am familiar with many languages so I just made my page the best I could based on what I could find that others had done as far as formatting goes. I did not realize I needed so many sources, and if my page must be removed can it go back to the sand box until such sources can be made available. I would hate to lose all the work I put into my initial endeavor on wikipedia over a simple misunderstanding of proper posting procedures.Dfoulk1 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that, but I would highly recommend that you get someone with Wikipedia:WikiProject Film to assist you throughout in order to keep there from being any big conflict of interest with you editing an article about something that you are heavily involved with and stand to gain from. I personally recommend the user Schmidt, as he's one of the coordinators of the project and is a wealth of information. 06:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Userfy this to User:Dfoulk1/sandbox/Flash Mob Zombie per the request above. And to User:Dfoulk1... you can ask me to do this even if this gets deleted. I encourage you study the inclusion criteria set for films by WP:NF, to see that sometimes it is simply Too Soon for a film article. If the film is not covered in multiple reliable sources, it will be difficult to show it as notable. And another concern is your username... it leads us to believe you may be the film's creator David P. Foulk. I would advise strongly that you read WP:NAY and understand Wikipedia;s concerns toward conflict of interest when an editor writes about something with which he has a too close a personal interest. And even after getting it back, seek input and advice from others and have it doubly and triply checked to be sure it qualifies for inclusion... and then have the reviewing editor place it in article space. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved I have moved the page Flash Mob Zombie to the new namespace User:Dfoulk1/sandbox/Flash Mob Zombie as listed in the post above. Thank you Schmidt for the links to the information. Now I have two questions. 1. Is it ok to remove the deletion notices from the page User:Dfoulk1/sandbox/Flash Mob Zombie? 2. What is the correct way to contact some one through Wikipedia, say Schmidt,to help this page get put back in the main wiki space when it is ready? Is there like a message function or chat somewhere that I have missed? Also just to be clear I definitely am David P. Foulk and have never said that I was not. I understand the need to remain nuetral but I only posted the page because I thought I met the criteria, and also because I thought who better to tell people the gritty details of my project but me. No one else but me could ever know all of the things that happened during filming or even about the information that some people may want to know about this movie, and I just thought that would make the article more detailed eventually. I never meant to break the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Thank you all for your help. Dfoulk1 (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Koyzis

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

Non-notable author fails WP:GNG (multiple independent reliable sources giving substantial coverage), as well as alternative criteria at WP:AUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. This article was previously deleted here according to consensus; nothing has made this subject any more notable. JFHJr (㊟) 05:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Earlier AfD continues to apply. See Ecclesiastes 1:2. This is just one in an apparent walled garden of articles, all by the same editor, about non-notable faculty at a ~~50(!)-student~~ 50-staffmember, 250-student "University" -- see the linked names at List_of_Redeemer_University_College_faculty. Anyone feel like taking this on? EEng (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) P.S. Don't forget to turn him into a pillar of WP:SALT. Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."[reply]
Delete -- does not pass GNG, Author, or PROF. But a recreation after 7 years isn't enough grounds for a SALT; our policies have changed since 2005, just not enough to make this bio notable. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Agrawal

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

This subject fails WP:GNG for lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources that could actually produce an encyclopedic biography. The subject also fails alternative criteria such as WP:ACADEMIC (quality/quantity of publications, h-count indications, and reviews; and WP:ANYBIO for awards and notable contributions. JFHJr (㊟) 05:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although a cursory search turns up a few hits for this researcher, most are faculty pages and none are appropriate independent sources which could provide verifying detail to the subject of this article. Snow (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- it's true the sources available don't enable writing a good biography. What might hold us back from deleting is that his work has a large number of citations (see GS link). The article was originally created by his students and has had to be chopped down, and if kept it would likely stay that way -- not a credit to Wikipedia, so it's no great loss if deleted (with re-creation possible at a later point if appropriate). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this person was a professor, I would have to say keep. But according to his profile, he's an associate professor and many Universities have AP's who are 1 level below professors. Unless he has published many important or noteworthy books, I lean towards delete reluctantly. It looks like he isn't that notable at present, so delete it is. --Artene50 (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several of his publications have hundreds of citations (one even over 1000), which is way beyond what we usually take to satisfy WP:PROFcriterion #1. That he's an associate professor is immaterial. The article seems to have started as yet another disastrous class assignment, but has been pared and toned down to acceptable levels.--Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep with an h-index around 40 a very clear pass of WP:Prof#C1, 20 would be enough. I do not understand the nominator's rationale here. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I think the concern is that there is only one independent source confirming any of the content on the page -- the other cited sources are just a CV and some faculty pages. We're told he's contributed to three book but not if he is a primary author or if the books are anthologies of shorter works., and none of that information is contextualized in the article (in fact, it has no analysis or synthesis of his work whatsoever, aside from a one-sentence reference to the afore-mentioned article in Nature. We don't see him any evidence of him being cited by fellow researchers or influencing his field beyond that of the average researcher. Here's the wording from the policy you cited: "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." and "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work -- either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". Also h-indexes are really more of a shorthand, not a guarantee of notability as they A) are controversial and B) can be inconsistent, turning up significantly varied indexes depending on who calculates them and how they approach the material. Anyway, it's not replacement for valid sourcing. Now, arguably the one Nature article that we do have sourced sells him alone, but I'd say that's iffy. But if we can get a confirmation on (and, minimally, the title and subject matter for) his publication in Science, for example, and a little bit of synthesis as to his work and why it is relevant, then we'd be in business. As it is, I wasn't surprised to learn of the origins of the page because at present all it says, in essence, is that he's a researcher. But that's not good enough to address WP:GNG or WP:Prof - for our purposes here we require context to demonstrate why his work is worth note. Now I'm not saying that the sources don't exist (it seems likely they do if his faculty page proves to be a fair representation of his productivity) and that he might not pass those bars once we find them, I'm just saying that proof is not yet in evidence, despite several people doing some digging for it (or at least, I have, to little effect). Snow (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "We don't see him any evidence of him being cited by fellow researchers or influencing his field beyond that of the average researcher"? If hundreds of citations to several different papers and an h-index of 40 are not evidence of this, then what is? And why is the title of his Science publications important (and besides, why is it a problem to find that)? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of hits, yes, but google returns only faculty and CV pages that I can see, and JSTOR and google scholar seem to have mostly only his articles. I haven't found him cited once by a non-primary source. Again, I'm fairly sure such citations must exist, but I still have not seen one in evidence, despite opening dozens of pages. If someone can find just a few, I will reverse my position. And as to the Science article, I was just using it as an example, but I think if a work is going to be referenced in the article we ought to know what it concerns and how it is relevant to his area of research, don't you? I actually did find it here, but it still needs contextualizing. Right now the page is devoid of biographical content and of any explanation of what his field of expertise is (outside political science in general) and how he's contributed to it. Easily fixable with the right sources, of course. Snow (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep per WP:ACADEMIC. Those who are saying "Delete" should review that essay, which specifically EXEMPTS notable scholars from having to have lots of coverage from independent sources - based on the journalistic fact that papers rarely write about such people. The enormous citation rate of this person demonstrates his impact on the field. The biographical details can then be filled in from non-independent sources such as his faculty page. Per the guideline, "for the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details." --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Buzza

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

fails WP:BIO. possibly WP:AUTOBIO. A run of the mill executive. Awards won are minor, and coverage merely confirms he has held roles but nothing in-depth [35]. LibStar (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 17:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 17:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:BIO, self promotion created by Nathan Buzza himself, under his Allurecapital (talk · contribs) account. --Hu12 (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, for example, [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

almost all of those sources are from wa business news, he needs wider coverage, not just confirming he won a minor award, or merely making comments in the media which is not in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that those 11 sources together fail WP:GNG? If so, how? Unscintillating (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could find 10 sources on my local police station, doesn't mean it is notable. WP:GNG requires covering the subject in detail. LibStar (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states (bold added), "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.^[1]" Are you saying that these eleven sources fail to contribute to WP:GNG because they are each trivial mentions? How is this possible when in eight of the articles, Buzza is named in the title of the article? Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan buzz a doesn't get coverage in major Australian news outlets, which you would expect given his greatness. See my searches for news.com.au an ABC Australia [47] , [48]. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is an encyclopedia article about Buzza with 18 references. Unscintillating (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

almost all of those 18 refs are not in depth. Winning minor awards does not mean you pass WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage in MULTIPLE reliable sources; as pointed out by LibStar, all the sources that seem to be about him are from a single outlet, Western Australian Business News. That does appear to qualify as a reliable source, but according to Google News Archive it also seems to be the ONLY Reliable Source that ever said anything about him; everything else is press releases. Wouldn't you think he might have been mentioned at least once by the Sydney Morning Herald [49] for example? --MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manic Digger

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

Not a notable software, really outdated, and the article is written as a guide rather than as an article Wjykk (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 01:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed^talk _stalk 03:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Software that's still under development. I can't see anything that looks like a reliable source. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any reliable independent source covering the game. Del per WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable 3rd party refs to establish notability of this software. Dialectric (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Narcicyst

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

no notability based on reliable sources التاريخ معلم (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is coverage of The Narcicyst in Matthews, David (8 March 2012), "Arab MC-turned-scholar keeps it real (and brief)", The Times Higher Education Supplement and Dwyer, Michael (22 August 2004), "Rap pack passes its Dubai date", The Age and Griffin, John (31 August 2010), "Looking for a place in Dubai to fit in; Montreal rapper plays underdog in a world that's rapidly changing", Montreal Gazette and a little in "Iraqi-born hip-hopper The Narcisyst helps re-gild the image of jazz", The Star, 9 July 2010. He was a member of a notable band, Euphrates. Coverage in Jayoush, Kinda (23 August 2003), "Rap group Euphrates aims to build bridges: Release first CD. Montreal threesome of Iraqi origin promote peace", Montreal Gazette (republished in Winnipeg Free Press, 24 August 2003) and "Suffering from Iraqnaphobia?", Calgary Herald, 28 March 2003 and Grant, Alyson (28 March 2003), "Hip-hop with a Mideast flavour", Montreal Gazette and "Artist united East and West", Montreal Gazette, 3 December 2004, Cohen, Eric (23 August 2003), "Mash-up mixes unlikely styles", Montreal Gazette has a little more and says they "will be featured in a coming issue of Time Magazine Canada." Significant part in a notable film, City of Life. Coverage in Quilty, Jim (15 December 2009), "Criminals, cabbies and car crashes in Dubai's demi-monde", Daily Star and Simon, Alissa (23 August 2003), "City of Life", Daily Variety and Griffin, 2010. Notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2012 (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) 03:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Duff has demonstrated that a number of independent and evaluative sources exist for the subject. Snow (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice sourcing work by duffbeerforme. Unscintillating (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Vallo

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

This subject fails WP:GNG unambiguously (on both substantial coverage, and multiple independent reliable sources), and does spectacularly worse under alternative criteria at WP:CREATIVE and WP:NACTOR. His biography seems to have been created by friend and colleague Z.D. Smith, whose sole purpose is unapologetic promotion. JFHJr (㊟) 19:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep In doing some WP:BEFORE for this person, it does appear that he and his filmmaking have been covered in multiple reliable sources,[50][51] and this would then give us a tweaking at WP:ENT and WP:FILMMAKER through WP:GNG. But until I sit down and dig through the sources to determine whether or not the article can be improved, my keep will only be "tentative". While the article author has now been notified of Wikiedia's concerns toward WP:COI, and has now engaged in explanation and discussion, it is worth noting that (as of this comment) his last edit to the article was seven months ago on November 19, 2011.[52]‎ If he continues to stay awy from the topic, we might then be less concerned abou 7-month-old edits and instead address concerns through regular editing. If unable to determine notability guidelines as being met, even if weakly, I will be back to strike and then go for a delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A fairly small article like this seems justified by the source material.Squareanimal (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2012 (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) 03:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Independent sources (local newspaper articles, mostly) exist and just barely pass muster as evaluative and appropriate for citation. Snow (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — What sources in particular indicate he passes WP:NACTOR? What substantial coverage is any good for a biographic entry you'd expect to see in an encyclopedia? All I find are two bit roles and passing coverage. The deeper the coverage, the less it is about this person. JFHJr (㊟) 16:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in response. Here are the sources I was referring to: 1, 2, 3 - all highly localized in relevance and not exactly dripping with biographic info, but they do seem to give some detail as to his background and analyze his work and production efforts a bit. To be honest, I completely missed your mention about the WP:COI issues, but speaking solely to the sources, they are borderline, no doubt, but going by the letter of policy I'd give them a narrow pass. Snow (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – per the sources presented above by User:Snow Rise. This person appears to meet WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: withdrawn by nominator (non-admin). JFHJr (㊟) 22:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Another B Movie

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

This film does not pass WP:GNG (lacks multiple reliable sources giving sunbstantial coverage) as well as WP:NFILM (failing all alternative indications of notability there). Currently, sources that have published "reviews" are not reliable or well-known at all. This article is a WP:COI creation by Z.D. Smith (Zedudems (talk · contribs)), who has edited extensively and admittedly simply to promote himself and his films. JFHJr (㊟) 17:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per topic meeting the requisites at WP:NF by yes... having multiple reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage. My own BEFORE found such as DVD Talk, DVD Verdict, Courier News, and JoBlo... emmienently suitable as sources for independent spoof films even if the nominator found them in his own BEFORE and feels them "not reliable or well-known at all". Further, and in appreciateing the nominator bringing us concerns toward the author's COI, it must be noted that the author's last edit to this article was six months ago on December 29, 2011.[53] He's stayed away from it since then. And while sure, the thing had sat unimproved since then, when an author is made aware of issues and refrains from editing an article, the best way to address issues is through a watch eye and regular editing such as THIS. More to do, certainly... and while this is not the "most" notable earth-shaking film ever, it has just enough coverage as a topic to be notable enough for us. In remembering WP:IMPERFECT and WP:WIP, it is rarely required to delete an article on a notable topic if issues are otherwise addressable through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:51, 1 July 2012 (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) 03:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt. I can see the argument that reviews from Rock! Shock! Pop! and Upchuck Undergrind might not be valid since they seem to be non-notable review blogs, but the other review and news sites listed are considered to be very reliable sources for movie reviews and information. Every article could always use more sources, but this one has enough to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has sufficient coverage to meet film notability requirements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet criteria for Wiki inclusion. Simply needs more sourcing. The film itself seems notable enough. ExRat (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jason Mraz. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Rivera

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for musicians or the general notability guideline (contested prod). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jason Mraz, his collaboration with him is his only sign of notability.Cavarrone (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During a live performance on his newest album, Jason Mraz notes Mr. Rivera's lack of a Wikipedia article; it is unlikely that deleting this article will prevent it from returning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.99.60 (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, during a live performance on his newest album, Jason Mraz notes Mr. Rivera's lack of a Wikipedia article; it is unlikely that deleting this article will prevent it from returning. There is a digital record of it. As long as that data lives, so will this page :) It could be scripted, unless you .htaccess'ed it. But there are novel ways around that I am sure. The dude his a digital record, leave him alone.— Preceding earthgecko comment added by earthgecko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthgecko (talk • contribs) 22:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Mraz article were he is mentioned, no independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saga Petroleum LLC

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

"49th largest private company in Colorado" is pretty feeble claim to fame. Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This companies profits exceed $100,000,000 a year and "is one of the largest, privately-held independent petroleum and natural gas producers in the United States" Seasider91 (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply - no, they have REVENUES in excess of US$100,000,000 - a very different thing. As to the latter assertion: it remains unsourced. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2012 (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) 03:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Privately-held oil exploration company about which I could find no significant coverage.[54] Once in a while they get a mention when they buy or sell an asset, but nothing ABOUT the company. Fails WP:FIRM. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey

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

Maybe affiliated with a corporation (User name was something like this, he changed it). Person who created it is involved with this, maybe bias and advertising. Obtund^Talk 03:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although many of the references are primary and published by the group itself, there is enough coverage in reliable, independent sources to convince me that the group is notable. Possible affiliation with a corporation (they often donate to non-profits) is not a reason for deletion. If nominator detects bias and advertising, remove and correct such shortcomings through the normal editing process. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't sense any bias in it - in fact, I helped removed it during the AFC stage of the article. Mdann52 (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 15:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 15:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 15:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of primary newspaper sources here such as the New Jersey news, philly.com, a NY Times blog site. It looks like an environmental foundation. --Artene50 (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage to prove WP:GNG Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Moorings, New York

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparently non-notable subdivision. Two passing mentions in The New York Times, neither of which come close to in-depth coverage (these refs recently restored from the page history by the nominator as part of the due diligence for this AfD). Only two useful incoming links (previously three, but one was pointing to the wrong Moorings). Google search doesn't find anything of use, perhaps beause Moorings is a generic word and New York is a very big place. This has been up for AfD previously, but a very long time ago. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure what the nom is talking about, but page two of the New York Times reference goes very in-depth about this community. [55] --Oakshade (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 15:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple mentions in the Times? That's going a long way of the ultimate reliable source towards significant coverage. I also think this neighborhood might pass. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly familiar with the geography, but isn't the New York Times a local paper in this context? Stuartyeates (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Kite

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

Doesn't seem notable. Sources are mostly search results showing articles she's written. Very little actual biographical content. An IP tried to nominate the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~Keep My somewhat exhaustive search failed to turn up an independent an appropriate source which examines the woman herself, but did turn up many examples of her work as well as significant analysis of same in the blogsphere. While at present the article does not pass WP:GNG, I suspect appropriate sources will eventually turn up. Snow (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a byline in multiple national newspapers and periodicals and appearing on Question Time passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Note that when she appeared on QT this caused people to look her up on Wikipedia. She didn't have an article at the time and this generated adverse comment. Warden (talk) 09:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean WP:AUTHOR, right? In any event, all articles based on a person must meet WP:GNG guidelines in addition to whatever Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines that may apply. I've still yet to find an independent article that gives any detail to her background or analyzes her work. Snow (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean WP:ENTERTAINER which includes opinion makers as that seems the most fitting description for the pundits who appear on Question Time. Wikipedia:Notability (people) is a guideline too and, just being guidelines, these pages are not hard rules. The key point here is this is a person who is regularly in the public eye and so should not be a red link. If there isn't a lot of biographical material about her then we just have a short stub which sticks to the known facts. This is not a problem nor a reason to delete. Warden (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're still going to need at least one solid reference (putting aside the debate of whether or not GNG is ironclad, there's no way this things survives AfD without an appropriate secondary source). But I don't think it's an issue - she gets enough attention that I can't imagine there's not something out there. Snow (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Dimbleby usually gives a potted bio of the members of the panel on QT as he introduces them. Perhaps someone can watch this and tell us what he says. If he confirms what the article says then we're good. Warden (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just found the edition on YouTube here. Dimbleby describes her as "the Spectator columnist Melissa Kite". Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, good enough for me. If either of you chooses to add it, just be sure to use the formal link and not youtube, but I guess that probably goes without saying. Snow (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Believe it or not, I just added the YouTube link in error because my copy/paste of the BBC link apparently didn't work first time round. But I've fixed it now. Interestingly, I've only just realised this is still available to watch on iPlayer. They usually go offline after 7 days. Worth remembering for future reference. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Warden. Journalist whose articles have appeared in multiple publications, and described on BBC's Question Time as a Spectator columnist. Passes WP:ENT, WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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