Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 5

< 4 April	6 April >

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 as per consensus and the absence of deletion requests beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament athletic metaphors[edit]

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

This article appears to be original research assembled by the editor from various sources, none of which have collected this information independently. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. Xtzou (Talk) 00:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Radagast3 (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nom makes no sense: the article is not original research: it cites 7 different books, as well as relevant primary sources. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure which definition of OR the nom is using here, but these appear to be a series of passages within the primary sources which have received sufficient commentary in secondary sources. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment im really not sure if this is OR or not. My question would be: is it notable? lots of the refs are from religious publishers, not academic. considering the fairly good size of the new testament (of course, still much smaller than the old), would it be at all surprising that sports metaphors would be used at least sporadically? I would like to see if some of the references actually state that they feel this is a notable phenom. I would also like to see if other religious texts use athletic metaphors, or not. This article may be harmless, but i still think it needs something more to make it right.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the sheer volume of Christian literature using the metaphor makes it notable. As the article points out, the metaphor is not unique to Christianity, but has its origins in the fact that the relevant sections of the New Testament were written in the same part of the world that gave us the Olympic Games. I would certainly be interested in seeing an article on sports metaphors in other religions.

I'm not sure of the distinction between religious and academic publishers which you're trying to make. Some of the references are academic works outside the Christian context, others are books written by academics specialising in New Testament studies. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' major rtopic, significant references available. ALL acceptable wp articles are prepared by assembly information from various sources. To do so is not OR. Quite the contrary, to not do so would mean writing the material based on one's own knowledge, and that is what would be OR. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep under 2.1. Not only was this nominated while it was in the middle of being created (it is roughly twice the length of when it was nominated), but there is absolutely no cause for this edit - User:Xtzou re-inserted a prod and threatened an AfD. StAnselm (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. As the "find sources" above shows, there are no references in the literature or relevant academic articles on "New Testament athletic metaphors". This article is a collect of statements and phrases that the article's editor is interpreting to be "athletic". Therefore it is original research. (In fact, many of them seem to refer more generally to game strategy or "life" strategy and not specifically to athletics.) And the image used in the article is an Ancient Greek vase showing the Panathenaic Games (566 BC), and the Ancient Greeks were not Christians and had nothing to do with the New Testament. Xtzou (Talk) 11:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote from the nom seems to reflect some misunderstandings, and misses the 2920 books found by Google. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per:

DGG - major topic, encyclopedic
StAnselm - well-sourced, see WP:RS; vexacious, see WP:Speedy
Radagast3, Jcelemns, and DGG - it is not under the rubrics of WP:OR as the consensus feels
WP:OUTCOMES - commonly we keep such major issues in religion
WP:HEY - it has been improved since the nomination. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as others said.David V Houston (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Balmer (artist)[edit]

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

no indication of meeting WP:ARTIST noq (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are provided to meet WP:N, as they are not apparent in the article, which is due to be deleted as a copyvio at the moment. This is what it looked like.[1] Ty 21:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I founds this local coverage. But I can find no indications for major exhibitions, awards, or other critical recognition that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackblood alliance[edit]

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

Non-notable comic, repeatedly deleted (via speedy/proposed deletion) both under this title and as Blackblood Alliance. Delete. (Contested WP:PROD.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources to establish this as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I too can find no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Suspect this work of fiction has not even been published yet. Reyk _YO! 04:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kidz Comixz[edit]

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

Contested PROD, no sign of being notable. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 23:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also previously speedied. Looks like a single purpose account here for promotion of a non-notable company. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 23:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable andy (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 4 Google hits, of which 3 relate to wikipedia tells the story. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MYXX[edit]

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

These girls are a sight for sore eyes but the group as a whole doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. I can't verify anything listed in the article, their debut album doesn't even appear to be in production, and the article's link to their official website is dead. In addition, Google only comes up with MySpace links and other blogs, and the official website of their record label barely mentions them. Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding sources for notability. Deadlink of official site is not a good sign. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous things that I did not add myself, fans added them instead so I have been trying to delete some of the subheadings of the article. Their record label does mention them just as much as they mention their other 3 recording artists and also have one of Myxx's songs on their playlist, their song that is on the playlist is called 'Headache'.(Laydee Lyca 21:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laydee Lyca (talk • contribs)

If you want to delete the MYXX article, that's absolutely fine with me because I think they need to release their debut album before a wiki article should be written about them. With this being said, they are nice girls so they don't deserve for you to say their a sight for sore eyes, if you don't like them that's fine but I'd rather you keep it to yourself or at least keep it strictly professional and just get the article deleted. (Laydee Lyca 21:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laydee Lyca (talk • contribs)

Um...saying someone is "a sight for sore eyes" is a compliment. Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok, well if the article must be deleted, I'm fine with it because there's just no point of having the article there if they don't meet the criteria, I'll just make a wiki article for them once their debut album comes out because that will be more appropriate. (Laydee Lyca 11:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laydee Lyca (talk • contribs)

Delete - Coverage in reliable sources are lacking. Perhaps when they've actually released an album things might change. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think it would be better once they release their album because right now there's not much to right about them.(Laydee Lyca 20:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laydee Lyca (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greatdad.com[edit]

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

Fails Wp:WEB and is borderline speedy for advertising. Creators only two contributions are to this article and the CEO so also a possible WP:COI SKATER ^Speak. 23:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news or sources found. Just a links to the official site, Twitter accounts, other dad sites, how to be a good dad from other sites, and stuff unrelated to the site. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this mention as part of those "here's some interesting sites" lists in a newspaper. But that's all. Not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Vamps (film) and redirect to Amy Heckerling until more sourcing becomes available. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vamps(movie)[edit]

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

Film that hasn't been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography (per WP:NFF) and per WP:CRYSTAL). Taken to AfD after IP contested the WP:PROD Jarkeld (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been cleaned significantly to meet Wiki standards by user: MichaelQSchmidt also listed on the filmography of a number of noteworthy actors:Sigourney Weaver, Alicia Silverstone and Krysten Ritter, it gives wikipedia readers a chance to learn more about these projects when they check out these profiles.Pumkinhead001 (talk)

Delete or incubate without prejudice toward recreation. The project has been getting coverage since 2009 [2][3] and is now "officially" in pre-production. If and/or when this one begins filming, let's bring it on back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amy Heckerling, the director. Restore it when there are sources indicating it's in production. dissolve ^talk 20:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amy Heckerling. First, I recommend revising the article to be in good condition, then to redirect it to the director's article, where we can also write a paragraph about the film. If the late April start does take place, we can remove the paragraph and undo the redirect. Erik (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think the article is in good condition and also there are other noteworthy people involved with the movies besides Amy Heckerling. RegardsPumkinhead001 (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pumkinhead001, the reason the article is nominated for deletion is that it is not a certainty that this film will be made. Since the project is mainly Amy Heckerling's, I recommend merging to err on the side of caution. If the film does not start production for some reason, readers can get brief coverage of the project at the director's article. If filming does begin, then we can have a full article till the end of time. Erik (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have modified above to "incubate", because (and as I have now added such to the article) it IS getting press that pushes at WP:CRYSTAL... and so if incubated, editors can work on it as the asserted "late April" production nears. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough notable news sources on the movie already that it is able to override WP:CRYSTAL, as it says there "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." We know this movie will have an article when it is released and the amount of pre-coverage should be enough that it can be incubated until then. Silver seren^C 00:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet enough substance, maybe in a few months or a year when it comes closer to release. Str8cash (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you are opposed to incubation? Silver seren^C 21:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not opposed to that idea, i just feel at this time there isn't enough reliable information on this film to keep the article. I'd lean towards a Merge or Redirect also if that seems more helpful at the end of the day. Str8cash (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is there not enough reliable information with the sources in the article? Silver seren^C 06:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Apes[edit]

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

After 4 years still and orphaned article of not notable band. Uyta (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found no news on this band. All I found was their MySpace, places to download their music, and lyric sites. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the article is a copyright violation. --Uyta (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Nuujinn (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage duffbeerforme (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result was: Nominator withdrawn - I think the fork is unnecessary, and procedure was certainly not followed, but I'll take the initiative to clean it up and refactor both pages appropriately. Shadowjams (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Governorship of Ronald Reagan[edit]

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

This is a content fork (actually a straight copy-paste) out of the Ronald Reagan#Governor of California, 1967–1975. I don't think there's sufficient reason to fork it out yet, and I'm not sure that the editor who did it is expanding it beyond its current scope, nor has that editor reduced the original article's section down as a result.

Would change my mind if the fork has some interest or shows sign of expanding, but I don't see that happening right now. Shadowjams (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main article is quite long (169K), so a fork is reasonable. It just needs to be summarized in the parent. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, I'm just saying that despite the parent article's size, the WP:SPINOUT guidelines caution against ad-hoc forks. This looks like the posterchild of that kind of concern. But I understand your point too. If this closes as keep, a lot of work needs to be done to refashion the fork article into a stand-alone. For instance, right now (absent one change of mine), the fork doesn't link to Ronald Reagan at all. Kinda strange given it's about his governorship. That's the problem with copy-paste spinouts like this. Not to mention they violate the copyright license of the previous creators because they aren't credited.
We don't lose any information in deleting this fork because nothing new's been added. Shadowjams (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' It's an extremely reasonable fork, not an ad hoc fork. The period in which someone held a particular office is an obvious and natural subdivision, used in hundreds of biographical articles. If someone took the year 1971 and made a separate article out of that while leaving the rest in the main article, that is what would be an inappropriate fork. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the method the fork was completed, not the topic, which is what I take the spinout guideline to refer to as well. Shadowjams (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical Code of the Yôgin[edit]

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

My Prod of the page was disputed, so I will explain my reasonings here. This article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY; a search reveals no reliable sources, and the only sources in this article are primary sources. Furthermore, the article is more of an endorsement and an essay than a legitimate article. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What other sources would be necessary in order for this code of conduct to be considered legitimate material to put in wikipedia? There are three sources from books writen by Master DeRose, a respectable yogin and founder of the Union of Yoga in Brazil. There are also various interviews that have been carried out on Master DeRose in which he touches on the ethical code of the Yogin. These can be seen at www.uni-yoga.org

One of the most recent interviews to DeRose was made in 2009 by Portuguese journalist and writer António Mateus*. It was released on a DVD entitled “Conversas com Rumo”. The following caption languages are currently available: spanish, german, italian, The english version will soon be released (http://www.uni-yoga.org/entrevista_derose_tv.php). Also in April 2009 DeRose was interviewed by Portuguese State TV Channel TV2. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqHVm2u1T6I). On May 2007 he was the special guest of Portuguese TV show “Páginas Soltas”, hosted by Bárbara Guimarães http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T0pEOayeCc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evolution618 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see Wikipedia:Notability; I don't see independent, reliable sources that have discussed this code in depth. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article reads like an essay written by someone who read the philosophy of the two (and only two) books used as reference. It lacks the substance of an encyclopedia article. Cheers. Bagheera (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only a deep connoisseur of Yoga philosophy can agree with the veracity of this page. The 10 ethical codes of the Yogin written originally by Patanjali on his classical book, the Yoga Sutra, are really well commented by this professor. It should be kept and not deleted. Namastê!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacifici2010 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure I follow that first sentence. Which, I think, may be part of the issue. The article is written in such a way that other contributors can't really figure out what the article is trying to say. Perhaps this article could be subsumed into another part of the Wiki entries on Yoga? Bagheera (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I appreciate that this took some time to put together, and it appears to be important to the author - but we need reliable sources independent of the subject to show that the subject actually is important. I have no objection to userfication, if we can be assured that the additional work will happen; otherwise, delete. I note, also, that there may be other wikipedia-style projects for which this might be more appropriate - it may be worthwhile to explore other options if you still wish to post this material online. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7 - no credible assertion of notability, g11 - self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian'Que'Williams[edit]

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

I couldn't find any reliable sources for this musician / actor. Fails notability requirements. –Grondemar 22:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Sharington[edit]

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

BLP with notability issues - Unreferenced, independent bio of a member of a band whose biggest claim is having charted on a radio station that plays unsigned artists (fails WP:MUSICBIO). - Has been helping to write television theme music, though no evidence or claim of completed product exists (fails WP:MUSICBIO). - Has appeared in two Playboy Magazine off-shoot projects (true, but very difficult to WP:VERIFY with WP:RELIABLE sources, and most likely fails WP:GNG). - The article has been written primarily by a contributor who claims to be affiliated with the subject, and has contested a PROD without doing much to address its concerns. My search for source material has returned long lists of videos, images, blogs, message boards, social networking sites, wiki-mirrors, music-vendor catalogue pages, etc... but no solid evidence that reliable media coverage exists. -- WikHead (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think enough good faith effort has been put into trying to get this article into shape, but for all the work it doesn't seem that the subject can firmly meet any of the relevant notability criteria. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 20:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above. Notability has not been established. EuroPride (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. feel free to use editorial discretion on a redirect Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone OS4[edit]

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

Wikipedia does not predict the future. Only source for this article was a rumor site. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, clearly an obvious crystal violation. Truthsort (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - practically no information on a not-yet-existing product. LadyofShalott 23:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' It will not be crystal two days from now, by the time the afd period has concluded. Ref. E-Week which is no rumor site. There's a weird tendency around here , to doubt that the earth will continue to revolve around its axis. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now, now. Apple isn't quite that predictable is it? Or maybe it is… either way, if this has multiple confirmed reports, and the announcement is 99% likely to occur tomorrow, it's not quite as "crystal-ly" as I initially supposed. I drop my opposition. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Reuters among others. WP:CRYSTAL does not mean that wikipedia always looks backwards. These are the kind of one-line stubs that can end up as FAs. This appears sufficiently notable not to warrant a merge to iPhone OS but I'll defer judgment on that to the techo experts that will no doubt comment here. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GSMArena also states that OS4 will be released tomorrow, by then there will be plenty of information to include in the article tomorrow. Mikyt90 (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While Crystal could be invoked here, let's remember that it's generally for things far in the future. With the OS being released tomorrow, I think it's something that we can go ahead and keep and update rather than just delete. Dusti^{Insert Sly Comments} 15:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Technically, that doesn't necessarily mean it will happen (this is still rumor sites), but I'll grant, Apple operates this way with such regularity that it's not really a rumor, more of a controlled leak. I'm willing to withdraw my nomination for deletion, so long as people add a few (mostly) independent rumor site references to confirm the incredibly high likelihood that it would exist. Though this may still be more suited as an expansion of the general iPhone OS article, rather than its own article, that's not a discussion that needs to happen here. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to place this AFD nomination on hold for 24 hours to see if Apple makes a move? At that point, I'm sure there will be an abundance of information to add to the article. Dusti^{Insert Sly Comments} 16:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Honestly, we could just as soon close it. If it doesn't happen, we renominate it immediately (hell, in a sense, it might be eligible for CSD under the hoax criteria). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge People: it's not being released, it's being previewed. Let's merge this to iPhone OS until solid info comes out. fetchcomms☛ 21:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to IPhone OS 4 which has already been redirected. I think we do the same here until concrete info is out. If April 8 doesn't bring much more than more speculation, there's no need for it's own article yet. fetchcomms☛ 01:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to iPhone OS version history#4.0. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 20:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have an article for that? Definitely should be a redirect then; I see no compelling reason why it should be a separate article. As the original AfD nominator, am I able to change my vote to Redirect? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete/Already transwiki-ed - Article was deleted by User:KieferSkunk per CSD A1. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out Of Service[edit]

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

Dictionary entry; there's one at Wikitionary. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 20:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I applied the transwiki CSD template. Article seems to meet criteria. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ShadowRangerRIT. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, following my arguments it should be a speedy delete, not a keep. The article already exists on Wiktionary, so there is no need to transwiki. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Braun[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO completely. He is simply a person interviewed by Kinsey and mentioned by name in the movie and, I suppose, books. It is an incidental mention at best, and the person isn't notable - his sexual activity, while bizarre and illegal, is probably not notable either and should only be mentioned if made the subject of independent research. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 20:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well, unless some reliable sources can be provided to prove notability, this clearly fails WP:GNG. Truthsort (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 07:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged this article for rescue and added some sources. I believe that it should be notable. Silver seren^C 07:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G10 which, contrary to popular misconception, isn't limited to living persons. A poor attack page. It serves no purpose but to attack the subject: a clear G10. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - G10 speedy declined: I do not agree that attacking the subject is the only purpose of this page. JohnCD (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite apart from the WP:TONE issues (which could well cross the line into G10 territory), I'm not convinced they meet WP:GNG either, per nom/others above. The article says he was published in Kinsey's work as "Mr. X or Rex King" so making him a named individual and dedicating an article to his alleged exploits seems hardly necessary. Orderinchaos 14:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slaviša Ubiparipović[edit]

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

Non-notable soccer player who has never played professionally at any level; no notable collegiate or amateur experience; failed WP:GNG and WP:ATH JonBroxton (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Broxton is right-- he's not notable on his own, and he isn't entitled to a free pass under WP:ATHLETE Mandsford (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. College football isn't enough for WP:ATH. Could someone please enlighten me for future experience: what is the highest level of full professional football in the US? Is it the MLS? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment MLS is the highest professional league in the US, but there are actually three fully professional leagues: MLS, the USSF D2 Pro League, and the USL Second Division. Competitive appearances in any of those three leagues meet the standards to pass WP:ATH. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent, thank you. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Manson[edit]

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

fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can meet the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Deleted after initial AFD, survived 2nd AFD based on now-rejected "one-nomination" standard and on subject's claim of upcoming mainstream TV work, which never materialized. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Has not award's nominations in multiple years. No appearance on any television series. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1696323/ --Braghis (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is a very borderline case. I am not sure the article has been kept up to date. However, even if there were no wins in 2008 and 2009, I am not so sure that the nomination is so stale as to make deletion necessary yet. On the other hand since college athletes only get one calendar year to show professional experience if they have not won major awards, maybe this is due for deletion because there has only been one nomination and a two year void.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 09:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning toward Keep vote I have tagged this article for rescue.

"5 pornstars that prevail in the web" - Urgente 24
"Rookie of the Week: Candy Manson" - GameLink
"Jack's Playground: Big Ass Show 4" - X Critic

I have also added these three sources to the article. Silver seren^C 09:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and the sources in the article are either unreliable or trivial. She has some reliable coverage here, but its not enough to meet WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Epbr123 - Fails WP:PORNBIO and no significant coverage to pass GNG. EuroPride (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Was substantially expanded during the nomination period and consensus now seems to be that it passes the relevant notability guidelines. ~ mazca ^talk 17:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lexie Marie[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Survived initial AFD under now-rejected "one-nomination" standard. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Failure of WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG. EuroPride (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks to Epbr123's expansion. Passes PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple award nominations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per award nominations and industry coverage. Dismas|^(talk) 09:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG and PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Meets WP:BIO. There's some dispute over whether PORNBIO has consensus behind it, but since she meets BIO don't need to worry about that. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Chandrasekaran[edit]

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

PROD contested by WP:SPA anon … fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP … pure vanispamcruftisement for the subject and their NN company. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I put up the initial PROD. I see sources about the companies this person has been involved with and unreliable sources like IMDB, but not nearly enough significant coverage in reliable sources, especially for a BLP. Steven Walling 20:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 09:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 09:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added these sources to the article.

"DemoMobile: Pulling mobile workers into the enterprise flow" - Infoworld
"Logged out, Blogged in" - Silicon India
"Bay Area Schools Snare Top Prizes at Biz Plan Competition " - Internet News
"Openwave Executives Share Insights on Mobilizing the Internet at Upcoming International Events Through 2009" - Earth Times
"Carma Streams Into Film History" - XTV World
"For new tech products, her word can mean fame or ignomy" - San Jose Business Journal

They are enough to establish notability. Silver seren^C 09:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree. Like the other sources that were there previously, these are all one-sentence mentions or quotations by the subject. There is basically no substantive content about the person in those articles, and they're first, not "substantial coverage" like the guideline describes, and also useless for verifying details about him (other than the already obvious, like his place of work). If all it took was being quoted in a paper or magazine a few times to be notable, then even I'd meet WP:BIO. Steven Walling 22:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree … a long list of trivial references is not the same as "substantial coverage" … if you Google search all the instances of my name, you would have an even longer list, with assertions (and WP:RS links to WP:Verify them) that I was "the first to do" some rather impressive things, but I don't presume to meet the WP:BLP requirements … the criteria is quality, not quantity, and a collection of random quotes does not cut it. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two comments directly above compellingly demonstrate that the coverage presented about the subject does not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. The general notability guideline should be upheld here. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is substantive. Being a World Economic Forum YGL I think makes this substantive. The new links do a pretty good job of validating and referencing the assertions. I am confused because it seems like the initial concern was not enough references which has been addressed by the additions. Now is there a different concern?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.3.180.4 (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC) — 199.3.180.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Riots[edit]

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

No verifiable indication of it actually happening. Article creator claims to have been there. At the best WP:Original research. Some forum posts referring to it as a riot but nothing more. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on web and news search to substantiate a claim to notability. Favonian (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a reference - http://www.stourbridgenews.co.uk/news/7984097.Violence_erupts_at_EDL_protest/ with a link to a video. However, I don't really think the subject is suitable for Wikipedia - perhaps transwiki to Wikinews? Peridon (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/midlands-news/2010/04/03/edl-dudley-march-protesters-fight-among-themselves-as-2-000-descend-on-town-97319-26170561/ Peridon (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's in the news, but I don't think that the weekend incident would be historically notable. It's worth a mention in the articles about both organizations that were involved. Mandsford (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Dog[edit]

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

This song was written for God of War: Blood and Metal EP, an album whose article has been deleted. The song fails Wikipedia's notability criteria for singles. Neelix (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was unable to find enough of anything resembling significant overage to support an article. Rehevkor ✉ 18:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merge discussion may be continued on the article's talk page, but rough consensus deems the article and its original research concerns to be workable. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Core Curriculum (Columbia College)[edit]

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

PROD declined because this was taken to VfD *5* years ago. Current article is unreferenced and appears to be substantially original research. No objection to trimming and merging this content somewhere, but there's no clear target. Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Columbia College, Columbia University. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisment for Columbia. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' This is actually a vary famous curriculum, and a model for many other colleges. It is undoubtedly discussed in the various books about Columbia,but i will need to do some looking.. DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National influence. Some book quotes - "Of these, none was more important than the general education movement that was launched at Columbia University in 1919" [4], "Faculty at Columbia designed the first courses for this educational model" [5], "With its roots in the trivium and quadrivium, the modern history of the core curriculum owes much to the creation of courses at Columbia during and after the First World War..." [6]. It could use some work, sure, but I think if the history/influence aspects were expanded it would be too large to fit into the main article. Could the editors who see original research point those areas out on the article talk page? Novickas (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. No !votes for deletion, one !vote for keep, withdrawal by nominator. Non-admin close.—Kww(talk) 19:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Adams Wisner[edit]

Samuel Adams Wisner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics); (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
also Boston's Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Apparent self-release of an album on iTunes. Earlier versions accused him of manipulating iTunes sales to force a charting position, but WP:BADCHARTS discourages mention of iTunes and the sources didn't look 100% solid, so you'll have to look at this version for that. Also nominating his album, Boston's Boy —Kww(talk) 17:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bitten by Billboard's search facility again, which returns no results for "Sam Adams" as an artist. Closing AFD as Speedy Keep.—Kww(talk) 19:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP "Driving Me Crazy" single is inside Billboard Hot 100, as well as two other charts([7]), satisfying criterion number 2 OF WP:MUSIC. May also satisfy criteria 1, 7, or 11. Bro2baseball (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Matrix[edit]

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

Entire "John Matrix" page is 95% the plot summary from the Commando (film) page, with a comedy Facebook page as link. The character doesn't exist outside the film, and doesn't have any fictional biographical details outside of what is given in the film. The character may be notable, but only in connection with the film. Having a separate page for him seems pointless. Zyrxil (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable outside the film, and as Zyrxil notes, it's mostly a description of the plot that is already summarized in the article about the film (Commando (film)). I'm not sure where the additional biographical details come from, such as the character having been "born and raised in East Germany" (perhaps that was in the script, source isn't clear). There are links to a Facebook page and a website about famous "badasses", but neither of those seems notable either. If there had been a series of Commando films or even a sequel, this might have become more of a memorable character. I think that most people, however, would say "John who?". As with the names of Arnold's character in "Twins" or "True Lies" or "Last Action Hero", this will forever be the answer to a trivia question. Mandsford (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely non-notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Goldsmith[edit]

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

I am unable to locate any reliable sources (or any sources for that matter) to verify the subject's notability. I can't even find any mention of the book anywhere... Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 16:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search of WorldCat returned no evidence of the book, and the article offers no other evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davnor (talk • contribs)
Delete I was also unable to verify the subject. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources to verify the subject or to establish notability. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have searched, and I was unable to find sources for this article. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{I Heard It Through The Olive Branch} 22:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This person is not notable, and I found zero sources to verify that he even exists. There is a similarly-named biologist. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign this person or book even exists. Hairhorn (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any refs. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Natasha Black[edit]

Result: Delete (non-admin closure). The article has been deleted, but the AfD discussion was not closed. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable local musician. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant coverage. Barely above CSD quality. Note that I removed some negative unsourced material that was added twice by the creator. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing discussion as the article is deleted. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty International (Hong Kong)[edit]

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

A non-notable branch of Amnesty International that should be a section of the main article. Various editors (myself included) have tried to redirect the article to the main Amnesty International article but a series of IPs and SPA editors have reverted back. So delete, merge or redirect? Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to main organisation. This article is half WP:SPAM and half WP:Coatrack for Amnesty International's human rights campaign in China. Stuff that has been added specifically about the Hong Kong branch is all from Amnesty International's own website. So potentially only marginal notabilty for that branch if any. Polargeo (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real need for redirect. Polargeo (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:GNG, and then create a redirect to main article if editors feel that's needed. There is no evidence for the notability of the Hong Kong section; I see two non-primary sources, but since they are not in English I can't assess their significance, reliability or independence. The article is based overwhelmingly on primary sources; I lost count of the number of times I read a sentence starting with something like "Amnesty International Hong Kong" believes...", and Fred the Oyster is right that this article is being used as a WP:COATRACK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Michel Kore[edit]

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

Football player who has not played at a fully professional level; clearly doesn't meet wp:athlete or wp:n guidelines. PROD removed without explanation. I think that the article has been created as an advert by User talk:Heritagesoccerpro, an agent. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He plays for a team in the second tier of Ivorian football. Not too shoddy. Also represented her team at youth level which itself isn't too bad. Article does need re-writing though. Cls14 (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can tell, the Ivorian second division is not fully pro, and the international caps at the youth level do not confer notability. He therefore fails WP:ATHLETE, and there is insufficient coverage to merit keeping this article under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ATHLETE by a country mile and youth caps don't infer notability. Fails GNG by a long way as well due to lack of reliable significant sources. Big Dom 16:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gleason[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Although mayor of a city, this is a fairly small city, not a "major metropolitan area". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POLITICIAN says mayors are likely to be notable, but it looks like this one is not. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He's the mayor of a town of around 25,000 people, there is some very limited coverage that can verify that, and the coverage is in the Sun Journal, which appears to be a reliable source. However, I don't think it crosses the bar of "significant coverage" that the community has set for local politicians. The coverage is, in my view, too limited to form the basis of a reliable article. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. delete, If anyone wants it temporarily undeleted to transwiki just let me know Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Integrating weblogic 8.1 jms with Jboss 5.1[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I'll give credit to the contesting user that they've made an effort to prevent this from being promotional of any company or organization, but that's not why it was nominated for deletion in the first place. The fact is that it's a how-to guide, and Wikipedia is not a textbook or how-to. This was originally pointed out in the PROD when the nomination was made. role^player 15:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transwiki to WikiHow. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 20:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There been talk of transwiking to WikiBooks. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 20:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I concur with Andrewz111 here. It's well written and non-promotional, but belongs in a HowTo, not the main Wiki. Bagheera (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki I agree that this seems like good content, but it's not encyclopedic in nature. Resistor (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Vanstiphout[edit]

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

Unnotable musician. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator). Why is he not notable, in your opinion? There are sources about him, he has released two albums, he has played with very notable artists (Clouseau and Milow) and contributed to Milow's #1 album Coming of Age. He was nominated (one of four nominees, but he didn't win) for Best Musician at Belgium's most important music award. the MIA's. He is a member of de Laatste Showband, the band that performs daily in "De laatste show", a popular Flemish TVshow. He is obviously not extremely notable, but he is sufficiently notable to be included here. The article is not complete, he e.g. also contributed to Zap Mama's album 7, with Michael Franti and others. He also composed the song Shades for Stan Van Samang, which appeared on his 2007 platinum record Welcome Home[8]. van Stiphout's 2004 album "Motion" reached #39 in the Belgian hitparade,[9] which means that he matches criterium 2 of WP:MUSIC. Fram (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of your arguments seem to comply with the notability guidelines. It's unclear in what exactly he contributed to Zap Mama & Milow's albums from the article. "De laatste show" doesn't even have an article here (plenty of other flemish TV-programmes have). I don't know if being a composer for a album song by a relatively unknown artist (Stan Van Samang) is an argument. Nevertheless, it may be easier to verify his notability if you can search and add more sources in english. The only criterium that he seems to meet is the charts position, and that isn't mentioned in the article. Cheers, --Maashatra11 (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in the article, taken together with Fram's explanation above, show notability. I can't be bothered to look up the policy right now, but surely a deletion rationale of "just not notable" is a reason for a "speedy keep" – if not, it should be. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he's been a member of notable bands, was nominated for a top award, and is cited in one of the references as "the cream of Belgian studio musicians" so he's obviously notable. What's the point of this AfD? andy (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Fram's comment I have been convinced of his notability, so I withdraw.--Maashatra11 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 private engineering institutes of India[edit]

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

Unreferenced, unverifiable, and appears to be original research. Along with the fact that it's not really encyclopedic content, I don't see that this article is fit for inclusion. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be entirely WP:OR. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 15:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. CTJF83 chat 02:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Dreams In My Little World[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL - upcoming album with no release date, full tracklist, or significant coverage. –Chase (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: That "unconfirmed" in the lead says it all, and the content is beyond unlikely, bordering on hoax. WP:CRYSTAL violation at the very least.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty straightforward, based on WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Rumors and speculation are for Twitter. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a rumor that has been taken too far. We can write an article about the album after it is actually (officially) released. Selenaismylife555 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No source given for this material.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FastReport[edit]

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

no assertion of notability. Articles covering this all appear to be from user-submitted sites. Ironholds (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dont agree. Some links point to the same website but the authors of the linked articles are all different people! Teonieuwlande (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring for a second that this is your first contribution, making the whole thing very dodgy, that's not the point. The websites are user-built ones, and as such not reliable sources in the first place. Ironholds (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shortage of reliable sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or explain how to fix it First of all I'm completely new at Wikipedia, but I was contacted by the Fast Reports Inc. to help them to not delete this page (I'm a reseller of Fast Reports Inc. products for Italy).

Fast Reports Inc. has already a Wikipedia page at Fast Reports (Russian Wikipedia).
This should be the English one page and they asked me to create an Italian one too. I don't know how Wikipedia works, but this is what they would like to have: the English and the Italian version of the Russian page.
Please, help us in these steps. Thank You--Andrea Urbani (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're creating this because FastReport told you to? You're right, you don't understand how Wikipedia works; read WP:COI and WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional and no reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Fast Reports exists. And it is article about FastReport ^[1] (software product). How software product can told?
2. The main source of information is the manufacturer's website. With links. What is wrong? You can see here [10] set of books about FastReport - how to work with it. But article in WiKi is not the learning book.
3. I do not see some promotional or advertizing in article. Facts only. Yes, not all the facts from FastReport (for example nothing about "best reporting tool and product of the year 2004" by DelphiZine - project delphizine closed ^[2], but I have found article copy: ^[3])

Best Reporting Tool
Race to the swift. It's been a long time coming, but FastReport (FastReports) has finally taken first place (42%), from Digital Metaphors' ReportBuilder (33%).
...
Product of the Year
Surprise! It's another repeat - and another tie. Product of the Year goes to Help & Manual (EC Software) for the second year in a row. This time however, it must share the honor with FastReport (FastReports). For history's sake, here are the winners and runners-up for POY since the award began in 1996:
* 1996 InfoPower, (unknown) * 1997 InfoPower, Orpheus * 1998 InfoPower, Apollo * 1999 ReportBuilder, Orpheus * 2000 ReportBuilder, Apollo * 2001 ReportBuilder, Advantage Database Server * 2002 ReportBuilder, Advantage Database Server * 2003 Help & Manual, ExpressQuantumGrid * 2004 FastReport and Help & Manual (tie for POY)

, but all other in articlie - facts too. Not any "better, faster, etc.". 80.80.109.172 (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. 05:16, 7 April 2010 JzG (talk | contribs) deleted "Weda Sweden" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weda Sweden[edit]

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

Not notable Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 14:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first posting of this was at "14:39, 5 April 2010",. That's a grand total of three minutes between posting my first revision and deletion request!. I could fully understand if this had been a couple of hours afterwards, but give a guy a fair chance before trying to write off an article without even contacting the contributor! GMaoull 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't take more than three seconds, let alone minutes, to see that this article is pure spam. I'll tag it for speedy deletion as such. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dying Is Your Latest Fashion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Good Enough for Truth in Cliché[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSONGS, redirects to the album were reverted twice, bringing here for more complete discussion. RadioFan (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Also block it from being reverted if possible. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent album, Dying Is Your Latest Fashion. Per WP:NSONGS, an individual article for this song is not warranted, as there appears to be no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 22:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have discarded non-policy based keep votes and having done that the delete side is clearty stronger and the policy based deleteion arguments have not been refuted. Since this is a BLP I also consider that there is less space then usual to exercise discretion in countering systemic bias so the overall outcome from this discussion is clear. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natthan Singh[edit]

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

Non-notable biography of a living person - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as under-sourced WP:BLP, unless rescued by addition of non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This scholar has apparently authored over 15 books and edited more. The fact that the person wrote in Hindi and other languages makes it hard, currently, for the deletion nominator to find information about this person. Deletion is too harsh and would seem to be an example of anti-Hindi or English-centric bias. --doncram (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Keep. — Duplicate !vote: Doncram (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. Also, i see that deletion of this article was previously discussed at the article's talk page. Comments from there:

Proposed deletion of Natthan Singh article is not justified because the only cause for deletion proposed is - "A search for reliable sources found nothing that could establish notability. I could not find anything online about the reference cited in the references section."
It is to be noted here that author is a Hindi language writer who has written a number of books on literature as listed in the article itself. I do not think that a writer of English can only be a criteria for notability. Hindi language on internet is still in offing and in due time we will find searchable references in Hindi also. We find references on internet about books written by him. As such I strongly recommend not to delete.burdak (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with above viewpoint of LRBurdak, it should'nt be deleted, bases of proposed deletion itself are not justified...-- Last Emperor (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The cause for deletion may have since been expanded or otherwise changed, but the opposition of these two editors probably still applies perfectly well, so please consider these as two more !votes for keep. --doncram (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're 'voting' keep three times? Seriously though, I read the article talk page, which is why I removed the prod and brought it here. PhilKnight (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ change to Weak Keep. I was the one who originally PRODded this article, and (IIRC) I did do a fairly in-depth search for sources before tagging it. I couldn't find any sources online, and the one source that was mentioned in the article gets virtually no mentions on google apart from wikipedia mirrors. All the same, I'd be more than happy if someone were to prove me wrong by finding some references to establish WP:Notability. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 01:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have already expressed my views not to delete the article on its talk page. Again strongly argue to keep it. The basis for proposed deletion of Natthan Singh article is not justified because the only cause for deletion proposed is - "A search for reliable sources found nothing that could establish notability. I could not find anything online about the reference cited in the references section." It is to be noted here that author is a Hindi language writer who has authored a number of books on literature as listed in the article itself. I do not think that a writer of English can only be a criteria for notability. Hindi language on internet is still in offing and in due time we will find searchable references. We find references on internet about books written by him. His book on Jat history in hindi is a commendable contribution and it is being translated in English. If we go on deleting articles like this it will be a bad trend and we will loose information about such authors and literary and historical work which has been done by them. At least three of his creations have been awarded in India. As such I strongly recommend to keep. burdak (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO by a mile as written, search for sources unavailing. Keep votes so far amount to saying "give a free pass to all articles about Hindi-language writers because they don't have sources yet." I find myself disinclined to throw out Wikipedia's principles so that we can accomodate a few hundred million extra unverifiable stubs. Ray^Talk 13:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one asking for a hundred million stubs. The AFD is about one particular person. --doncram (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that verifiability is a fundamental principle of wikipedia.If it is not verifiable it must be deleted.: Shyamsunder (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no wish by anyone to have unverifiable information here, but that is not what an AFD is about, it is about notability of this particular person/topic. If you question some specific assertion in the article, say so by tagging that, not trying to throw away it all. I have added some referencing, myself, and currently believe all the information is accurate. --doncram (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on basis of argument above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You should know there's discussion at Talk:Natthan Singh tending towards acceptance of the awards as demonstrating notable distinction. I think you need to read the article and the Talk page. I don't mean to respond to every negative comment, sorry, but the person seems pretty well accomplished and notable to me, more so than 99% of BLP articles i've come across recently. --doncram (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The person may well be pretty accomplished and notable but the sources do not yet seem to be there to demonstrate this clearly. Maybe adequate sources will develop in time. Info on library holdings would be useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I changed my !vote above based on the source found that verifies the awards he received, and these hits that point to those awards as being notable. WP:AUTHOR criteria 4(c) seems to call this notable. See the talk page for more details on the discussion between Doncram & I about it. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 02:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The ghit explosion mentioned in the talk page is partly due to en.wiki, the particular book despite no real gscholar or other such usage is quite popular as a reference here. This has come up on quite a few discussions at WP:FTN. As for the awards, note that the Sahitya Akademi has many notable awards, the grant of Rs 5000 is not one of them. Until such time as we can demonstrate that this person meets our notability guidelines and the content passes WP:V, the article shouldn't be up.—SpacemanSpiff 02:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article because it give important information about a person who wrote in Hindi language. It should'nt be deleted. Deletion of this article is loss many information about an author of Hindi literature and a novelist.

Premsukhdidel (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The proposed deletion of this article itself is not justified and purely biased. -- Last Emperor (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Keep - I agree with User:Doncram. Deletion is too harsh and would seem to be an example of anti-Hindi or English-centric bias. Some of the editors have commented here very casually without even trying to know about the author and his contribution to Hindi literature. I strongly favour to Keep. 59.94.96.167 (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2010 (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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Soufanieh[edit]

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

Deletion of Our Lady of Soufanieh has been discussed by users on Talk:Our Lady of Soufanieh. Lack of notability per WP:Notable and lack of WP:Reliable references has been discussed there. All roads for this item seem to lead back to its own webpage without a single major newspaper article, despite the many claims on the page, and it seems to fall into the Weeping painting territory as well. This item seems to be getting publicity from Wikipedia (it has referral links added for it in several other wikipages) when major newspapers do not give it press. History2007 (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the "References" and "Bibliography" section of the article will quickly disconfirm as unsubstantiated the charge that it is based on a single website. That these sources are in several different languages is hardly an objection. Guardaiinalto (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, to be honest, the article as it stands now is not notable and its references are less than reliable. I didn't go too deep in searching for sources, but a shallow search shows no reliable sources. If anybody here feels they can rescue it, I would give them more time, otherwise I have to agree with this AFD. Yazan (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But have you read the sources provided, esp. those by Sbalchiero, Zahlauoi and Touw? What makes you say that they are "less than reliable"? Guardaiinalto (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please See this, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, from mainstream famous publishers. This whole article is an exceptional claim. Yazan (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the claims are extraordinary. In fact, the claim that reproductions produce oil means that if one makes 20 reproductions and leaves them there for 4 weeks, a good amount of oil will be produced which can be used to generate energy, if desired. That would seem to go against the law of conservation of energy since the oil is produced just by itself and can be used as part of a perpetual motion device. Hence, true or false, it is an extraordinary situation and hence an extraordinary claim. History2007 (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:V. A simple search using Google Books demonstrates that the topic is noteable. I think this article was meant to go to WP:RESCUE, not here. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the article obviously needs rewording to make it clear that it's reporting what some people believe, rather than claiming that that belief is true. Here's a "major newpaper article" as requested by the nominator. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the Exceptional claim needs exceptional source issue remains unresolved. History2007 (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that some people believe this is by no means exceptional. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I have no objection to the redirect to Nick Adenhart, as proposed by Gogo Dodo. But since they were the only one to suggest it, it doesn't fall under this consensus - and I leave it to them or others to implement. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Wilhite[edit]

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

Subject has little or no individual notability. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE and is mentioned only in relation to the death of a notable person. All source mentions are related to one event. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 11:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE as a college ball player. Google turns up many sources about this person, but they are only about a car accident he was in, and his subsequent impressive recovery. I can't find any sources that indicate he is notable beyond this one event. PDCook (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially a WP:BLP1E on the basis that were it not for his injury he would not be notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mkativerata. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If consensus is to delete, might I recommend a redirect to Nick Adenhart as an alternative since John Wilhite is connected? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm not seeing any clear consensus here. Although the deletion arguments about NPOV and COATRACK are compelling there has been a major prune and the subject itself appears notable so it seems reasonable to give this article more time to fox the problems before reviewing it again Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and violence[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was nominated for deletion last July, and closed as no consensus. Although the title of the article has been changed, all the problems are still there. For example, there is a HUGE section on violence done by Christians, and a tiny section on Christian opposition to violence. Delete, therefore, as irredeemably POV. StAnselm (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 21:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. The tone of this article is biased against Christianity. I would have a similar opinion if an article of this tone was entitled Buddhism and violence, or Hunduism and violence. This article is clearly anti-Christian. Sections of any redeeming value can be added to the Christian terrorism article which already exists. How many more articles are needed for this subject? There is absolutely no reason to keep this biased article. It is an affront to the fine content of Wikipedia. รัก-ไทย (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not to get too into an "other stuff" debate, but there do exist the articles, Mormonism and violence and Judaism and violence. LadyofShalott 21:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(And others listed in the "see also" section of the page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, with comment - Being an atheist and an anti-theist, I can't in good faith vote, because I'll obviously say keep. However, the article is very well sourced and decently written, and I see no reason why it should be deleted. Yes, the article only has a "tiny section on Christian opposition to violence", however that's because Christian pacifism has it's own article. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 16:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that the nominator is a Christian preacher, according to his userpage, and so this is a pretty clear conflict of interest. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 16:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am, although that may not necessarily dictate what I think about violence perpetrated by or against Christians in the past or present. In a sense, every Christian would have a COI here, and every atheist too. In fact, this was almost a procedural nomination, after I removed the prod. See Talk:Christianity and violence#Proposal for deletion. StAnselm (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The arguments for deletion are just plain false. Nominator falsely states that only the title of the page has been changed since the previous AfD discussion. In fact, the edit history will show that the page has been considerably improved in the intervening time. As the editor just above me notes, the reason for the relative lengths of the sections reflects the existence of a separate pacifism page. The second editor arguing for deletion is essentially making a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. If there are still concerns about the tone of the page, the correct action to take is to edit it for NPOV, not to delete it. Nowhere has anyone even attempted to argue that the page fails WP:N or lacks sourcing. In fact, since the previous AfD, secondary sources establishing a literature on the consistent link between Christianity and violence have been added to the page, obviating previous concerns about a coatrack. I also have to note that this nomination has appeared, over the Easter weekend, simultaneously with a sudden flurry of arguments for page deletion placed, incorrectly, on the article talk page instead of here, after months of quiet since the previous AfD discussion. Therefore, I cannot help but to suspect that there has been off-site canvassing to promote this AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, obviously I'm not aware of any off-site canvassing. But if you look at my nomination closely, I didn't say that only the title had changed - I said that although the title had changed, the problems were still there. And the admin who closed the first deletion discussion encouraged a nomination a few months later if they were. StAnselm (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about "only". But you are incorrect about the problems still being there. The closing admin was talking about whether synth/coat problems remain, and they have been addressed. If there are concerns about POV, deletion is not the proper course of action. In fact, where you did say "irredeemably POV", POV problems can almost always be fixed by corrective editing, not deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed that the article shows POV/bias issues, but those can and should be improved through the regular editing process. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the issues raised in the last AFD have not been properly addressed, and I have no confidence they will be. Stifle (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? And why could they not be further addressed, assuming that they still exist? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep biased but not to the point of deletion, need improvement— Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (talk • contribs)

Delete this article because it is redundant, based on a false premise and quite simply an attack on Christianity.

- Violence is perpetrated for a variety of reasons, and people give a variety of reasons for why they perpetrated violence. But just because an individual or group claims Christian justification for their acts of violence, it does not necessarily mean that this is uniquely Christian or even representative of Christian ideology.
- There are already articles about Christian terrorism, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition etc. This article is redundant in that it simply repeats the information already written in these and many other articles. There are better ways to document violent parts of Christian history and there are already many well written articles documenting it (in addition to the ones I've listed above).
- To further show that this is a specific attack against Christianity, I would like to point out that there are no articles titled Islam and violence, Satanism and violence, Antitheism and violence, Atheism and violence, Racism and violence, Homophobia and violence, Communism and violence, Nationalism and violence, Greed and violence, Resources and violence, etc etc. These are all reasons individuals and groups have given for committing acts of violence, yet it would be frivolous to create articles compiling all the times these various ideologies and reasons have been given regarding acts of violence.

This article is redundant on Wikipedia, it is an attack on a certain ideology, and it is based on a false premise. All of these things go against Wikipedia guidelines (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:SOAP, WP:REDUNDANT) and make this article inappropriate as an encyclopedic work.

- - WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because the other articles do not exist, does not mean this one shouldn't. If there isn't an article on Satanism and violence, Islam and violence, Whatever and violence... start it. This is Wikipedia. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 12:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge that this article be deleted. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you put my post at the top of this nomination? I am the one nominating this article for deletion, and now there are a bunch of "keep" votes simply voting against your incomplete nomination. I think we should restart this nomination if possible...frustrating. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please read the explanations titled "Whoever is moving comments around, PLEASE STOP." and "About moving the order of comments around." below. I confess to being the guilty culprit who rearranged the comments per Yaki-gaijin's complaint immediately above. I didn't understand the history of what had happened and made a good-faith effort to fix things, unwittingly making a mess. My apologies. --Richard S (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Richard. Perfectly understandable, and clearly done with good intentions. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only with massive truncation which I have done (See this revision). This article was up for AFD last year and will continue to come up for AFD as long as it violates WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. I have deleted the sections titled "Acts of violence by Christians", "Historical cases of Christian violence" and "Notable incidents". The two remaining sections "Theological justification of Christian violence" and "Christian opposition to violence" still have problems but can serve as the basis for writing a good article. --Richard S (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is moving comments around, PLEASE STOP. This debate has become a jumbled mess because someone keeps moving comments to the top. Splitting your comment away from my argument does not make it go away - I will fix it. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 15:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About moving the order of comments around. I agree with Baron Von that this is objectionable, and I have restored the original order of the comments. Let me explain. Wikipedia has two separate policies, which Yaki-gaijin appears not to understand: WP:PROD and WP:AFD. This round of demands for deletion (as, tellingly, an "attack on Christianity") began when Yaki-gaijin incorrectly marked the article for PROD, for which it is ineligible. Within a short time, Rak-tai appeared at the article talk to support PROD, and StAnselm then recognized correctly that PROD was not appropriate, and took the nomination here, to AfD. (As I commented earlier, I am very uncomfortable with how three editors who never before edited the article nor took part in the previous AfD discussion just happened to all come upon this same nomination within such a brief period of time.) In any case, it was StAnselm who made the AfD nomination, as opposed to the out-of-policy PROD nomination made by Yaki-gaijin. After StAnselm's nomination, several editors replied to it. To reorder the page because of Yaki-gaijin's misunderstanding of the nomination process had the effect, as noted by Baron Von, of confusing the meaning of the discussion that had occurred in the meantime. Therefore, I have restored the original order of comments, while retaining everything that was said by Yaki-gaijin and others. I will add that in my opinion, nothing that Yaki-gaijin has added would alter my nor other editors' keep comments, because Yaki-gaijin's "nomination", for all its throwing around of NPOV, NOR, SOAP, and REDUNDANT, fails to make a substantive, policy-based argument for deletion (as opposed to corrective editing), and, in the end, is nothing more than OTHERSTUFF and IDONTLIKEIT. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The POV problems are not irredeemable, I am confident that there is a balanced article buried in there somewhere. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just noticed that it's worth clicking on the books and scholar links at the top of this page. There are a lot of as-yet uncited secondary sources that are, explicitly, about Christianity and violence, which really pulls the rug out from under any claims that the page is synth or coatrack. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I agree with Qrsdogg's statement above, that there is a balanced and neutral article in there somewhere. However, if this AFD does end in deletion, perhaps a move to the incubator would be a good idea, with the catch that it be taken to DRV before being brought back to main space. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The Crusades" are a documented historical set of events, that are clearly violent, and clearly christian. I see no reason why an article on such a topic would not be encyclopedic. There's a lot of christianity based violence in the world, and in the past. It's just like most other religions, whose zealots and those who game the system for personal gain use violence against outsiders to affirm their position or faith. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while this article is a bit of a POV magnet and not perfect at the moment, it's definitely on a notable topic: many books have been written about violence and nonviolence in Christianity (see for example Just war, which is arguably a subsection of this topic). The key to fixing this article would be to focus it on the theological issues, and prevent it from becoming a general 'list of violent incidents which involved Christians in some way'. Robofish (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I note the existence of the Christian soldier disambiguation page, which links to a couple of related articles: Christians in the military and New Testament military metaphors. Perhaps those articles should be merged into this one, but they support the view that this is a notable subject. Robofish (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move relevant content to more appropriate places and delete. There are already several articles covering aspects of this general topic, including Crusades, Just war, Massacre of Thessalonica, and many, many others. Those articles are encyclopedic because they limit their scope to something manageable. The present article tries to cover theology, ethics, military history over 2000 years, pacifism, and a few other things. It seems to me impossible to cover such a wide range of topics properly in one article, and this article almost inevitably fails. Articles with titles of the form "X and Y" are generally a bad idea. Robofish makes a good point above: had this article been entitled "Christian theology of warfare", it might have been workable. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not what Robofish said, rather, that warfare-type articles might perhaps be merged into this article. I don't really think there is a policy basis for the comment about "X and Y", other than personal opinion. Given that there are secondary sources saying that the individual subjects listed are related, this article is encyclopedic too. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was commenting on Robofish's remark "The key to fixing this article would be to focus it on the theological issues..."

And yes, the comment about "X and Y" was a personal opinion, but I believe such titles invite random additions of the form "I know something that relates X and Y," and such additions would breach WP:NOT. In this case, the overly broad title also turns the article into a battleground between people with conflicting opinions -- conflicts which would be easier to resolve with a series of more narrowly scoped articles. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for "random additions", I would agree with you, but for sourced additions, sourced to secondary sources that say that Christianity and violence are, together, a notable subject (see links at the top of this AfD), I would not. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Christianity and violence" is a poorly-defined, over-broad topic. "Violence" is simply too large and too general a topic to write an article about. UserVOBO (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you, likewise, delete our page on Violence, or are you really saying IDONTLIKEIT? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I certainly would delete it. "Violence" as such is not a proper subject for an encyclopedia article. UserVOBO (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If so, go ahead and nominate it for deletion. I do not think consensus will be with you, however. LadyofShalott 14:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rename, Fix POV - It's true that the article can be improved in a great extend. Yet, I'm certain that any POVs that it contains are fixable. The subject of the article is quite notable and a very real one. While I am a Christian myself, I do believe however that there's a long history of violence in Christianity, despite its teachings. Crusades and the holy inquisitions come in mind. I do think however that the name should be changed according to Topic_creation#Titles_containing_.22and.22. Christianity and violence sounds like there's a direct connection between the two, while Christian violence (the previous title) may be more correct, pretty much like Islamic terrorism; it doesn't denote that the whole Christian world is violent. --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You raise something very interesting that I was previously unaware of, about "and" in the title. In the previous AfD discussion, there was strong sentiment to change it from "Christian violence" to "Christianity and violence", for exactly the reasoning that the old title was seen as implying in a POV way that violence was a part of Christianity, whereas the "and" construction treated them as two things that could overlap without overlapping completely. "Christian violence" sort of sounds as though the violence is "owned" by Christianity. I'm actually surprised, in this regard, by what the guideline says about Islamic terrorism. It seems to me that the latter title is not really more NPOV, but rather reflects a specific movement that has taken place in a relatively short period of time, compared to the subject of this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the title still sounds a bit "wrong" to me. Maybe use a more descriptive title? Like "Christianity-related violence". Although I admit it doesn't sound really nice. Other names could be "Violence in the name of Christianity". But it sounds like a movie :P --JokerXtreme (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Christian violence" would be a much better subject for an article than "Christianity and violence". "Christianity and violence" may be less offensive than "Christian violence", but that's because it doesn't really mean anything. I don't think proper articles are about "two things that could overlap without overlapping completely." UserVOBO (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we do go that way, we would probably need to make the page exclusively about violence, and delete the section about Christian pacifism. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That section is not very long anyway. Though it could still be kept, like kind of a criticism section. --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is certainly a notable topic with room for cleanup and expansion. It should discuss historical attitudes of Christianity towards violence and how those attitudes have been used to justify both violent acts and opposition of violence. LadyofShalott 14:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Criticism of religion is a huge topic in human discourse, and the number one criticism is "religion is responsible for wars and violence" - so it is notable (and, yes, the Christian church, just like Islam, has sufficient examples to warrant its own article). This encyclopedia is more useful with the article than without it. --Noleander (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Larsen[edit]

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

Non-notable small college football coach, whose article was deleted at AfD two years ago. The article was userfied at the creator's request, and promptly restored by the creator with the claim that "Discovered also was a head coach at University of Chicago, added several sources." Upon an examination of the links in the article, not a single one of them discuss Larsen in substantive detail, as WP:RS requires, and half of them are simple collections of stats. Beyond that, the creator implies that the University of Chicago is, and was during Larsen's tenure, some big-time athletic school and therefore confers notability on its coaches. This is not the case; Chicago plays in Division III, a full three rungs below major college football and the lowest level of sport the NCAA sanctions at all. The article has been completely unimproved in over a year and a half. This article should never have been restored, and should be promptly deleted as failing WP:BIO and the GNG both. Ravenswing 10:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think many programs that have been both DI and DIII have coaches for their entire history considered as notable people here on WP. Since Chicago has such a storied history from the Amos Alonzo Stagg days, I think he is an important component to the complete history of Chicago football.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear-cut case of a bad faith nomination. FIRST: The "promptly restored" statement, which would seem to indicate merely a few days. In this case, the restoration took from November 2, 2008 until June 26, 2009, over seven months. SECOND: Nominator supplies a "creator implies" section, stating that the article creator (yes, that's me) implied that the school was a "big-time program" and yet avoides the statement in the article about the "modern era" when the school reinstated football at the Division III level. THIRD: Nominator calls for "prompt" deletion, implying a call for a speedy deletion instead of even having the discussion. Personally, I'm not sure by "promptly" the nominator means "right this minute" or the regular AfD discussion time period or seven months. FOURTH: Nominator states that "The article has been completely unimproved in over a year and a half" to which I have two responses: a) this is just not true either, as a simple check of the article history can provide, and b) who cares if it hadn't changed a bit in a year and a half, that's not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You're right on the "year and a half;" I meant half a year, and that's about the only accurate statement you make. As far as the absurd notion that I'm calling for a speedy here, I've been on Wikipedia for seven years and have participated in hundreds of deletion discussions, and know very well the difference between AfD and speedies, but if you were genuinely curious, you might have considered asking without violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Moving along, of course you implied that Chicago is a big-time program; why else would being a coach there confer automatic notability that being a coach of a far smaller and more obscure school did not, and why would that mere assertion suddenly qualify the subject for an article? Finally, you fail to address the article's failure of the GNG. Ravenswing 12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Good Faith/Civility Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D. Schwender where it seems we are having the same discussion. It should likely be here because I beleive that the bad faith violations are more prevelant here--they have sadly become linked. I have made no personal attacks and am simply calling to the Wikipedia community to review what I believe to be lies posted by the nominator, as well as providing evidence to support it for the community to review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request/accurate statement You stated that "that's about the only accurate statement you make" in your comment and then accuse me of not being civil. Okay, I can take it. Please take the statments I made that you find not truthful and let's address them point by point.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Big Time School History shows that the article Revision September 23, 2009, (edited by Huangdi) confirms that the program was an NCAA Division III School. While I did not make that edit, I thought it was a good one. It's been in place over six months.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Nominator's experience I'm sure you have been on Wikipedia for quite some time, but I don't see how that is a reason to delete the article. Why would you post such a statement??--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Speedy-promptly Okay, you don't mean to speedy delete. Just strike the word "promtly" from your nomination. Until then, the statements are adding undue weight and distracting from the issue at hand--the article being considered for deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In order to have proper encyclopedic scope, WikiProject College Football has endeavored to establish articles on the head coaches of the significant college football programs. That does not mean that every coach at every small college should have an article. The question is which programs are truly "significant." While Carroll and Chicago have had significant declines in their programs in recent years (including the years when Larsen was coach), both schools have historically had significant programs. Carroll played big-time football throughout the pre-World War II era, was involved in the game in which the first forward pass was thrown, and has produced 13 NFL players. Chicago has won two national football championships and seven Big Ten championships, produced several members of the College Football Hall of Fame (e.g., Berwanger, Des Jardien, Eckersall, Herschberger, Maxwell), and is the place where football giant Amos Alonzo Stagg made his name. Admittedly, neither Carroll nor Chicago has had a major football program in many years (even decades). This makes it a tough call on Larsen or other recent coaches at these schools. However, if we conclude that these two programs are significant (as they certainly were in the first half of the 20th Century), WikiProject Football's encyclopedic approach to coverage of such programs supports articles for head coaches of these programs. Accordingly, I lean towards keeping the articles. Cbl62 (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Tatham[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I think this is due for another round of consideration. In my view, this is a WP:BLP1E. If it wasn't for his arrest, he would never come close to notability. The problem with articles about people only known for one event is that the article gives undue weight to that one event. When that one event is negative, the article essentially becomes an entirely negative portrayal of its subject. I'm not wedded to a delete outcome here - I find BLP1E a very difficult test to judge. But I don't think the last deletion discussion was particularly well-considered and it is a genuine BLP issue. Note I've notified all the previous AfD participants and the BLP noticeboard. Mkativerata (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BLP1E does indeed seem to be the case here. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really about one event, not the person. However, I did not find it so negative and it might be helpful to the person to have his side of the case presented. But still doesn't pass WP:Notable.Borock (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to overcome the BLP1E issue.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic BLP1E. Aditya Ex Machina 14:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly covered by BLP1E. ukexpat (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental equation of unified field theory[edit]

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

This refers to equation (6) in [11]. While the equation is interesting, is certainly isn't notable in the WikipediaN sense, and certainly isn't a fundamental equation of UFT (or of anything for what matters). Also, the author of the paper created this page, so there's some COI here as well. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete for sure. I have a hard time not laughing at this as an article. Seems like a publicity stunt if anything. History2007 (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's by Rainer_W._Kühne. Rather curious exercise in numerology. --Dc987 (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Numerology and OR. Not established in the mainstream at all. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Well, strictly speaking WP::OR is not an issue here. The article seems to be properly sourced. Numerology also is not exactly banished from Wikipedia. Notability can be an issue, but again the author seems to be notable enough. So I'd prefer to sit on the fence and wait for more precise data from WMAP and Chandra. And vanquish the article properly when the predicted (by Kühne in 1999) value of the Hubble constant disagrees with the observation. Meanwhile we can give an article more proper name, like "Exercises in numerology by Rainer W. Kühne". --Dc987 (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed for lack of jurisdiction. This image is not an article, so files for deletion, rather than articles for deletion, would be the place to discuss whether this file should be deleted. (Note the existence of File:City of London logo.svg on Commons, though.) No opinion on whether this file is useful, a duplicate, or available under an appropriate license. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:City Bridge Trust logo.jpg[edit]

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

I upload the wrong logo - this is the City of London arms, not the City Bridge Trust logo... Wormcast (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (A7, no assertion of notability) by Fran Rogers. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paint (sport)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MADEUP Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of an undead teenager[edit]

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

According to this book's Amazon.com entry it was was self published through Lulu.com and it receives no hits other than basic advertising in a Google search. As such, it does not meet the notability criteria set out at WP:BK and should be deleted. Please note that an attempt was made to nominate this for a prod deletion, but the template was removed by an IP editor. Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my PROD on 26 March, which said " Does not appear to meet notability requirements; no reliable sources and I cannot find any." - I appreciate that attempts have been made to reference it, but one article in a local newspaper does not represent 'significant coverage' (see user:chzz/vrs); the other refs are just listings and primary source. Chzz ► 04:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a self-published book can be notable they usually are not. There is no indication this is one of the exceptions. Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect/merge to Beacon, New York. I will redirect, editors are free to merge verifiable material. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Volunteer Ambulance Corps[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable local volunteer ambulance squad. While obviously important for the community it serves, I do not believe it has notability. Sources need to be given to show significant coverage to meet the notability standards. either way (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close to being notable. Per WP:CHEAP, redirect and merge to Beacon, New York. Alert: I am a former member of the nearby New Paltz Rescue Squad. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearian. Renaissancee (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redir per Bearian. 7 23:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Robbie Mannheim. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Miles Schulze[edit]

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

Minor player, perhaps, in Exorcist 3, not independently notable. Almost all references I could find are copies of the same text, linking him with the movie. No News refs, nothing I could find outside the fringey ghost community. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: You are incorrect. The article discusses an actual person, who played a pivotal role in the in the exorcism case of Robbie Mannheim. A simple search on Google Books will indicate that the clergyman is notable and should deserve an article, just as other clergymen involved in the case have artices, vis Rev. Walter Halloran, Rev. Edward Hughes, and Rev. Walter Halloran. The individuals involved in the case all made the basis for the movie, The Exorcist, which is based on the true story of Robbie Mannheim. I can expand on the article in question later using the references available. Until then, my recommendation is to keep the article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 04:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, you have limited the references available for this man by including his middle name in all the searches. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing Comment - A quick look at User:Anupam's references seems to show what the article shows: that this pastor is only notable for this incident. There is a whole set of articles here on each of the participants, but from what I can tell there is nothing about them outside of narratives about this. I shall address teh other articles tomorrow. Mangoe (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Robbie Mannheim. Everything notable is already there. WP:ONEEVENT--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect fails WP:1EVENT though the event is notable so redirect to there. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robbie Mannheim. If this individual's role in that single notable event someday grows larger or more significant, the article can be recreated at that time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. It's the event that is notable.Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) mono 20:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Red Riding Hood (Disney)[edit]

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

Unremarkable movie with no statement of notability. Reference to IMDB (only ref) and fails to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability_(films) mono 03:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I remember this cartoon, not enough sourced information is given to pass WP's notability standards.Borock (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - historic 1922 silent cartoon by Disney and pioneer animator Rudolf Ising has sufficient mention in Google books should anybody bother to dig through them, such as this one, which actually asserts that it was "listed on the American Film Institute's 10 Most Wanted Films for Archival Preservation..." - and it took me all of six seconds to find this. This excerpt alone is enough to establish its notability in the history of animation, not to mention that it was indeed pioneering work by Disney and Ising. B.Wind (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep of a film that easily meets WP:NF through its significance to cinematic history, and it still being written of nearly 90 years after its release for its historical context to the film industry, Walt Disney, Rudolf Ising, and early silent animation. Notable since 1922 is still notable in 2010. And to the nom... and with respects... sourcing was quite easy to find in both books and news. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Might be a small film, but a noted animator's first film is always notable. I do also want to see if it's because the film is pre-1923 and out of copyright if a YouTube link to the actual film would be allowed in the article in this case. Nate • (chatter) 08:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage found. Here is an article I found to add to the pile. :) Erik (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the earliest films by one of the tippy-top major filmmakers of the 20th century not "notable"? File this AFD under W for "WTF?" Dekkappai (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. i saw this in prod summary a few days back and i was thinking where i have seen this before. thankfully we have people who know their films way better than me to save such nominations :-).--Sodabottle (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The LA Times Article on the finding/preservation, and the article at disneyshorts together contain plenty of information to expand our article on this short film to quite a healthy state. Dekkappai (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamiliam[edit]

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

A company which is not notable under WP:N and WP:CORP. The references used in the article are an article from The Tamiliam (the organization that gave an award to a movie created by the subject), an article from an arguably unreliable source called "TamilNet" (again describes the movie and not the company), an article on IndiaGlitz (an article that has some significant coverage on the only notable movie made by the company), an article on The Daily Star (has a paragraph about the movie but not the company), and an article on an arguable unreliable source called "New Age" (describes the movie and mentions its achievement but not the company). My own news search only produced the IndiaGlitz article and nothing more. The movie is notable but one movie does not make the film production company notable. I should also note that the username of the author is the same as the creator of the company and the movie. The author has also removed a db tag from the article once without an explanation. OlYeller^Talktome 02:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons above. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note also the presence of a fairly strong promotional point of view: ...the company is best known for making shortfilms and documentaries which reflects the hidden truths of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Beside this Tamiliam want to shed light on the daily-life problems faced by the Eelam people living in diaspora. "Art of the nation and Art for the nation". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has one notable film Vanni Mouse to its credit. While the award it won is enough to keep Tamiliam Subas and the film in wikipedia, the company itself does not pass WP:ORG--Sodabottle (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:NEO with a side order of common sense. None of the sources in the article (other than the Comedy Central piece, where it was apparently coined) reference "Haggard's Law". The neologism appears not to have been added to the lexicon despite the author's plea. –xeno^talk 02:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haggard's Law[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Haggard's Law

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

Not notable expression or phrase, clear BLP issues as controversial content is about a living person Off2riorob (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supar Novar[edit]

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

Subject not notable under WP:N, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:BIO. I can find no news coverage on the subject (see here). All references seem to be self-published. Brought here after the article's creator removed the CSD tag. OlYeller^Talktome 02:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all references self-published, no verifiable evidence of notability, in fact the article barely makes a claim that would satisfy criteria. Porturology (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:NSONGS. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronto (Snoop Dogg song)[edit]

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

Non-notable, poorly sourced single. The song didn't chart and the only source leads to a music video. Str8cash (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this is a sufficiently notable single. —C.Fred (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect it at least. There is alot of info in the articl that can be used at a later date STATicVerseatide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:STATicVerseatide) 03:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Didn't chart and doesn't appear to have been released as a single. Shadowjams (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes it was released as a single. It was the 4th single after "I Wanna Rock". As said in the article it was released December 1st. That is the day it debuted on iTunes. Which was b4 the album was released. STATicVerseatide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:STATicVerseatide) 20:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malice n Wonderland. Released single or not, this song appears to fail WP:NSONGS, as I can find no significant coverage for it in independent reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 22:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep song by a notable artist that provides a lot of info. Dew Kane (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus seems very clear on this one--no keep opinions DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wired (band)[edit]

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

does not meet WP:BAND, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment copyrighted material claiming notability copied from radio station website has been removed RadioFan (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--mono 01:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no significant coverage. Str8cash (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough sufficient coverage. References in it now are from the radio station. Shadowjams (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band and uses one source within the article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 39 Clues Cards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a directory, This subject can be adequately covered in the main article on the book series. Contested redirect to the book series. RadioFan (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a very popular topic, and if deleted it would be sure to be recreated, there are many web pages on this topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Unencyclopedic material does not belong in any article Adding an external link to the main article pointing to one of those web pages would be a better option.--RadioFan (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I agree with Graeme but this article has a lot of problems, and it definitely has a lot of DIRECTORY/Manual material in it. It's probably a valid content fork though of the primary article, which appears to be undergoing a revamping right now. I'd say if it was cut down to encyclopedia appropriate content, and still had content, then it should survive a renomination; but if not, it should be merged back into the main. Shadowjams (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The last AfD focused on the fact it needed cleanup too; that was back in June. If nobody is going to cut down this content to make it usable (I certainly know nothing about this topic) that fact sways me towards wanting to delete it, notwithstanding my statements above. Shadowjams (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it should be renamed to List of 39 Clues Cards and put it in WP:list form. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main article, minus the lists of cards. The cards can presumably be used as sources for character articles but there's no more reason to list them all than there is for listing every Magic: The Gathering card. The "how-to" aspects can later be cleaned from the main article. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with this. Shadowjams (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Graeme. I also agree with Shadowjams that we need to cut down on non-encyclopedic content. Airplaneman ✈ 03:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A merge seems reasonable but only the encyclopedic content, that which can be sourced somewhere other than primary sources. The tables of cards all appear tobe original research and violate WP:NOT#DIR.--RadioFan (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know some of the card tables at least are sourced (primary sources, but sourced nonetheless), but yes, most of that can go. Then again, I'd say the same about List of Pokémon... VernoWhitney (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of 39 Clues characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Cahill[edit]

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

per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Fictional character with no indication of why a dedicated article is required. Could be adequately covered in the article on the book series. Contested redirect.--RadioFan (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of 39 Clues characters. See also:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Kabra. Airplaneman ✈ 20:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the character is a protagonist in the series; just as important as Percy Jackson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mono (talk • contribs)
Delete Protagonist? Percy Jackson, iirc, is a much bigger selling enterprise than 39 Clues. Or, merge to a list of characters. There still needs to be significant coverage in other sources. fetchcomms☛ 02:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the 39 clues task force has just begun, please give us time to improve the articles and stubs. There are some potential for Amy's article, seeing that she is one of the main protagonists in the series, with the other ones being Dan and Nellie. Please, I would ask again, give us time. Thanks. -Mktsay123 (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I would very much ask of you to treat the same way to all the 39 clues stubs. We need some time to get the task force going, thanks. -Mktsay123 (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Echoing Fetchcomm's concerns, I dont see how this character being the protagonist establishes sufficient notability to warrant a dedicated article. There isn't sufficient coverage in 3rd party sources. --RadioFan (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into List of teams in The 39 Clues for now at least. The teams article is nowhere near requiring a split since it was just split from the main article itself. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Even one of the delete !votes admitted he was notable in the pst, and there is clear sourcing that he has won what seem to be major awards DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Meladze[edit]

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

BLP flagged as unsourced since January, musician of no obvious encyclopaedic notability. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable musician with an unsourced and unreferenced article. Pemberton08 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the article just needs some improvement. He is more popular among Russian-speaking public, but there are several notable English venues mentioning him, like AOL, profiles at IMDb and Last FM or Upcoming.yahoo.com. Brand[t] 20:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The person has MTV Russia Music Awards and a number of Muz TV awards. And he's also a Meritorious Artist of Russia, a very high honorary tittle awarded directly by the President. So the person undoubtly satisfies Wikipedia criteria of notability. There are lots of sources about him, and the only problem is that most of them would be in Russian or Georgian. Garret Beaumain (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These potential sources should be taken into account: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I'm going to bed now, so I don't have the time or the inclination at the moment to get my head round a language that I haven't used in anger for over thirty years, but I would request that this shouldn't be deleted in the next 48 hours to give me a chance to check through those thousands of sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He was big fifteen years ago - missed internet boom by a few years - so there's no independent sources online. Tons of promotional waste, half of youtube but very little reliable data. NVO (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit strange to dismiss him as having peaked 15 years ago when he won major music awards in 2004 and 2006. Since you seem to be stating this as a matter of fact rather than opinion, can you justify your claim? If he is indeed on "half of YouTube" this suggests that he is rather more popular than you imply. Brumel (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability, not truth. Can this BLP be sourced to reliable independent sources. No? Sorry, he will go the way of Victor Zinchuk. It's not a question of real-life notability? It's a question of sourcing per WP:BLP. Yes, he was big in 1995. But there's no reliable airplay data to prove it. At best wikipedia will have to resort to cheap Russian rags like MK, and even its web archive goes back only to 2005. NVO (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a former professional musician and present amateur student of Eastern European popular music I have found the article very valuable. Even bearing in mind that it could possibly be unreliable, it has led me to several fruitful investigations. In fact I only discovered that it was being considered for deletion because I actually wanted to consult it on something.

Moreover, it seems to me that while Valery Meladze is fully deserving of an article in his own right (as explained by Garret Beaumain above), he is also valuable as a proxy for his brother Konstantin Meladze, who is in my view an even more notable figure and who lacks any Wikipedia article at all. IMO Konstantin Meladze is a composer on the same level as Ulvaeus & Andersson of ABBA or as Xenomania in the present day, both of whom rightly have Wikipedia entries. He used/uses Valery and VIA Gra as his primary outlets in much the same way as Ulvaeus & Andersson used ABBA and Xenomania uses Girls Aloud. I might possibly find it acceptable to remove the article on Valery Meladze if it were merged into a larger article on Konstantin, but in the absence of such an article it seems to me particularly important that the article on Valery should be retained, and in any case it would be better to have separate articles on each of them.

The problems with the article on Valery are that it is obviously written by a non-English speaker, it lacks references and it is sometimes confusing, though not inaccurate so far as I can tell. (For instance, it refers to both the group VIA Gra (correct capitalisation) and the group Nu Virgos, without explaining that they are the same group going under different names in different countries to avoid trademark infringement.) I don't know anything about how this is done, but would it be possible for someone to contact the original writer and persuade him/her to add references, even if they are to originals in languages other than English?

While it seems acceptable for Wikipedia to be flooded with entries for minor American R&B singers, there is a remarkable absence of entries for far more notable musicians from outside the USA, and particularly from Eastern Europe. Wikipedia should avoid becoming culture-bound. Brumel (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the clear notability as a major star in his country, but certainly not as a proxy for his brother. If Konstantin is notable then we can have an article about him - this article is about Valery. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Though the article does need to point to some references from somewhere else besides myspace. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fellsilent[edit]

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

Declined Speedy, contested Prod. Fails WP:BAND. GregJackP (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article not properly tagged for AFD deletion. Studerby (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks, I use TW, and I didn't realize it didn't tag it correctly. It's fixed now. (GregJackP (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Nothing seems to make this band notable - there are no independent references, no evidence of sales, tours, notable performances, or reviews. The record label website has material on the band that is long out of date, and even the wikipedia page lists the status of the band 'as of 2009'. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's coverage here, which confirms that the band signed to Sumerian Records - a band that has international record deals is probably sufficiently notable.--Michig (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Michig, and I found that the Regina Leader-Post reported (December 31, 2008; p. B3) that Karl Schubach of Misery Signals called this band's album one of the best of 2008. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage by Regina Leader-Post, Blabbermouth.net, and Kerrang!, international release on Sumerian. Chubbles (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Water hog[edit]

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

This product fails the notability requirements of WP:ORG. The article is poorly referenced (with references not really supporting the claims in the article) and I have not been able to find significant, independent secondary sources that in any way indicate that this product is notable. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only link I could find referencing it anywhere is the site selling them. It would deserve an article if it became widely used but until then it should be deleted. Howan (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above. It is a stub, there is not enough 'meat' on the article to make it notable or last. 76.71.122.138 (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are several independent references from a WP:RS Irish newspaper. I don't know why Wikipeterproject says the articles don't support the claims, since they definitely do. --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first article does confirm the inventor. The second reference is about one specific event, but the article uses it as a reference to support a very broad claim that the machine "is now used at a wide range of sporting venues..." Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know from my own original research that water hogs are widely used in cricket, and are frequently referred to in match commentaries (much of Test Match Special consists of commentators talking through rain breaks, especially when the match is taking place in England, so clean-up efforts are described in detail). Here's an article about their use in cricket and here's one about golf. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly more information needs to be added, but the item in question does indeed have notability. Images, history of the device, different brands... all of this would be of great addition to the article. But I disagree with calls to delete this stub of an article. — Timneu22 · talk 19:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - used internationally, these machines are regularly referred to in the media. I am indebted to User:Phil Bridger for finding two more sources, the second of which addresses the subject directly and in detail. I see no basis for deletion. As a final thought, I find it regrettable that the nominator did not extend the courtesy to me of notifying me of this AfD. TerriersFan (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Sorry. Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. non consensus to delete and rewriting is a disamb page seems to be the consensus of the discussion Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attera Orbis Terrarum[edit]

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

Only two albums in this series and both have articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article as a reference point for those who might have fallen into some confusion over there being two DVDs as well as there having been tour of the same name from which the DVDs were recorded. I think this means of clarification is very useful particularly if somebody just types in "Attera Orbis Terrarum" without knowing the background. Dark Prime (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps I should say, a disambiguation point. Dark Prime (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change into a disambiguation page which is a rather minor change but more in keeping with the material. Tomas e (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And retain the name 'Attera Orbis Terrarum' as a redirect to the new page? Dark Prime (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page would just be replacing the page as it is now with just links to the separate DVD pages. An example and information about them can be found here. Howan (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with disambig pages myself. Just I must have blundered with this page in particular by not inserting categories etc. Dark Prime (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change into a disambiguation page It would better serve the purpose of the page and do it more clearly. Howan (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the present version of the page only says the series was for the "promotion of their 2005 studio album Attera Totus Sanctus". Thus only one album is involved—unless the nom means the DVDs? If the page cannot be expanded (and, crucially, referenced), then, IMO, any relevent content should be merged into Attera Totus Sanctus and the present page used as a disambiguation page listing only the DVDs and pointing to that album. I.e. more or less as now (but but probably stripped of the navbox) but with the addition of the various dab temps and cats etc. Notable enough, though, going by the related album and artist pages, so I don't quite follow the nom's rationale: lots of concert series have only two or three related DVDs but are still notable enough for WP (though their articles are usually more developed, to be fair) --Jubilee ♫clipman 23:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anyone feeling the article should be incubated/userfied/etc. can drop me a line and I'll do so. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Network as a service[edit]

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

Article subject (a neologism) is not verifiably notable in reliable sources. WP:ADVERT created under conflict of interest by employee of Aepona, who claims to be "powering Network as a Service". Only unreliable and/or self-published sources and blog references were used. -- samj _in ^out 20:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism and promotional: With the NaaS model, operators treat their key assets - network communications, billing and intelligence - as marketable resources that can be offered to third parties on a commercial basis.... The IGT has established a working group to investigate the NaaS concept. The NaaS concept continues to gain traction within telecommunications as industry analysts try to predict what impact it will have on the market. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reset article back to it's original state before nomination for deletion. If Wiki decides to delete the article then all well and good. The debate should take place on the original article which was already worked on alongside Wiki admins to try and get it in line with notability guidelines. Most, if not all references, to Aepona have been removed (in fact original credit for term goes back to 1997 with Fujitsu). There are two references out of 16 to Aepona - and no mention in the main body of the article. This article was written to fill in a gap in the Everything-as-a-Service article which has also been nominated for deletion. Given that this has been nominated by a Google employee, surely that also falls under the 'conflict of interest banner' given their own vested interest in the Cloud Computing arena?

Comment. I deleted the "Everything as a service" article and a number of redirects to it. The only substantive contributor proposed it for deletion; other contributors were mostly adding various challenging tags for it. I would reverse this if asked, but I don't think the subject has a lot of promise. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure what any of this has to do with cloud computing or Google but for those who missed the connection I wrote that article myself (and some time later requested that it be deleted, in part because problematic articles like this one started sprouting from it). -- samj _in ^out 21:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added additional reference to a study produced by ABI Research. Unfortunately the actual report is $4200 (I am not that keen to see the article live on!). However the link provided does show the table of contents for the report and that the NaaS concept is discussed therein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcvarno (talk • contribs) 14:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your recent edits because they undid a dozen or so earlier edits without justification. If you wish to re-add references that were removed then please ensure they are compliant with Wikipedia policies & guidelines including WP:RS, WP:SPS, and in this case WP:PAYWALL. Also bear in mind that WP:COI calls on you to avoid, or exercise great caution when participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization. -- samj _in ^out 13:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please can the closing admin note this Which smacks of canvassing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um possibly worth discounting my vote too since I came this this noting possible canvassing on my watchlist, but this article is clearly outside our inclusion criteria. It says "an emerging business model". That's pretty much the definition of non-notable spam... Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also my response - it was a good faith attempt to achieve consensus by notifying all of two nonpartisan editors - e.g. kosher per WP:CANVAS. Also note that I've reverted both. As for discounting your vote - that's really stretching the definition... your vote is fine. -- samj _in ^out 12:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin can use their own judgement on this but I note that the last time Tetracube voted in an AFD it was to join Verbal in supporting deletion of something else Sam nominated and they only voted on 3-4 AFDs in 4 years editing. Non-partisan? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw without prejudice for speedy renomination. I've been unjustifiably accused of having an unexplained conflict and subsequently repeatedly accused of canvassing, ironically by someone who agrees this is "pretty much the definition of non-notable spam". As I explained I'm currently working on a spate of "as a Service" spam and nobody outside of the author themselves is likely to vote to keep this article. Not wasting any more of my Sunday afternoon on this commercial abuse of Wikipedia. -- samj _in ^out 12:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have noted Sam's concerns and his position on these articles. His level of frustration is obvious and if the article is selected for deletion then so be it. I have tried to make the article as non-partisan as possible. I have also referenced as many articles (including some but obviously not enough) that match Wikipedia's guidelines in my own opinion. This seems to be a fairly subjective area though. When I put this article together it was done so in good faith - not with the thought of advertising (note the number of times I removed references to my own company and left only two links in) but simply to fill a gap in Wikipedia which already had a number of 'as a Service' articles. However, in my opinion it is only a matter of time before these articles will once again emerge on Wikipedia. If my own vote counts then I nominate for deletion simply because I don't have time to get involved in what is obviously a larger debate (and in some cases - personal conflict).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcvarno (talk • contribs)

Incubate. Perhaps this article should be incubated? Abductive (reasoning) 08:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Medford, New Jersey#Points of interest. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JCC Camps at Medford[edit]

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

Page seems like an advertisement for an essentially non-notable summer camp. Also contains peacock words (e.g. "scenic" Medford and "most popular" day camp), and the article was originally written by User:Yeathatsme, whose only edit to date was the creation of this page back in 2007. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge performed. I couldn't find any independent sources that discussed the camp (although several name it briefly, e.g., as a participant in a lawsuit about a dam that failed during a major storm), so I have merged the encyclopedic content to Medford, New Jersey#Points of interest as recommended by WP:FAILN and WP:PRESERVE. Offhand, I'm not sure that we need the redirect... but I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Medford, New Jersey#Points of interest. I think all information of any encyclopedic value has already been merged by WhatamIdoing, although redirecting and preserving the page history will allow for proper attribution and further merging at interested editors' discretion. I also think that this title could be a valid search term; however, I concur with the nominator's argument that this summer camp fails WP:N. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

United States Basketball Association[edit]

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

Result: Non-consensus (non-admin closure) as the issue will be re-visited in a few months. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am requesting this page be deleted as it is about a basketball league that has been delayed for four years now. The only sources on the league are press releases on the league which means it doesn't meet WP:N. Much of this article is self-promotion. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am Duane Allen Jenkins, President of the United States Basketball Association, Inc. I request that you do not delete the United States Basketball Association article. The person requesting deletion could be a competing basketball league. We are a Georgia corporation. We have been plagued by attacks from people such as the individual requesting deletion. We have hired coaches and we have negotiated arena rental agreements. The economy is a factor in my decisions. It is not true we have delayed the opening for four years. This is a total fabrication. I do need help conforming my article. Our first season was scheduled for April 2009. The economy forced a delay in our opening. If you delete this article you are assisting a competitor. We own each team and we supply the funding for the entire operation. My primary question is, Why is this individual so concerned about the United States Basketball Association and not other basketball league who place articles on Wikipedia. What is this individuals real purpose? This person has change our article in an attempt to do harm to my company. I have sent wikipedia an email to help me conform my article to meet your specifications. Please have someone answer my request at the email address sent to you on March 29, 2010, so I know this person is someone you approve to help us and not this individual who appears to wish to harm the USBA. {User: usbaball} 30 March, 2010

Delete: This league has consistently postponed their inaugural season. It has had no leases with any arenas and little if any verifiable content aside from their website. This league is little more than vapourware (i.e. a website and not much else). As an aside, I am not affiliated with any other basketball league. I'm not "picking on" the USBA or anything else, it fails the rules of Wikipedia and thus should be deleted. If any other basketball league fell in the same boat, I'd support a deletion of it as well. Also, as Duane Jenkins mentions above, he is the founder and President of the league. But he wrote his own article, which in itself violates the self-promotion rules on Wikipedia. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sure that many of the regular participants in deletion discussions will recognize that I often put lots of effort into finding sources, but Mr Jenkins's comment above has convinced me that it's not worth expending any effort on this article, as it makes it clear that this article is spam. I would advise Mr Jenkins that by accusing people of conspiring against his association he his making himself look ridiculous, as the vast majority of Wikipedia editors and readers have never heard of it, so wouldn't have any reason to take part in such a conspiracy. Try to get an objective perspective on your level of importance. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Basketball Association decided to pospone the 2009 basketball season due to the severe nature of the American economy in 2009. We have written agreements with the colleges and venues which will house our basketball teams. This individual who states were have no signed rental agreements is wrong and he is a sample of individuals who make unsupported statements about the USBA and our private business. The Arena Football League (AFL) posponed their season as well. The AFL is owned by individuals who own National Football Leagues teams. Are you going to delete their article as well? The Continental Basketball League postponed their season until May, 2010 their original date to open was April 10, 2010, are you going to delete their article. Why is the USBA under such srutiny from the critics? Our investment to fund the United States Basketball Association is coming from my private resources. My inexpierence to correctly construct a Wikipdia article should not exclude me from sharing the information about the USBA to basketball fans or the inquisitive. The USBA is a for profit business and has every right to post an article on Wikipedia. Why are critics, who have no investment in my company, so insistant about the elimination of our article. I make the statements about a conspiracy, because since day one of my interest in minor league basketball, one bloggers web site (oursportscentral.com) has printed lies, accusations and mistruths about me and the USBA. I own several companies. I have many clients. I have an excellant reprutation with Chamber of Commerece and better Business Business Bureau's I've owned my own businesses since 1978. I have never had such resistance as I have since my introduction into minor league basketball. Instead of critcizing me and the article why won't you point your intellect toward me and help me conform this article to meet Wikipedia specifications. [User: Usbaball] 1 April, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usbaball (talk • contribs) 17:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has any "right" to post an article on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Wikipedia is a web site owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which has the right to decide what is published here, and has, except in certain cases where they may be legal implications, delegated that right to the community of editors. If you want to convince anyone that we should have an article about your association then drop the paranoia about conspiracy theories and explain why this is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. The guidelines for whether this is the case are explained here and here, and basically mean that we will accept articles on subjects that have received substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, such as articles in established newspapers that go beyond simply reproducing press releases. If you can point us towards such coverage then I will be more than happy to support retention of this article. I would add that this discussion is about the United States Basketball Association, not about the Arena Football League or the Continental Basketball League. If anyone (including you) thinks that those leagues don't meet our guidelines then separate deletion discussions can be started for them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Haha, pretty funny stuff with the guy claiming to be the "President" of the league. i suppose if we nominate a John Mayer song for deletion then someone posing as John Mayer will give us paragraphs as to why not to delete the article for reasons not told in the Guideline? Haha. Str8cash (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if usbaball is in fact involved with the org, they would know of any press coverage, including coverage of their delays in starting. i have no doubt that IF this was a notable business start up, there would at least be local press in its hometown, around it starting or not starting (jobs lost or made, etc). since the article has no references, even to (cut out and posted on his office walls) newspaper articles that the user could provide names and dates for (we dont need urls for every reference, and god knows WP will allow good faith addition of sources without rigorous checking of each inline citation to a page in a reference book), then the business is not yet notable. even a spectacular failure of the business, with lawsuits and recriminations, would be notable (though i doubt they would want to add that material).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep with a major rewrite: The USBA discussed above is not the first to go by this title, it seems.[12], [13]. That fact that it is a proposed league that may never go forward doesn't preclude an article if its had sufficient coverage as a proposed league, e.g., [14], [15], [16]. But it hasn't had a huge amount of coverage.--Milowent (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i dont think the info provided by milowent is enough to change my "vote" above to keep as of this moment, but i will say that now that we have a third party reference for a start date of april, i wouldnt be opposed to letting a lean article stand to see if some reportage is found this month. if it really starts, or really barely starts, but gets coverage about this, by end of month, i would easily say keep. otherwise, i stand with delete. can we delay this decision, or is that gaming the system?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I would like to withdraw this as the new changes seem to change the problems related to WP:N. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: I would suggest, based no my current reading of the debate, is that you could close as no consensus default to keep without prejudice to renomination in a few months time.--Milowent (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Morenooso (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nom just withdrew though?--Milowent (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with milowent. we can review this in a few months if necessary.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will go ahead and close this as no-consensus. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Uncle Charlie & His Dog Teddy. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Charlie Interview[edit]

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

Non-notable song, probably a copyvio. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uncle Charlie & His Dog Teddy per WP:NSONGS: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." Glenfarclas (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me if you want to delete. Too many orphaned articles on Wiki. Don't really even know why I wrote this in the first place. Thanks. --10stone5 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on the album. Remove the lyrics however because of copyright issues.Borock (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warchant.com[edit]

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

Promotional, linkfarm, non-notable... let me count the reasons this really doesn't seem to merit an article. PROD'ed and then restored per challenge from author, but I just don't see how this does or can meet inclusion criteria: if it were cleaned up of all the promotional material, there would be nothing left. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 18:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 18:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As written, almost G11able in my mind. There's potentially an article in this, but this isn't it. Blueboy 96 22:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Goldstein[edit]

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

Delete - Though I appreciate this individual's contributions to wikipedia, this does not warrant an article per WP:BIO. Djma12 ^(talk) 00:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A bit of web searching has turned up three recordings issued in the late 1970s, early 1980s, two of which were apparently reviewed in mainstream publications: the American Record Guide and Stereo Review. This information has been added to the article. According to WP:MUSIC two such recordings are considered to be sufficient for notability. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read WP:MUSIC. "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:" ... "Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." None of the links provided have any information other than the fact that Martha Goldstein made a record or had a small community concert. Djma12 ^(talk) 03:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Google Books listing for the Stereo Review article clearly provides evidence for a review. The article in the American Record Guide discusses the instrument used and the tunings used and appears to be discussing the importance of the recording to the emergence of the original instrument movement, so it is more than a typical directory or release listing. I feel these leads could be pursued and may well provide good evidence of notability. It seems like we should make an effort to improve the article and keep it, if possible. Please also read WP:DEMOLISH. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a way that we can actually read these supposed reviews? It is extremely hard to evaluate the notability of an individual based upon small Google snippets with their name highlighted. More importantly, for notable individuals, we shouldn't need to rely on tiny Google snippets with their name highlighted... Djma12 ^(talk) 23:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there doesn't seem to be much doubt that she made LPs, a number of them. The evidence suggests that at least one, possibly two, got reviewed. (Am I responsible for the fact that Google can only present snippets?) One of the problems here is that it's a borderline case, and her recordings were made before the web existed and are out of print. Obviously she's not a big star like Martha Argerich or Rudolf Serkin. I made an effort to try to find things to improve and save an article which I did not create. I was motivated to do that much because the lady has indirectly done us a favor by releasing her recordings without copyright restrictions, and I enjoyed listening to them. Sorry, but that's all I can do for now. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that it seems a bit paradoxical to me that on the one hand the editors of the Wikipedia would select one of her performances as a "Featured Audio File" and on the other turn around and delete a biographical note on the performer as being "non-notable". Guidelines are guidelines. Perhaps they do not need to be so rigidly enforced. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There appears to be some notability here, as indicated by Robert Allen, above. It is thin, owing mainly to the fact that it predates the web. Wikipedia highlighting a performance as notable (and as a featured sound) isn't valid here, simply because Wikipedia isn't a reliable source - what we say doesn't matter. But the sources about the artist are sufficient, if barely, to satisfy the notability guideline. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice exists towards userfication, just drop me a note on my talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota pyrotechnic laws[edit]

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

The page is simply a reference to specific laws of a specific area. There is little possibility of added information. The information on the page likely found more easily and clearly on a Minnesota police website. Wikipedia is not a repository of laws etc (WP:NOTREPOSITORY). Howan (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article could easily be expanded. The subject matter is definitely notable, and historical context could easily be added. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into a larger article per the usual outcomes. Legal articles of "X law in State" generally keep if they are overall areas, such as New York energy law, Palestinian law, or List of Philippine laws. This one is much too specific. A merge to Fireworks#Laws_governing_consumer_fireworks is a cheap and easy option. Another possibility is to split into a new article at Laws_governing_consumer_fireworks.Bearian (talk)

I think that this article could be expanded into something more than a list, as it is a big deal in Minnesota and Wisconsin, in that these laws result in massive amounts of arial fireworks being brought into Minnesota from Wisconsin, as well as large fireworks dealerships springing up right over the border in Wisconsin. In short, the notability of the subject goes beyond the laws themselves, and warrants inclusion. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 18:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can work on this, in mainspace or userspace, please do so. Rescue? Bearian (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not LexisNexis. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samhita Madras Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Non-notable technology festival at an University. The Madras Institute of Technology is a thoroughly notable university college, but that does not mean that everything which happens there is notable.

When I found the article yesterday it was full of peacock terms (see this version), so i reverted it back to the last (stubby) version in an encyclopedic tone.

However, none of the versions of this article appear to offer any assertion of notability or evidence of notability, and I have found no trace of it in a few searches (though my searches may be inadequate, because Samhita is a generic term with many other uses. The only relevant external coverage is a link to an article in The Hindu, but that's just a brief 142-word mention of the festival. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge Not notable to have an article of its own. Delete and merge with Madras Institute of Technology. Srikanth (Logic) 13:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable departmental function. There are less than 10 departments in MIT and the IT department is less than a decade old. A single word mention in the MIT article is enough--Sodabottle (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Madras Institute of Technology. However, I'm not sure this article can then be deleted, as it should be retained (as a redirect) to preserve the edit history. Glenfarclas (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing really to be merged. A redirect is an option, but the current title is not the appropriate redirect. —SpacemanSpiff 07:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of The Lepers[edit]

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

another WP:NOBLECAUSE Vietnamese organisation. fails WP:ORG. 4 gnews hits for Vietnamese name [17]. hardly anything in English [18]. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annotea[edit]

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

The only source I can find that might come close to satisfying WP:V and WP:N is this paper, part of the "Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web". It's highly cited, but I noted that the authors are part of the Annotea development team. Could not find any independent sources from reliable publications. Marasmusine (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sharon Ann Lane Foundation[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. hardly any third party coverage [19]. part of a series of very minor charities in Vietnam articles. LibStar (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sharon Ann Lane might have some notability (though it's not too strong), but this organization does not seem to at all. either way (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't see how there is sufficient evidence for notability atthis point. No prejudice against re-creation if good 3rd party sources can be found. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Givedon[edit]

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

overly promotion, the cited sources are not indepth coverage but more verify its existence. no coverage in gnews [20]. LibStar (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I shall edit the article to ensure it is encyclopedic and add additional references over the next several days. Uptodateinfo (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete suprised it wasnt just tagged Blatant advertising, observations based on this version(current version). ref#1(crunchbase) is wikitype site its one anyone can advertise their company on no editorial oversight. ref#2,ref#4 are self references to Givedon, Ref#3 is is company name search proviving the company exists and has the appropriate registration details as required in the UK, doesnt demostrate any notability just gives the date of registration. Thats the reference for the lead and the istory section. The next section is titled Service not one of the seven references used in this section refer to Givedon they are about other companies and their business activities. Delete per WP:NOTABILITY as there is no assertian of notability by significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the company. Gnan garra 07:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ - I'm sorry to see that my edits do not appear to meet your expectations, I am horrified at the suggestion of blatant advertising. I shall continue to edit and reference the article to ensure it is encyclopedic, and meets your expectations and the ethos of Wikipedia. Uptodateinfo (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- struck out the keep as you have already said that once. Gnan garra 12:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muna Abigail[edit]

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

There is questionable notability because the references are from press release sites/directories and I can't find any reliable sources. The references were posted only a few days ago. There also seems to be a conflict of interest since the article creator posted one of the references in the article [21]. Finally, the top google hits seem to be astroturfing of social networking sites with questions like 'who's heard of Muna abigail?' and digg/tweet links for the press releases. Clubmarx (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Clubmarx (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo hits at Google News Archive or Google Books, and no reliable and independent sources included in the article.Fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Clubmarx (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Puff piece that lacks proper referencing. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 01:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiulla Mian Rrahi[edit]

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

Contested prod, an autobiography (see User talk:ZarrinMahTaab). The rationale is still valid: No sources indicating notability of this person. Google search for Rafiulla Mian Rrahi, Rafiullah Mian and رفیع اللہ میاں راہی reveals no coverage in the reliable third-party sources. The subject fails the notability criteria for authors. Vejvančický (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find urdu and english online sources. If offline sources can be produced it can be kept.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Morning After (James album)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. This unsourced article isn't even sure if this is a studio or a live album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject to re-creation per WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom, WP:CRYSTAL clearly applies here. -- œ ^™ 00:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Resonator[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, and no evidence of notability per Wikipedia:Notability (books). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure this was ever published separately, rather as part of a how-to book called The Making of a Graphic Novel: The Resonator, as you can see here at Amazon. The only reliable-source coverage I would find was this article from the North Brunswick Sentinel, which although substantial does not seem to be enough to sustain this article; also, the text of the article is just an editor's recap of what happens in the book, which makes it OR. Glenfarclas (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, following Glenfarclas - it fails WP:N badly. (Emperor (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pumps & Systems[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pumps & Systems

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

This trade periodical seems to be a low circulation and non notable trade magazine and a possible vehicle for spam links created by a single purpose account. I can't see what the alleged reference is for, it just looks to me like a random link. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Appears to be the most notable trade publication in its subject. 42,000 readership is high circulation for a specialized periodical like this. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "most notable in its subject" does not mean it is notable; comparatives do not do the job. I am more notable than my fellows in my profession, but that does not, of itself, make me notable. In the land of the blind a one eyed man is king, but that does not make him notable. It's a laudable view, but not encyclopaedic without more to assert and verify the notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk)

notability is always notability within the subject. we don't judge softball players on how notable they would be if they were playing baseball. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, kings are notable per WP:POLITICIAN :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether this is an important or unimportant trade publication is beside the point; I looked and, while I found some references to things that had been published in it, I found no secondary sources that are about this periodical as a subject in its own right. It would therefore appear not to meet the broadest notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless secondary sources are provided. Abductive (reasoning) 07:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Metamorphosis (Papa Roach album). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had Enough (Papa Roach song)[edit]

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

Non charting song. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Attempts to redirect to album article as per WP:MUSIC are reverted by IP without discussion. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metamorphosis (Papa Roach album). I can not find significant coverage for the song in reliable sources (only passing mentions within reviews/articles about the album); it does not appear to meet WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 17:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Gongshow. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. So little information is provided in this article. Can be unmerged from last version if article were to be expanded. Dew Kane (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it really a charting song? Or is it an article on a non-notable uncharted song? It seems like the latter. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of snowboard tricks. Tone 15:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomahawk (snowboarding trick)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tomahawk (snowboarding trick)

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

The article does not explain why the trick is notable as an independent article. Just because Shaun White nailed it in the Olympics does not mean the trick is notable for an article.

Normally I would have prodded it. However, I believe this one warrants some discussion as this may cause contention from Shaun White fanboy. I also think that tricks does not alone merit notability, although each needs to be examined individually. (Indy grab has an article.)

Also consider the redirect Double McTwist 1260.

Don't get me wrong, I am a snowboarder myself. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of snowboard tricks. It is plausible entry, and can be noted for having been executed by a professional athlete in a major competition. The target itself could stand a bit of improvement, but that is neither here nor there. Intelligentsium 02:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems the article was made only because Shaun White pulled off the trick during the Olympics. Str8cash (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Nash Hearder[edit]

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

Orphan article with no indication of notability for its subject. "Jonathan Nash Hearder" gets 17 Google hits. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have begun a significant improvement of the article, including but not limited to a clear explanation of why he is notable (work on induction coil, developed experimental procedures for use by the blind), more readable prose, more detail, and the introduction of more and better references. I believe it passes WP:N on the basis of the sources currently in the article as I write this but I'll do more work on it today and tomorrow. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per excellent work by DFW expanding the article and finding sourcing. On the other hand, the sourcing is a bit light on the reliable side. On the other other hand, evaluating the sourcing in context suggests that what's there passes (if barely) notability. I may check back in on this to see if DFW has added anything further. Nice work. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Since this is a BLP, another comment or 2 would be helpful before it is closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [22] who have their own notability requirements. (Not a BLP incidentally.) Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. He gets 17 Ghits because he has been dead, Jim, for 134 years. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Pasquill[edit]

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

Non notable minor civil servant who briefly came to attention after losing his job and being arrested for breaching the UK Official Secrets Act. WP:ONEVENT would suggest that the artcile subject is not notable. The last two paragraphs of the article are pure fluff. I prodded this but the prod was removed by User:Pfferle. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep Actually, it was me who removed the prod, not User:Pfferle. I agree about the fluff, but it seems to me that independent coverage in several reliable sources over the course of three years establishes sufficient notability for an article. He's one of the better known British whistleblowers. Rl (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reading some of the !votes, I am rather amazed. The article is clearly not self-promotion. The man in question and his background are certainly relevant to the events (say, in contrast to Steve Bartman). The information he leaked in 2005 is certainly of historical interest. He was the source for a book (2006) by a renowned journalist. He was the main subject of articles in The Observer (2007) and Standpoint (2009). The New Statesman published Pasquill's own thoughts on the events (2008). He was interviewed again for a BBC 4 radio feature on whistleblowing (broadcast 26 October 2009). It is not hard to find more sources. Quite clearly, the leak and the prosecution of the leaker were notable events. I do not think that this is what WP:BLP1E was intended to remove from WP. I have no stake in this article other than wondering why a WP article that I found useful in understanding a recent news story is about to be deleted. Rl (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:BLP1E is very clear on this. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them If the trivia about the name is removed, we have a three paragraph stub which states that he exists, he was arrested, he was cleared when the prosecution dropped the case and that he was sacked - now if he went on to be a talk show host or became a leading freedom of information campaigner ro something else then there would be a reason for the article to exist. At the momenet there isn't enough to staisfy the notability. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider moving to the name of the court case. I remember this case on Newsnight when it arose, and it was a landmark test case as to the power of the Official Secrets Act - namely, the assertion of the Foreign Office that they could decide when a leak from their department was against the public interest. If this isn't kept, then I suggest a merge of the court case information into the Official Secrets Act article. The last two paragraphs can go though - can't see any encyclopaedic content there. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E; I don't see what would properly be merged into the article on the act. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could add a section to the Official Secrets Act 1989 article called "notable cases", possibly also including the R v Shayler cases too. (This assumes it was the 1989 Act Pasquill was charged under.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. News. If we hear about him again he can come back. Szzuk (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting guy, but still a case of WP:BLP1E. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject of a test case , with substantial public interest and likely historical notability.
Delete. A very very clear WP:BLP1E. If it were not for the legal issue, this guy would be thoroughly unnotable. I need not point out that WP:BLP1E is policy (through WP:BLP), not a guideline. Unless there are compelling reasons not to, it must be followed if we accept that this is a BLP1E case. If this was a "test case", lets have an article on the case. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Abductive (reasoning) 07:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Companion books (Percy Jackson & the Olympians)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Companion books (Percy Jackson & the Olympians)

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

I know that this was created in good faith, but I do not think it is needed. All of this is covered in the main article, Percy Jackson and the Olympians. It is an extremely short list with little potential to expand, and is redundant to the list at the above mentioned main article. Airplaneman ✈ 22:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Str8cash (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no content at the moment. either way (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.fast-report.com
^ http://www.delphizine.com
^ http://www.7880.com/info/Article-4639e7c0.html

[1] ttp://www.fast-report.com

[2] ttp://www.delphizine.com

[3] ttp://www.7880.com/info/Article-4639e7c0.html

[1]

[2]

[3]