Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 1

< 31 July	2 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. extransit (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Crowther (philosopher)[edit]

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

Does not appeat to meet WP:PROF. Disputed prod noq (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note that "Professor" in this context indicates a significantly more distinguished career than that of the average academic in the department; according to the departmental website, Crowther is the Chair of philosophy at NUIG. Skomorokh 15:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being Chair does not automatically qualify under WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's something of a non sequitur considering my remark never implied anything to the contrary. Skomorokh 15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why mention it at all?? --Crusio (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative_professionals: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. WikiScholar proves that Crowther's monographs are widely cited. --David Ludwig (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This search seems to work better for me (scholar.google.co.uk "Paul Crowther" -physics) (Msrasnw (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. The citation data mentioned above by David Ludwig are misleading, as they mainly concern another person with the same name (an astronomer). If one adds "philosophy" to the Google Scholar search, we find, in fact, very little citability. In addition to the above citation data, I just added a source to the article: one of his books was reviewed in the Times Higher Education and according to WorldCat that book is present in 398 libraries in the US alone. (If I could find this one item after searching for only 1 or 2 minutes, there likely is much more). --Crusio (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course, I didn't mean the astronomy papers but his monographs such as The Kantian Sublime or Critical Aesthetics and Postmodernism --David Ludwig (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! My search only yielded very low citation counts in the single digits. But The Kantian Sublime does not come up if you search for "Paul Crowther" as I did. GS shows yet again its unreliability... Thanks for your correction! --Crusio (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my view passes WP:Prof #1,. Sufficient evidence of notability via his publications and their reviews. (19:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC))(Msrasnw (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep because of influence. MiRroar (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What influence? noq (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. GS cites for appropriate topic give 97, 61, 38, 22, 16... h index = 8, so some influence is shown. How does this compare with others in the subject? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:26, 4 August 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. JForget 00:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 - notable races[edit]

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

Delete - all US House of Representatives elections are notable per the general notability guidelines. These articles take an editor-formulated concept (an election is notable if the seat changed party hands and/or was considered "competitive" by someone and/or "became competitive" according to someone) as its premise, which is original research. These elections are already covered in other articles and there need not be endless articles on every possible permutation on how to divide up the set. PROD removed by article creator. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Are You The Cow Of Pain? Truthsort (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to the main article. A much simpler approach would be to put an asterisk next to each seat that switched parties, in the article that already covers all of these elections: United States House of Representatives elections, 2008. First Light (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. postdlf (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AYTCOP says it best-- all U.S. House of Representatives races are notable, and it's purely a matter of opinion when it comes to which ones are "more notable", another way of saying "interesting". Mandsford 21:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete House members from states all have the same powers given to them by election, the rest is at the discretion of the House as a whole, so no election is per se more important than another and the articles and their titles are necessarily reliant on opinion. Hekerui (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Are you people crazy? Your removing tons of information, you can DELETE as long as all information is retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.22.13 (talk) 07:40, 6 August 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) 03:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emine Sultan[edit]

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

None to few related articles, no references, no external information from Google. Whenaxis (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Historical figure. It's a stub article, needs work. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Emine exist and their story is true. I'll post, English articles. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~royalty/turkey/i403.html#I403

http://web.archive.org/web/20020616205317/www.4dw.net/royalark/Turkey/turkey11.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Dilek2 (talk • contribs)

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, 26 July 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) 22:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What kind historical figure? What did she actually do? "She supported the activities of her husband" is the only assertion, and that is unreferenced and overly vague. The two references above by Dilek2 (one is just a copy of the article's external link) simply show that she existed, with no more than basic geneological information given. Sure, we give articles to nobodies if they are close in line of succession to a major throne, but 1) if she was close in line of succession to the Ottoman throne, it's not stated (and she was the youngest of several siblings), and 2) the Ottoman Sultanate expired before she did, anyway. There is a Emine Sultan Hotel, which I guess is named after her. It has ten rooms. No prejudice against re-creation if "support[ing] the activities of her husband" included presonally making a significant contribution to the struggle, providing references can be provided. Herostratus (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This source is from Ancestry.com and may be a WP:SPS, but even if it is not then it only meets WP:RS by WP:ASF. Therefore meeting of WP:V is questionable. User:Herostratus questions this person's notability with good reasons. In addition to his reasons her father's page says she was from his fifth wife and not one of the ten children recognized by the imperial house. There is no indication that actions of her life have notability, and her being born to the leader of a major empire does not make her notable because of Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. Blue Rasberry 03:31, 2 August 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) 03:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actual resource[edit]

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

a dictionary definition. May have some currency as a term in Economics, but none that I can see as worthy of a stand-alone article. As always, more than happy to be proved wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 13:33, 19 July 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, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I had a brief and small go at trying to prove you wrong when this was first listed, but failed to find any economics text that defined such a concept as claimed here. All that I could find were the normal usages of the adjectives "actual" and "potential" applied to the concept of a natural resource. Uncle G (talk) 19:38, 26 July 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) 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like Uncle G above (who didn't provide a comment summary, but can probably be counted as a Delete !vote), a fairly superficial search found nothing beyond the use of "actual resource" in a non-technical sense, e.g. "...actual resource prices are a result of..." (where "actual" modifies "prices"), that sort of thing. Anyway, the current article itself is really not sufficient to constitute a proper article. No prejudice against re-creation if real references can be provided. Herostratus (talk) 00:04, 2 August 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) 03:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Home, Jaime[edit]

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

Delete - There appear not to be reliable sources that establish the independent notability of this episode; fails WP:GNG. What isn't a WP:PLOT violation is original opinion. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 18 July 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) 00:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is some discussion of the episode in this book, along with a preview in this newspaper article. Davewild (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book devotes about two sentences to the episode and two more to the series. The newspaper article is the sort of "here's a new show" article that every TV series pretty much gets. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:23, 1 August 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) 22:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that if after two weeks no one has cared enough to express an opinion in favor of this article that is a pretty good indication that the original nomination is correct. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:23, 1 August 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. JForget 01:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questys Solutions[edit]

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

Jebo949 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"Contested" prod. Subject is "manufacturer of software and systems for document management, scanning, and paperless office solutions." Refs are self-referential/dead/give passing mention. No substantial coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No showing of technical importance or long term historical notability. Yet another back office tech business spammer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:15, 25 July 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) 22:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 2 of the refs doesn't work, the rest is not sufficient, Gnews either, therefore per nom. Dewritech (talk) 21:03, 3 August 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/redirect to Buddhist anarchism. I will redirect, editors are free to merge verifiable material. Jujutacular ^talk 22:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zenarchy[edit]

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

Neologism, any meaningful content can be covered at Buddhist anarchism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Buddhist anarchism. It doesn't look like much more can be said about this; it's yet another one-off social theory without serious study or academic recognition. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 18 July 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) 00:19, 25 July 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) 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kerry Wendell Thornley. Some Google Books discuss it but only related to the author and as parody, as opposed to substantive coverage in reliable sources treating this as philosophical school or tradition. Hekerui (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the author's page. Some few mentions in Google books and some passing mentions in Google News or Google Scholar aren't enough for a standalone article when there is an author's article also. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 8 August 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. CSD'd as a run-of-the-mill shopping plaza —fetch ·comms 23:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bon-Aire Plaza[edit]

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

No indication why this plaza is important. No sources, no third-party coverage. Possibly a stub, but useful?? — Timneu22 · talk 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 1 August 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. no arguments for deletion aside the nom JForget 01:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Americans[edit]

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

There's a reason we have categories. This page is a list of lists, and doesn't actually contain encyclopedic content. —fetch ·comms 22:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists of lists are specifically allowed for at WP:STAND#Lists of lists. And WP:CLS tells us very clearly that categories do not supersede lists and that we should not delete one to promote the other. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of lists is just fine. It would be a different discussion if these were NN or redlinked, but they're not. Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 2 August 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 per WP:SNOW. Consensus is pretty clear here, although the article could use some references (the links at the bottom were just that: links, not references). Also, as GuillaumeTell pointed out, why is only this discography being singled out? Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fidelio discography[edit]

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

This seems to be an indiscriminate catalogue or directory contrary to WP:NOTDIR. If people want to buy a recording of this work, there are plenty of commercial sites that will supply this information. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Colonel Warden (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q to nominator: Could you specify what makes this list "indiscriminate", compared to less offending discographies? East of Borschov 22:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems indiscriminate in that it seems intended to catalogue all such recordings, regardless of their merit or notability. Music of this sort is often performed and recorded. Per WP:NOTDIR, it is beyond our scope to catalogue all such instances in an indiscriminate way. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discographies are not any old catalogue. Several such discographies are featured lists and there is no reason why this article could not eventually be improved to that level. Specifically in the case of opera articles, the practice has often been to separate large discographies out into separate articles in order to manage the size of the main article. In reply to CW's responce to East of Borschov above, a complete discography avoids making arbitrary decisions as to merit and notability.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can well understand that you might want to do this but such accumulation of exhaustive detail for its own sake is generally frowned upon. It is completism but we aim for a summary style. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not exhaustive detail. In opera discogs, including this one, decisions are made on which roles are important enough to be listed, pirated recordings not released by reputable companies are excluded etc. As and when this article attains featured list status, the lead section will be expanded and discussion will include whether any of these recordings have achieved major classical music awards etc. Organising a small contained set of material does not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As for summary style, the splitting out of a contained subtopic (a discography) from the main article on a work of music actually confirms to that policy.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unclear whether or how decisions are made. It appears that they are made without reference to reliable sources and so may constitute original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peter Cohen.4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that this article is totally beyond the scope of Wikipedia as per WP:NOTDIR and should therefore be deleted. It's not even a case of the article needing additional work, it's just fundamentally too unfocused and wide-ranging for a discography article in my view. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot see what in WP:NOTDIR directly pertains to a discography of this nature (and would like to see a discussion as to what exactly in NOTDIR this article contravenes) and also suspect that every item on the list this would pass notability in its own right for a separate article. Furthermore, as a way of avoiding POV decisions it is a sensible development from "Selected Recordings" sections and in that light to be commended IMO. almost-instinct 02:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion proposer seem to be unaware that discographies are part of modern scholarship. University libraries own recordings that have long ceased to be available commercially (and thus probably could not be found on commercial sites, as the proposer suggests). There are professional discographers, and they have their own scholarly journal (see [1]). And this is as it should be: part of our understanding of a work like Fidelio includes the various ways that artists have chosen to render it in performance. Opus33 (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The journal you cite seems to be semi-professional, being open to private record collectors. In any case, many professionals keep catalogues of their exhibits, specimens, books and the like. It is not our purpose to reproduce these catalogues as we are not a database of that sort. Please see http://www.discogs.com for a site which supports such activity. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion immediately above. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Opus33. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peter cohen and Opus33. Also, Wikipedia is not paper. --Folantin (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peter Cohen. Ozob (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Opus nailed it. This particular type of list is essential to the mission of our project. Antandrus (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this information were important or essential, you would expect to find it in the main article about this opera. It seems to have been spun off separately because it is not essential. Colonel Warden (talk)

The nominator being a member of the m:Association of Structurist Wikipedians, I would like to quote from this association's page: "Combining too much information in a single article discourages users from forging ahead with more detail and new ways of looking at the topic at hand.". These discographies were not spun off because they were not essential, but to improve readibility of the main article. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – What's next? Opera discographies and related categories/articles? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peter cohen and Opus33. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peter Cohen and Opus33 and numerous others. It is still not at all clear which of the prohibitions listed in WP:NOTDIR is being referred to, as none of them seems to fit. Furthermore, since there is a well-populated Category:Discographies, I'm wondering why this particular one is being singled out by the nom. --GuillaumeTell 23:23, 4 August 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. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haspop[edit]

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

In the past, consensus has been that participation on a reality show does not, in itself, make a person meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. In this case, I don't see the reliable independent sources to show that this person is well-known beyond his participation in this program. Prod removed by creator without comment or improvement. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. There are no reliable secondary sources to establish notability of this artist beyond appearing in the the televsion series (and even that was not widely covered outside NBC media). Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - I don't know if this is the right way to comment, but I was looking up Haspop online because I wanted to learn more about him since I think he's an amazing artist, and his Wikipedia page encourages users to comment on his page being flagged for deletion. I hope you will not delete it. Haspop is an excellent and very interesting artist. He has performed with Cirque du Soleil, which in itself is a huge artistic credential. I also want to add that there is something noteworthy simply in that he is one of very few Muslim dance/performance artists active in the US, and certainly one of extremely few Muslim performers advancing so far in a popular-format talent competition. Why delete? Let him stay. Obviously this isn't a direct comparison, but you know, were Van Gogh alive and painting today, he wouldn't make the Wikipedia cut for inclusion, either. Why don't you let Haspop stay and revisit the page in a year's time? Just a real user's 2-cents. Thanks! -Jen H., Malden, MA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.190.121 (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I often end up neutral when it comes to WP:ONEEVENT. But I'd just like to mention to the above IP that that's not the way Wikipedia works. Consider reading WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it article currently stands. I'm open to changing my mind with introduction of reliable sources plus indications of notability. The IP's (above) comments may be points that indicate some notability if they can be placed in context. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are two things to consider here: (1) whether the individual is notable enough for a stand-alone article, and, (2), whether (if not) his name merits a redirect to the tv show on which he is a semi-finalist. I have a weak keep opinion to the first and a strong keep opinion about the latter. :) First, I'll note that I've altered this article considerably. In addition to cleanup, I've added what reliable sources I can find and taken the source we had inline. I couldn't find much, searching both English and French news sources. But he does seem to have some notability aside from the show (winning championships in hip hop alone and with his group, though sourcing for the former is more dubious than the latter), and his appearance on the show has of course drawn some attention from French press, so it is more widely publicized than NBC media...internationally so. At this point, I think we should retain the content in the article for now and, if there are no firmer indications of notability in reasonable time, redirect it to the competition show. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the sources provided are a little thin they establish that he's not notable simply for being on AGT but also as a competitive dancer both individually and as part of a crew. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I was just looking up Haspop and came across this page, I can't believe he is just becoming famous and you wish to delete the page. Fine just delete all of Wikipedia, what is it there for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.136.34 (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In its original version as brought here I would have gone with Delete, and I think the nomination rationale was correct at the time. But I think Moonriddengirl's work has now provided enough to establish more than WP:ONEEVENT notability. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Koblizek (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some notability but still all related to WP:ONEEVENT Cavafox (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He meets WP:GNG from his performances on America's Got Talent, and I would say that being a member of Cirque du Soleil pushes him just past the ONEEVENT bar. Reso lute 04:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article meets the notability guidelines, but if it is going to be deleted, you should wait to see if he reaches the finals or final stages of competition. If he is a finalist, then this article should be kept. Gamer9832 (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Not a BLP1E, as cleanup and sourcing have shown. Improvements and enough else available to support this article remining and being further improved over time and through the couse of regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the very most it should be redirected to the current season of AGT. No need to delete it. For An Angel (talk) 17:52, 5 August 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. JForget 01:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HEAT Online[edit]

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

Non-notable online game, reads like an advertisement. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article and add a part about the game to Invictus Games. There was a bit of news coverage about the releasing of the game, but there was very little about it and it was probably just mentioned because of Project Torque. Most of the article was actually a copyright violation, which I have removed, which doesn't leave much content. This topic doesn't seem to be notable. --Slon02 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The HEAT Online page is an information page for the wikipedia encyclopedia about the game. It contains basic info, the official press release, system requirements, game features. Let the reader judge, what it is: information or advertisement. I thought giving information is good. Please remove from the deletion list/suggestion. Best,A_Lamborgh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete & Redirect to Invictus Games per Slon02. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This is more suited as an "About" page on the game's website, not for Wikipedia. –MuZemike 02:50, 4 August 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 wishing to transwiki can contact me and I will userfy the page for them for a limited time to facilitate their doing so. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal and veterinary terms in Karimojong[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Pichpich (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listed above. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and then delete, this is a list of translations, and hence would make a valuable addition somewhere in Wiktionary. I'm not sure whether it would need to be split up into word-by-word translation entries, or if it would be allowed to stay in single-page format (I doubt it, but am not sure). I'll tag it for transwiki copying. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —-- Quiddity (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete per Quiddity and WP:NOT#DICT. --Slon02 (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here, if it goes to some other more appropriate wiki is a bonus. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 8 August 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. JForget 01:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RISCO Group[edit]

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

no indication of notability. no independent WP:reliable sources. References appear to be to press releases. Contested prod. Google does not provide anything to establish notability. noq (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Risco Group, known until 2005 as Rokonet, is one of the largest global security system creators (a competitor of Honeywell's intrusion detection systems). Several press releases are written by authorities in the security systems field. Please let me know which information must be deleted in order to meet Wikipedia's standards and keep the Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.89.132 (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only do they provide "solutions", they provide them globally! multinational company providing security solutions for the global market. The remaining article is devoted to a catalogue of the "solutions" they offer. Unambiguous advertising and no showing of historical, cultural, or technical significance: not an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are not independant, reliable secondary sources to support this comapny's notability. The few GNews articles are mainly from a single source and do not provide more than trivial coverage. To be included in Wikipedia, the article would need to have all its claims supported by reliable second-party sources. The company's own website, although it can be used as a source for basic facts, cannot be used as a source to establish notability. Read Wikipedia:Notability and WP:Verifiability for more information. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No sources to support notability. JNW (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. The products and technologies have been removed from the page, and a source (dan & bradstreet) was added to establish notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.150.25.210 (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A one line directory listing does not establish notability. noq (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: just not notable. Dewritech (talk) 21:22, 3 August 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. JForget 01:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Unholy Alliance (WWF)[edit]

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

There's a difference between a notable tag team and two notable wrestlers who just happened to be paired together. Short-lived and only covered in primary sources. Nikki♥311 18:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 18:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another case of trying to establish notability through WP:INHERITED. No independent sources at all to establish notability so it fails WP:N. Mal Case (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The team fails WP:GNG. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 11:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources to essatablish noteablity and not even a noteable tag team at that. Red Flag on the Right Side 20:52, 5 August 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. JForget 00:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KANGARILA[edit]

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

New golf format. No evidence of offered. Fractionally better than NFT. Author has blatant COI. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable golf-based game. No independent RS coverage to speak of. _wjemather ^bigissue 20:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious promotion by COI editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lot better than WP:NFT as it is an actual product for sale, reviewed or at any rate briefly described at a few site web site such as coolgadgets.com and technews.am (whatever that is). That said, these mentions are little more than on-line reposts of press releases, and there are no real stories about the game in newspapers or magazines, etc., or that sort of thing, that I can see. Herostratus (talk) 20:32, 1 August 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. JForget 00:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esfahan Symposium on Laser Physics[edit]

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

Contest prod. Seems to be just another small academic meeting. There's no evidence that it has had any lasting impact in the academic world - searching for it under its correct title yields only 44 hits. Fails WP:N andy (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
deleteAs prod Nom Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Although papers presented at the symposium are cited, there appear to be no sources about the symposium itself. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 02:58, 4 August 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 g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleazure Atlanta[edit]

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

Very few reliable sources available to prove notability and even the claims of this article. I found it very close to being classified an advertisement. Request an AfD delete. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:50, 1 August 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. JForget 00:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook search[edit]

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

This is almost an advert for Facebook, but Facebook doesn't need publicity! It is, however, a how to guide and an essay, neither of which have a place on Wikipedia Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 80% of the article is a copyvio of http://www.facebook-search.com/about/, so I have gone the CSD route. If it survives speedy deletion with the removal of the copyvio, then the discussion here becomes one of notability (I do not view it as inherently notable). Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At risk of making a fool of myself, I am now unsure whether this is anything to do with Facebook itself, or whether it is an independent website seeking to establish its own notability by placing a promotional article here.It appears to be http://www.facebook-search.com which could well be some third party utility page for Facebook. If so then this is blatant advertising as well as lack of notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's independent website and if you consider this as a blatant advertising, please, also delete following article too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openbook_(Facebook).

It describes similar website, but with restricted functionality comparing to Facebook Search website.

Also I will remove part of article which duplicates http://www.facebook-search.com/about/

Please, let me know if it's ok. Thank you.--DmitryO (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The other article you mention has coverage in reliable sources. This one does not. WIkipedia may not be used in order to establish a reputation. When that reputation is already established then an article is warranted. I am assuming that you have an intimate involvement with the site. It is unwise to create and edit articles where one has a conflict of interest. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't like it Jimzah32 (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is definitely not a good reason for deletion (although I do agree with a delete). It's hard to tell where this article is even going. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll tell it like it is; it's just a Google custom search set up with the term "[subject] +facebook" (it doesn't even touch the actual Facebook API). That's not the hallmark of a site at all, it's just a domain squatter trying to get Google AdSense dollars from poor suckers who didn't know you could do that right from Google itself. Nate • (chatter) 19:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I look at the site more carefully, you are completely right. Damn, I wish I'd thought of that myself!! On that basis, though my nomination for speedy deletion was declined, perhaps a passing admin might form a view that this is actually direct spam because using the page at all is likely to earn the site immediate Adsense revenue. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The blog content is also scraped from the site AllFacebook so this site is a walking copyright violation. Nate • (chatter) 05:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per the above. this is a clear case of advertising. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:42, 3 August 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. JForget 00:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frisky sour[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a how to guide ttonyb (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Wikipedia articles about foods are normally involved mainly with a discussion about the food itself, such as its history, and sometimes include information about its preparation, but this article is just a recipe and should be deleted. --Slon02 (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply a recipe, which violates the rule that Wikipedia is not the place for how-to articles. From a Google search it appears there is no history or significance to discuss; all I can find is recipes - most of them very different from this one, being citrus-juice-based rather than soup-based. The recipe presented here was from a Campbell's cookbook of 1968; apparently it never caught on. --MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 6 August 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. JForget 00:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Shell[edit]

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

This person seems only to have nonnotable roles (he is not mentioned at imdb.com). So either it is a hoax or not notable according to WP:ENT. Fabian Hassler (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable actor with non-notable parts in a few films. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 18:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as unsourcable and definite hoax. Looking at the article and its assertions: No television show called Mercy Hospital... though there is Mercy (TV series). No actor named "Shell" or character named "Dr Brian Alcaz " in Mercy (TV series).[2] (I removed "The Shelly Shell" from the Wikipedia article as was entered June 18 by anon IP 86.70.220.25 as unsourcable)[3] No actor named "Shell" or character named "Stephanson " in Burn Notice.[4] No actor named "Shell" or character named "Greg Phillips" in The Unit.[5] No actor named "Shell" in Inception... their are two characters as "Business man", but neither of them is Shell.[6] No actor named "Shell" or character named "Jacky River" in Balls of Fury.[7] No actor named "Shell" or character named "military son" in The Marine.[8] No actor named "Shell" or character named "Sarah's friend" (or even a character named "Sarah") in Firewall (film).[9] And as for the AKA of "Tha Shelly Shell"... nothing but wikimirrors of this article. As hoaxs go, this BLP violation was not even a decent effort... just a time-waster. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:44, 5 August 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. JForget 00:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ih8sn0w[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a reliably sourced group. So its difficult/impossible to establish notability. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7 -- role^player 18:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very obvious speedy delete. Haakon (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as I suggested earlier. De728631 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, db-web. Hairhorn (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7/DB-Web (tagged!) --ANowlin: talk 00:47, 8 August 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. JForget 00:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sn0wbreeze[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable iPhone app. Only references provided are the app's own website and a blog. role^player 11:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - more references have now been added, however they are mostly blogs, as far as I can tell. Still no concrete sources. -- role^player 11:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what should i produce to prove this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.250 (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some reliable third party sources. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Pretty much what RolePlayer said above. A google search yielded nothing concrete. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Changing to Redirect --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment assuming this is a jailbreaking tool, maybe it should just redirect to iOS jailbreaking? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have a feeling that this might be a moot point but I'm going to put it forward, but is there any point in redirecting when very few people are going to type sn0wbreeze into the search bar? I see more people using jailbreaking as a search term rather than sn0wbreeze. Again, tell me if this is irrelevant to the AfD discussion. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if its turned into a redirect and noone uses it then it can be challenged again, but if it might be useful it doesn't seem like a big deal to do that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet notability guidelines; and do not redirect, as it won't be mentioned in the target article once it no longer has a non-redirect article. —Korath (Talk) 21:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:VERIFY Jjupiter100^{(talk!|contribs)} 16:27, 7 August 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 Consensus was to keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian film actresses[edit]

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

This list is not comprehensive and does not provide any useful information. There is no introduction, no subheadings to understand the regional language which the actor is part of and no mention about the time period the actor was active. The prominent actors has already been mentioned and listed in the article Cinema of India Sreejith K (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Those look like suggestions for improvement rather than a good reason for deletion.--Michig (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list with clear inclusion criteria. Part of the wider scheme of Category:Lists of actors by nationality. As per Michig comments - you should tag the article with the necessary improvement tags and notify the relevant taskforces. Lugnuts (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it could not be improved, i would say delete. but it can, it has clear inclusion criteria (not stated yet, but easily stated), it could provide an alternative to the category system. we have lots of such lists on WP, and they are fine to keep. and, there is no deadline for improving or perfecting articles. I will try to add some basic structure if it passes afd.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List clearly says that only for notable actresses, also if there is any issue with article we can fix that. KuwarOnline ^Talk 05:29, 2 August 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 Consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian film actors[edit]

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

This list is not comprehensive and does not provide any useful information. There is no introduction, no subheadings to understand the regional language which the actor is part of and no mention about the time period the actor was active. The prominent actors has already been mentioned and listed in the article Cinema of India Sreejith K (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As with List of Indian film actresses, the arguments above look like areas for improvement rather than good reasons for deletion.--Michig (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list with clear inclusion criteria. Part of the wider scheme of Category:Lists of actors by nationality. As per Michig comments - you should tag the article with the necessary improvement tags and notify the relevant taskforces. Lugnuts (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per lugnuts and michig, and my statement at the actress afd. I will improve the article if it passes afd, by adding some hidden text, and a better lede.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can find lots similar list on WP, I think we can improve article, so not necessary to delete. KuwarOnline ^Talk 05:27, 2 August 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Holman Lee[edit]

Delete as nom. Access Denied^(t|c|g|d|s) 16:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity page without independent BLP sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~per nom, non-notable~~ no reliable secondary sources that indicate why she is notable. Maashatra11 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When a serious national newspaper considers that someone is so notable as to report the fact that she will not be doing something then I think that the case for deletion needs something stronger than unsubstantiated claims of "just not notable" or "vanity page". Phil Bridger (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have completely rewritten the article from reliable sources. The article is now fully verified and notability has been established. Davewild (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in view of the rewrite, I have relisted this debate and invited those who have contributed to revisit it. JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Davewild. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm happy with the rewrite which I have now copyedited Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 1 August 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. JForget 00:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Musa[edit]

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

Premature page of young footballer who may or may not actually playing in a professional league. Has just signed his first professional contract, done nothing else of note in the scheme of things. Currently fails WP:NSPORTS. Coverage is of general sports journalism nature and local coverage of his signing his first pro contract. Suggested userfy to author pending player meeting NSPORTS criteria. ClubOranje^T 09:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 09:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje^T 09:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails NSPORTS and GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:30, 4 August 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 g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric O. Lodal[edit]

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

Autobiographical article, which once tagged was edited by a number of newly-created users - most likely sockpuppetry. Biker Biker (talk) 09:10, 1 August 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. JForget 00:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Lewis[edit]

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

Article of non-notable footballer. Fails notability criteria for footballers per NSPORTS as amateur and not international rep. Coverage is general sports journalism of general nature of type expected for general local sports persons ClubOranje^T 09:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --ClubOranje^T 09:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.--ClubOranje^T 09:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Stuff.co.nz has nine articles with a trivial mention, doesn't yet meet GNG or ATHLETE. XLerate (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment I'm not sure if Mainland Premier League counts as a Fully professional league so I've asked on WikiProject Football. Chzz ► 17:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)~~ (Struck - it does not; see below Chzz ► 22:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

resp: Mainland Premier League is not even the top level domestic league. Soccer_in_New_Zealand#Professional_football and the following paragraph, in conjuntion with the "Football in New Zealand" template at the bottom of the article should clearly answer the question.--ClubOranje^T 05:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking this first bit is OR, but this image from a MPL game between Ferrymead Bays and Western doesn't convey the set-up I associate with a fully professional league. The Bays website also mentions that their captain is a warehouse manager "by day". Actually, I've just noticed that the link in this very article states Lewis' day job, making clear that he is not a professional footballer himself....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

....and the website of a MPL club clearly states "Wellington Phoenix is the only New Zealand-based professional club" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed; thanks for clarifying that. Chzz ► 22:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet the inclusion criteria for sportsmen, because it is not a fully-professional league. Does not meet the general notability criteria, because there is no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources". Chzz ► 22:55, 7 August 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. JForget 00:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mita Aporo[edit]

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

Possibly fails notability at WP:NSPORT —'...the sourcing in the article itself must document notability.This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.' This appears to be an article about a minor boxer; Listings show he has apparently lost most of his fights. He is listed in one ranking at #278 out of 323. No new WP:RS have been found about this person. Kudpung (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no significant coverage found, does not appear to be a fully professional-level athlete or satisfy WP:NSPORT. —fetch ·comms 23:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless the author wants to userfy. Marcus Qwertyus 03:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any independent sources that show he's notable. Astudent0 (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to show notability and I didn't find any sources to support notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Does not seem to satisfy WP:NSPORT - Happysailor ^(Talk) 16:40, 7 August 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. JForget 00:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British bee[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax because I cannot find any class of bee under this context. The closest Ghit I can find is this, which is actually about a British beekeepers association. ("Quite obviously could be found in Britain?" Come on.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. JJ98 (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious hoax. Would have been candidate for csd if not brought here. Jimmy Pitt talk 08:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as blatant hoax, probably should have been Speedy'd. A8x (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to list of bees of Great Britain. It's a joke off of QI (see the youtube link an IP tried to add to the article). 98.122.178.110 (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delte - hoax as there are three types of bee in Britian and they have not died out. Redirect to list as per prev editor comment Chaosdruid (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 1 August 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 per WP:SK criterion 1: withdrawn by nominator, with no outstanding "delete" opinions. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Service of the Imperial Court[edit]

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

~~Might be notable perhaps cult film. Shows hits in torrent site but no WP:RS found in google search Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)~~ Film appears notable under multiple different titles which explains both the multitude of Torrent hit and lack of RS, I hereby withdraw my Nom Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another source to the article. Soangry (talk) 2:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Time to use other Find sources, as this had international release under different translations of the name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Chinese) (Hong Kong - Original title))

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

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

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

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

Keep Article improvement and sourcing has begun. The film has had multiple international releases on film, television, and DVD, over several years and under several different names. It is considered to have been the last absolutely successful martial arts film made by Shaw Brothers Studio before they closed in 1986, and considered one of the best of the 1980s, representing the "new wave" of Wuxia style at its best. Gonna take more work, but I believe it is do-able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:38, 2 August 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. JForget 00:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Un Cuarto de Siglo[edit]

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

not notable AirplanePro^Radio_Checklist 03:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band is highly notable. According to the notability guidelines for music, "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." That said, it's a bit late in my part of the world, so I'll see what I can find by way of sources later. We need to be careful to avoid systemic bias, and sources in other languages can sometimes be difficult to locate. Even if additional sources cannot be located to expand the article, as the deletion policy notes, "Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly redirect to another article. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect." This band's album titles are valid search terms, and whether the album meets WP:MUSIC or not deletion is inappropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep How is an album celebrating 25 years of career not notable, this band had played for hundreds of thousands of people, has 8 gold discs, a movie, an Ariel Award, sadly this was the only source of notability for US media i could find as of now http://www.billboard.com/#/album/el-tri/un-cuarto-de-siglo/186839; If i`m not mistaken if the band is notable, the albums are notable besides.... there are articles about Croatian band`s albums and Singapore`s singers albums, those are way less notable, and don`t get deleted. I`m sorry to get emotional, but in my country El Tri is like Bob Dylan or Guess Who, omnipresent and eternal. Zidane tribal (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources don't have to be in English. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further Keeping reasons http://www.rumormusical.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=2007&z=29 Here is a reference to the international fame of the band, specifically in Argentina. http://music.batanga.com/en/articles/2006/eltri021706.asp and an interview from Batanga.com with Alex Lora, he is the main man of the band, and his accomplishments are of the band. Zidane tribal (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Nominator - see WP:JNN and WP:BEFORE. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article could use some more references but that is a reason for expansion, not deletion. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:46, 2 August 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. JForget 00:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elia Pirone[edit]

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

Lacking notability. The subject is a prolific blogger who apparently applied much effort to establish his presence on Google and wikipedia. All refs of the articles link to sporadic articles in Italian newspapers, many are minor. An important note is that his article was deleted from Italian wiki where it should be in the first place. Materialscientist (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page has just been created as userpage on it.wiki and it has already been deleted on fr.wiki, please note that all occurrences has been added by the subject himself (151.16.72.0/21, User:Prof0, User:Profet111, User:Ennio Annio and User:Cofftime2). --Vituzzu (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned above, this is clearly lacking notability and is an obvious attempt at self-promotion (the 151.16.72.0.21 IP address is located in Bologna, where the subject lives). --Angelikfire (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sirs, data as the source IP should not be disseminated publicly. I will consider the idea of denouncing the author of the comment above. --151.16.75.40 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but your ip is a known data since you push save button, accepting wiki's Terms Of Service, furthermore RIPE's ip database is publicly downloadable since it doesn't contain any sensitive data. Defamation is not a big deal but I'm quite sure you know it, so that's just an attempt to legally threat people who's fighting against your continuos spam. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:N. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:13, 4 August 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 with redirect to Chelsea_Clinton#Engagement_and_marriage. The topic is notable owing to coverage which stems from the notability of a spouse, Chelsea Clinton. Any notable, sourced content carried by this article is already covered in that BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Mezvinsky[edit]

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

The previous AfD's decision to redirect to Chelsea Clinton was overturned apparently without consensus on 30 July, and he still isn't independently notable, other than being the husband of Chelsea Clinton and the children of two somewhat notable individuals, but notability is not inherited. He seems like a run-of-the-mill investment banker, no offense intended. —fetch ·comms 02:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, what is in this article could be held in the Chelsea Clinton so redirect. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete this fella has no notability whatsoever, if chelsea has notability (which i doubt) then he can go onto that article, dont think this warrants mention on Bill or Hillary's page. but at most it can go on chelsea's page, not ever worth a redirect. What is his claim to fame? Mr. Chelsea? he works for goldman and/or interned at a political party...why not list all the bankers/interns with trust funds? Not to mention the edit summary [10]

ps- hes a yankee too? what happened to Billy? ;)(Lihaas (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC));[reply]

strong delete or redirect to "Chelsea Clinton". delete it it for now. there isn't any valuable and notable information personally about him. he is basically unknown person. if he accomplished something noteworthy or get some more attention without the help of clinton or his family. this should be deleted. is this only going to say "he is financier and husband of chelsea clinton." 174.16.177.120 (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. I agree with the comments made above. The only press is through Chelsea Clinton, who is herself a secondary figure, only notable through Bill Clinton, which makes the connection here even more tenuous. Also, the sourcing seems to fall solidly short of the notability guidelines. Although the politicsdaily source seems to be written directly about him in detail, I think WP:ONEEVENT applies here. Also, although that source isn't exactly a private blogger, it's not exactly a reliable news source either--it is even presented as "Political gossip", and that's the only source with much detail. But even reading that source, most of it just talks about the Clintons. If, a few years from now, he is still getting the same degree of coverage, and there is more material to construct an encyclopedic page, even if all the coverage is through association with Chelsea, I might reconsider. But this article as-is is unencyclopedic and cheapens wikipedia...there's only enough sourceable material for a paragraph or two, and breaking it into headings just makes this page look like a magnet for celebrity gossip. Cazort (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, He is only notable as the husband of Chelsea Clinton, and as the son of Ed Mezvinsky and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky. A brief mention of him in the articles on his wife and parents is sufficient. --TommyBoy (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Adding it to another article will only make that article over-long. (This is a general point: Wikipedians should aim at a good batch of short interlinked articles with no redundancy)

Aa42john (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Chelsea CLinton is still short and the international publicity of her wedding shows shows her husband is notable. 213.122.203.99 (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but give a brief mention on Chelsea's page. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - Mentioned in media for over a decade, son of two former Congresspeople, husband of Chelsea Clinton, son-in-law of a former President. Notable. Mentioned in media. People want information about him. Amechad (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC) amechad[reply]
- Strong delete - Known for nothing except linked to other people who are notable. And notability isn't inherited. Otherwise I should get an article since I am related to a famous actor. (BTW, responding to the above person - "mentioned in media for over a decade". So what? "Mentioned in media". You said that once. "Notable". For? Many people get mentioned in the media many times, including very well known child abusers (look, Vanessa George is redlinked), murderers, villains etc... however they don't all have articles) 82.152.201.3 (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chelsea Clinton. Notability isn't inherited, and this guy isn't notable if he had married Jane Smith. — Timneu22 · talk 13:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
retain - Previously mentioned in the media, the son of notables, and husband of Chelsea Clinton. Son-in-law of former president is notable. Amechad (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these arguments are based on inherited notability. — Timneu22 · talk 14:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless notability is established other then being a husband and son-in-law of Clintons. --- A. L. M. 18:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited, even with that many notable relatives. Hekerui (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he is one half of the two person duo being billed in numerous sources as the Wedding of the Century. What benefit would there be to keeping information about him in the Chelsea Clinton article? A redirect to that article would just result in the reader having to pick out the material about him from that article. Bus stop (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chelsea Clinton article, personal life section, is tiny, and mostly comprises of information of this guy. Redirecting to Chelsea Clinton#Personal life is the right thing to do. — Timneu22 · talk 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can you evaluate what is the (anything) of the century when the century is only 10% completed. We do not know what will happen in the future. Media hype about something does not make it important or give it encyclopedic value. The wedding of a former president's offspring in it's self is not even noteworthy enough to have an article of it's own. Chealsea Clinton is only slightly noteworthy due to her relationship to her Father/Mother, and imho should be a small section in the Bill Clinton article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.228.111 (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If someone's most notable accomplishment is to be married to someone extremely famous and important I believe established Wikipedia consensus is to consider them not notable. When the person they are married to is themselves only famous being the offspring of someone extremely famous and important then the first person really doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. __meco (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Currently, he's notable for one event, his wedding to Chelsea Clinton. We have some reliable sources for the event itself. This is the relevant policy, from WP:BLP1E:

If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. ... The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.

Clearly his role in the event is substantial. The question is how persistent coverage of the wedding is, or will be, in the media. Alternatively, we could create Chelsea Clinton's wedding, and merge this article into that. That subject is actually quite heavily sourced.

Also, I'm getting the impression that a lot of folks here don't really approve of the amount of coverage the wedding is getting in the mainstream media. That is a kind of bias: we should instead strive to represent the reliable sources fairly and proportionally, regardless of whether we find the topic "serious" or "frivolous". —Ashley Y 06:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notwithstanding his lineage from two former congressional members and his recent wedding to a former first daughter, Mr. Mezvinsky is just not notable enough in his own right to warrant a page. That said, he should live and be well all his days.Alan (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is clearly notable in that he is now the topic of significant independent coverage from many of the most prominent publications around the world. He will likely remain notable given his attachment to Clinton. When we keep articles about minor reality TV personalities this would seem to be a clear keep even as a "TV personality". |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that coverage is from recent news on his marriage see WP:ONEEVENT. We're here to decide if he's notable now, not in the future. —fetch ·comms 17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited or established. This individual is not notable for anything other than the company he keeps. While he should be mentioned in the Chelsea Clinton article, he simply does not warrant an article of his own. No reflection on the individual, he simply hasn't yet established notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Cindamuse (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been established by significant media coverage (see WP:NOTABLE). I see 6926 news articles on him when I put his name into Google. He's also the son of two former members of Congress. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be, but only because he married a celebrity. There is not enough to say about Mezvinsky: He's the son of ..., he attended Stanford U., he's an investment banker, and he married Chelsea Clinton. This warrants a stand alone article? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the news articles are about him, that's actually sufficient. If the news articles are really about the wedding, that may be sufficient for an article about the wedding. —Ashley Y 02:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's just not notable, no matter who he's related and/or married to. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to rethink the formulation, because it's the section title in WP:ITSNOTABLE :) Hekerui (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but otherwise the notable event in question, the Mezvinsky-Clinton wedding, or however the style-guide suggests, probably needs its own article. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the wedding an article on its own when it can be merge into chelsea's page (and mentioned on the bill/hillary's page) That should be deleted too.(Lihaas (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC));[reply]
- Even if that new article is valid (not so sure), there still is no reason for a separate Marc Mezvinsky article. The wedding article could have a "background" section that sufficiently covers the groom and bride, with a {{main}} template to redirect Chelsea's info to her page. I still see no reason why Marc Mezvinsky is a valid topic on its own. — Timneu22 · talk 10:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Mezvinsky-Clinton wedding is up for deletion. The article is almost an exact duplicate of the Personal life section of the Chelsea Clinton article. Marx Mezvinky and the wedding are where they belong - in the Chelsea Clinton aticle. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - known for one event and Chelsea Clinton's notability is not inherited by her husband. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. If he ever does anything notable, then an article may be appropriate. Deor (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. (apart for his marriage - covered elsewhere) Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is only notable because of his marriage to a person who is only notable because of her parents. This one is a no-brainer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.158.197 (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's simply not notable as an individual, deserves a couple of lines on the Chelsea Clinton article, --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article itself makes the case. It says exactly 3 things about the subject: he's one of 10 children of 2 notable people (notability not inherited), he's an investment banker (not notable per se), and he's Chelsea Clinton's husband (again, notability not inherited). Most of the article is actually devoted to his meeting, dating, and marrying Chelsea and should simply be pasted into her article. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete non-notable person; one sentence in the Chelsea Clinton article is about the extent this is worth Bwmoll3 (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
retain - final I've reviewed the opinions below and my decision it to retain. People have a right to know about his ultimate plans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.82.196 (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I moved this down from the top where it was inserted above the nomination. Hekerui (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely a WP:BLP1E as he's done nothing of note besides marry Chelsea. Whether the information is worth merging somewhere is an editorial decision best made at the possible merge articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 8 August 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. JForget 00:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

118th Military Police Company (United States)[edit]

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

In accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States) non-combat separate companies are not normally considered notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Buckshot06 (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent: company-sized units in the US military have to demonstrate specific notability, this article does not. Also, completely unreferenced. bahamut0013^words _deeds 02:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia common law. T3h 1337 b0y 03:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: an argument from precedent would appear to run counter to the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (or in this case, WP:Otherstuff like this got deleted.) Am I misunderstanding Wikipedia:Precedents here? --Shirt58 (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should clarify here. While the deletion debates mentioned/referenced above do constitute a precedent, I would also argue that this sub-unit is not notable, independently of the precedents. Does this make it more clear? Regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not to say that "because A got deleted, B should too", it's more the case that "the rationale that got A deleted is the same rationale for B getting deleted". That's what a precedent is. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:06, 2 August 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. JForget 00:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbolo Mpengi[edit]

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

WP:NN person failing WP:BIO. Unable to verify only reference. Promotional website for this person's cause has references the Wikipedia article to lend credibility. Note that the article was created by someone with a COI from the website. Failed prod. Toddst1 (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this search that only turns up the Wikipedia page. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 18:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least for now. I can't see any permanence of notability here. This is merely being used as a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 3 August 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. JForget 00:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Stacy[edit]

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

Actor has not achieved notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. Cast as Mr. Spock, which sounds promising... but Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II is a fan-based series released only on the internet. The movie The Reapers is not yet released and his role in it is unclear. The rest of his career, according to imdb.com, looks to be an undistinguished series of bit parts. Herostratus (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENT as per nom. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lionel (talk) 03:28, 4 August 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. JForget 00:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Moses (singer)[edit]

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

This article about a NN musician has already been speedied or prodded several times, as recently as April, as a glance at its creator's talk page will show. Only a single scanty source, and none backing up the creator's assertions of charting. Fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:COI. I recommend that the article be deleted and salted, given the subject's persistence. Ravenswing 01:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt for reasons outlined above. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as it is impossible to verify his existence, outside of lists and unreliable sources, online by using several different searches. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 3 August 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Universal data compression[edit]

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

Contested PROD on a WP:OR article with long-standing major issues. The primary content is a proof which doesn't seem to be notable. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Radagast 3 (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article seems to have 3 parts. The first "definition" is plausible, but unsourced (and probably not the primary use). The "theorem" appears in the proposed merge target, Lossless data compression#Limitations. The last sentence is commentary. And we have no source that the term is used. However, a google scholar search suggests the term is used, but often for any lossless encoding which compresses strings considered "likely". If there was something to be said about that, nothing here (other than a reference to Lossless data compression#Limitations, should be kept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The commentary by Bulat Ziganshin (talk · contribs) — who appears to be the Bulat Ziganshin who is the author of FreeArc (AfD discussion) — on the article's talk page is interesting, and bears out my own research. M. Ziganshin is right, this article appears to have developed from a misunderstanding compounded over the years. I've rewritten the article based upon some sources. I'm not sure whether there's enough in the sources to warrant a separate article. There appears to be some additional material in Ziv+Hershkovitz (cited in further reading) but I don't have full access in order to read it. Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've created an entirely new article that's very much better. Your material might usefully go into Lossless data compression, though, since that article covers much the same territory. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The newly-added cited sources are legit and the definition contained in them is different from the one in the article, and constitutes a topic of legitimate research interest in the theory of data compression. I've updated the definition to make sense and the article should be good to go now. Dcoetzee 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are 1130 papers containing the phrase, so the topic is notable. The article as it stands now seems accurate too. The only issue is possible overlap with Lossless data compression#Limitations, Universal coding and Universal code (data compression). Shreevatsa (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know how often it's used for that concept. In addition to including "...universal. Data compression...", at least some of the papers use the term, but have a completely different meaning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that universal coding and universal codes are (counterintuitively) unrelated topics (except that both are related to data compression). Dcoetzee 00:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the literature "Universal data compression" seems to have several different meanings. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)2010 August 1[reply]

Comment. This is no longer the article I nominated, but let me reiterate my delete recommendation for the article in its current form; the article is basically just an unsourced definition (it doesn't appear at all in the book reference #1). -- Radagast 3 (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:03, 24 July 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) 00:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted because the discussion was not transcluded for a time. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete It is replication of LZ77 & LZ78 page as well as being incorrectly titled. The article is about Universal Data Compression Algorithm. This is clearly covered in detail at Data_compression_algorithm#See_also. It seems to me that it is a page created simply for having the cryptography cats added which could be added elsewhere. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 9 August 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. If anyone wants the contents userfied to build a decent broad article, please contact me. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2008 in theatre[edit]

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

I am nominating these articles for a number of reasons. Firstly, there are only two articles in the series of "years in theatre" and the 2009 one seems to have been abandoned half way through. Secondly, both articles are too Broadway/American centric to be classed as an unbiased look at that year in Theatre. London's West End produces productions of a quality equal to that of Broadway and this is just not represented. Also, after a quick glance, there are at least 5 productions incorrectly listed in the 2009 article (Shades, King Lear, The Indian Wants the Bronx, The Stone, Be Near Me etc etc etc) all played non-west end houses such as the Donmar/Young Vic/Royal Court and not in the west end. I see no chance of expanding the "years in theatre" template any further, and just feel that it is not useful being so incomplete Mark E (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons outlined above,[reply]

Delete: The articles as noted above are extremely "Broadway/American centric" with no mention of notable off-Broadway, London, or other English or non-English language theatre productions and little of non US actors / directors, etc. There might be a case for a move to 2008 on Broadway and 2009 on Broadway (or similar), especially if someone is likely to create further articles in the series. As they stand, with the present naming, it would be next to impossible to expand these sufficiently to cover theatre throughout the world without creating an extremely large article and the difficulties of deciding on the noatbility of the productions to be listed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion. As the articles now stand they are incomplete and really do not represent "Theatre in [year]". For the record, I have worked extensively on both the 2008 and 2009 articles. I found that they were next to impossible to keep up-to-date; I live in the US and so I found it hard to get sources for the West End/London productions; and, most importantly, there was never really a clear understanding (by me) or consensus (among those editors who care) about what the articles should contain. But it is not about one editor, this type of article series needs, in my opinion: agreement as to its very need; consensus as to what it should contain (and not be simply a replica of the film formula); and committment on the part of many editors to maintain it.JeanColumbia (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reflection, I think that the principals discussed in WP:PROBLEM should be considered here. For example, the argument that "Nobody's working on it". The guiding principal here is that "An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date. Remember that there is no deadline." I believe that, given a thoughtful consensus as to scope and content, these articles are useful. Or, the argument "Poorly written article". These articles are not really poorly writen, but are incomplete. This is easily remedied should editors chose to take on the project. I therefore am changing my view to a "No Opinion", and hopefully raising important points about the articles.JeanColumbia (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC) that[reply]

Qualified keep. As per previous user comment, these articles have a realistic possibility of being useful. They should be probably just be tagged with the various shortcomings which will hopefully lead to a tidy-up. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the consensus is keep I would agree with Jezhotwells that they should be named 2008 on Broadway with the few bits of London information removed, as it is not representative of global theatre

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 2008 on Broadway as not representative of world theatre. No mention of Noh, for example. T3h 1337 b0y 03:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both with leave to recreate neutral worldwide articles. Moving per T3h 1337 b0y would be a second choice. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 9 August 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 Carden Method. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carden Academy[edit]

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

advertisement Sempermithrandir (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Mission Viejo, California#Education per usual practice for private, elementary schools. TerriersFan (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (See below) Non-notable private elementary school. Do not redirect to Mission Viejo or any other location, because the name "Carden Academy" is not unique; Google finds a dozen "Carden Academy" schools in multiple states. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page, which I have done. Cunard (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to Keep per Cunard's change to a disambiguation page. Good thinking, Cunard. --MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The conversion to a disambiguation page is only useful if any of the individually listed entities has their own Wikipedia article. As none of them do, the disambiguation page is useless. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carden Method. I agree with WikiDan61 above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while a disambiguation page is better than what had been here, this one violates the guidelines for dab pages (MOS:DAB). The only useful content it could point to is the Carden Method page. It would be different if the blue links for each city had info on these listed academies, but they don't and probably shouldn't. If one of the individual academies proves notable, then maybe recreate the dab page. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Caden Method per RHaworth. No one seems to be in favor of maintaing this as a separate page, and since there are multiple Carden Academies, a redirect to the method would seem to be most likely to provide relevant, notable content to the searcher. Deletion is inappropriate as at minimum the title is a reasonable search term. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:16, 9 August 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese cartoon[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BAND, lots of passing mentions on blogs (and one article on MTV site) due to involvement of Lupe Fiasco but no significant coverage of the band from WP:Reliable sources. Propose merge of referenced content to Lupe Fiasco, and revert this back to a redirect to Anime or Manga. Empty Buffer (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Japanese cartoon (disambiguation), which I just created, into its place. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New notable references added to article. Admin pls check and revert Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.138.67 (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a single reliable source, and this really needs editing, but if Lupe Fiasco really is a member, then that satisfies WP:BAND, but find us a reliable source. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that Lupe Fiasco does sing in the group. However, he goes by his real name (Waslu Jaco) rather than Lupe Fiasco when he is a part of Japanese Cartoon. When he speaks in interviews as Lupe, he denies that he is a part of the group, but that's the Lupe "character" speaking. This has led to confusion. Waslu Jaco openly admits that he is a member of Japanese Cartoon as well as rapping under the name "Lupe Fiasco". And I don't believe that Japanese Cartoon currently satifies WP:BAND even if he is in it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing, the only thing I'm asking for reliable sources. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right, WP:BAND says, Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians. Since there's only one independently notable musician, Delete. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In an interview with BBC Radio Lupe Fiasco states Japanese Cartoon as his band: link

WP:BAND says: 12. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

WP:BAND says: "1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.[note 1]

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:

Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]

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.

Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.138.67 (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To satisfy Proudfoot, another member of the band is a notable musician "Le Messie" he is referenced as Producer on 4 time Grammy Nominated record The Cool (Nominated for Best Rap Album, which makes Le Messie a Grammy nominated Songwriter/Producer). He is listed as Songwriter & Producer of the Song "Fighters Feat. Matthew Santos on The Cool

This would satisfy Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians.

Admins please check and revert. Tks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.138.67 (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also if anyone can help to clean-up the page that would be most appreciated. Tks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.138.67 (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Graham Burris (Bass) & Matt Nelson (Keyboards) are also notable band members of The Matthew Santos Band. As clearly shown on his wikipedia. * So you have 1 Grammy Winner and multiple nominated, 1 Nominated Grammy Musician & 2 band members from another notable band.
Admins please revert as this through WP:BAND states that the page is Legitimate and should have the "Pending Deletion" removed. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.138.67 (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination was only made yesterday, and as outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, "Articles listed are debated for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus". Let's get some more opinion on this, and arrive at a consensus. Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for highlighting that "Empty". It is most appreciated. Look forward to bridging a general consensus on the matter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.140.121 (talk • contribs)
As stated above Japanese cartoon is a legitimate band and deserves to stay on here, but should be moved to Japanese Cartoon (Band)and have Japanese cartoon become the disambiguis one. --Xfactor0693 (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Typo for Japanese Cartoon (band)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note page has been moved to Japanese Cartoon (band). Should this discussion result in a deletion, the closing admin will have to delete Japanese Cartoon (band) as well as the redirects Japanese cartoon and Japanese Cartoon. -- Lear's Fool 01:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or replace Japanese cartoon and Japanese Cartoon by a redirect or stub about Japanese cartoons. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taylor Karras (talk | contribs | Rcool35) 03:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain on what policy grounds you made your comment? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of 28th July the updated article shows compliance with :WP:BAND sections: 1, 6 & 12. The current general consensus is without a doubt Keep. Thanks all for your time on weighing in on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.140.121 (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So you're the person who makes that determination? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sir, i believe you do! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.140.121 (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Cartoon has also worked with The Prodigy on a song, "Invaders Must Die" Xfactor0693 (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just added to References *MTV.Com reports of Lupe's new body of work "Japanese Cartoon" ^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.140.121 (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The band is one of the additional major outlets of material by a major hip hop artist, and its weight and notability can be backed up by reliable sources as well as the hype and mystery surrounding his conflict with his record label, which is sure to have fueled the success of some of the recent material. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 05:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments above about WP:BAND. They don't qualify. A section in Lupe Fiasco's page would be sufficient. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure:

Move to Japanese Cartoon (band),
Redirect to Anime, and
Add a "You may be looking for" notice.

This procedure is suggested as "Japanese cartoon" is a probable search term for anime. T3h 1337 b0y 03:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As of 28th July the updated article shows compliance with :WP:BAND sections: 1, 6 & 12. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.81.187 (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND says: "1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.[note 1]

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:

Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]

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.

Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis."

WP:BAND says: 6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians. Another member of the band is a notable musician "Le Messie" he is referenced as Producer on 4 time Grammy Nominated record The Cool (Nominated for Best Rap Album, which makes Le Messie a Grammy nominated Songwriter/Producer). He is listed as Songwriter & Producer of the Song "Fighters Feat. Matthew Santos on The Cool

WP:BAND says: 12. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. ^[2]

You need to realize that this is a probable search tearm for anime. T3h 1337 b0y 03:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do however, under google search for "Japanese Cartoon" the band comes out first. That shows a general consensus of the band relating to a more popular search of the words "Japanese Cartoon". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.81.187 (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable hip hop artist's side project that has received media attention and released a record. The article is in compliance with WP:BAND per the list given above by the IP. A8x (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there is no Wikipedia article for Le Messie, how are we supposed to gauge his notability? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As listed above Le Messie can be found noted on The Cool Wikipedia as well as Lupe Fiasco's Wikipedia. This should constitute enough notability factor as a Grammy Nominated Producer and notable musician. I'm sure in due time with his presence in Japanese Cartoon, his own wikipedia page will be created.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Yeagley[edit]

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

Several reasons. First of all, this is an autobiography, created and frequently edited by (presumably) Yeagley himself under the usernames BadEagle and David Yeagley, as well as by the single-purpose accounts Buttonpusher and Trailboss49. Second of all, the article relies almost entirely on primary sources, which are not sufficient to establish notability. Third, the article may not be accurate; numerous users on the talk page have questioned whether this article accurately portrays Yeagley's background and views or not, and Yeagley's own credibility as a source has been called into question numerous times. The article tries to portray Yeagley as a typical American conservative, although there is evidence indicating that his views are far more extreme than this: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Even going to BadEagle.com and looking around a little will make it clear that this guy is not just a "conservative political commentator". Fourth, I'm not sure Yeagley passes the standard for notability; being a columnist for a FRINGE blog like FrontPageMag is not enough to establish notability in and of itself, and most of his music, art, etc., doesn't appear to be particularly notable either. Fifth, the claims about Yeagley being descended from Bad Eagle, etc., are practically unverifiable (the only source for them is Yeagley's own articles, which are not reliable sources). Because of these reasons, I think this article is better off not existing at all. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough to warrant inclusion. Clean up might be needed though. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For a recent example of Yeagley's style of writing, check out this racist screed he wrote in response to the resignation of Shirley Sherrod. To describe such comments as "conservative" is insulting to conservatives, in my opinion. [16]. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not post the truth about him? His racism and white supremacy, his ties to the far right, his hatemongering. If you list him, list him alongside David Duke and Tom Metzger where he belongs. Also note you don't have entries on actual Native American composers much better known than him. This is basically a puff promotional piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.138.30 (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how you feel; I would like to "post the truth about him", too. But BLP standards apply on Wikipedia, and the only way we could "post the truth about him" would be if there were reliable sources indicating his racism, hatemongering, etc. Is he a racist and a hatemonger? He most certainly is, but so far the only sources available for this statement are blogs, which generally are not allowed as sources. You might want to read: Wikipedia: Verifiability, not truth. I find it telling that neither the Southern Poverty Law Center nor the Anti-Defamation League have covered him in any detail. If he were a "notable" racist, at least one of those organizations would have covered him by now, since they have files on all the notable racists, anti-Semites, conspiracy theorists, etc. The fact that neither the SPLC or the ADL (let alone the news media) have covered him in detail indicates to me that he, unlike Duke or Metzger, isn't notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeagley doesn't pass ANY standard for notability. The only attention he gets as a composer is derived from his claim at "Indianness", and as a pundit he is virtually nonexistent. Even the fringe publication FrontPage has kicked him out long ago. The article is pure self-promotion. If Yeagley is included, any blogger in the Internet ought to be included. Yeagley's views in his own words.

-- Skowronek The Lark (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading those quotes from Yeagley, I thought wow. Just wow; and not in a good way, either. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article obviously needs a good makeover to ensure neutrality, as most of the editing appears to be from people with strong opinions about Yeagley rather than from people taking an objective view of what has been published in independent reliable sources, but there has clearly been significant coverage in such sources, meaning that he is notable: [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. The nominator and others have brought up lots of other issues apart from notability, but they are reasons to edit the article rather than to delete it, and, most certainly, distaste for Yeagley's opinions is not a reason for deletion, otherwise we might as well delete Adolf Hitler (please don't quote Godwin's law at me) and Osama bin Laden. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main source for posting "the truth" about him would be HIS OWN WORDS. That's a pretty darned reliable indicator of what he believes and promotes. Also, Media Matters is one of those sources. And as far as the blogs, one of them is written by a history professor, and he supplies lots of documentation, again including YEAGLEY'S OWN WORDS more than anything else. So it's accurate. Professors get fired if they misrepresent things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.219.67 (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What more "independent reliable sources" are there than his own words? This man is not notable, but notorious. However, that distaste for Yeagley's opinions is not a reason for deletion and that one otherwise we might as well delete Adolf Hitler is a good point. But I wonder whether it would make sense having Hitler listed under "Austrian painters" and "Austrian painters" only. So IF the Yeagley article remains it ought to be listed under American white nationalists | Ethnocentrism | Politics and race and Racism in the United States at the very least. His views are in fact not a bit better (arguably worse) than David Duke's.

-- Skowronek The Lark (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "his own words" go, please read WP: PRIMARY. In fact, the reason I nominated this article for deletion in the first place was because it relied almost entirely on primary sources, which are not suf--David Yeagley (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)ficient to determine notability. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notabene that my latest point wasn't about notability anymore. The Adolf Hitler argument had me convinced that notability is not the issue here. It was about the category listing of this article. I repeat: This article ought to be listed under categories like "American white nationalists", "Ethnocentrism", "Politics and race" or "Racism in the United States" as well as under the categories under which it is listed now, and I think you'll agree that for THAT primary sources are needed.

-- Skowronek The Lark (talk) 09:08, 31 July 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, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Stonemason's arguments. Verifiability can't be achieved. The sources Phil Bridger gives speak to subject's existence, but don't corroborate the essential facts needed for a BLP. --Whoosit (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to work the Wikipedia pages. I apologize if I am doing something out of place by making a statement here on a pre-existing page. I do not know how to start a separate comment on this "Discussion" page. I don't know the difference between a "talk" page and a "discussion" page, etc., etc. I want to say that this recent wave of protest and objection to all things concerning "David A. Yeagley" is the work of a small cadre of internet activists who have opposed me for a a few years now. It is the same people who have shown adroit political manoeuvers, perhaps, but also excessive ignorance of fact. There is nothing new in any of their objections. I must say, I am in litigation presently, in Oklahoma District Court, for the libel that this anti-Yeagley cadre has created. What they want to do is to express their personal political interpretations and opinions--as fact. The "David A. Yeagley" page is a brief, abstract, objective BIOGRAPHICAL page, and meets every Wikipedia requirement with exactitude. There is not a false statement or error of fact on that page. What my opponents wish to do is simply to make their personal, opposing opinions into facts, and have them stated along with the real facts. There is no debate about any of the facts on the "David A. Yeagley" page. If they want a different page, under a different topic or category, that is another issue. I certainly cannot dictate anything to Wikipedia. I only take the time here to state that I am in litigation over the matter of libel. Already, in these recent opposition statements, some of that same libel is re-stated, here, on Wikipedia. I can only say, BEWARE, to the Wikipedia Staff. I know Wikipedia is a huge enterprise, and it is a brilliant concept, at the base; but, there is an inevitable invitation to libel and rancor. Of this, we must all BEWARE. I am not naming names here, but I know who the detractors are. Best wishes to Wikipedia.--David Yeagley (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential legal threat referred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here [30] as per WP:LEGAL --Whoosit (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely legal threat, and now indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite a tough one, but I've taken a close look and found a few problems: The lead section provides no context which explains why he is notable; None of his music has reached any charts, and the biography does not meet WP:ANYBIO, unless I'm mistaken that the statement: "For this paper, Yeagley received letters of praise, including one from the President and CEO of the Mihan Foundation." indicates that this person is worldwidely recognisable. Minima c (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please comment on the notability of the subject. Your opinion of Yeagley as a person is not useful here, and WP:BLP applies to AfD as much as it does to articles. Attacks on Yeagley are not appropriate.
Sources: Here is some independent coverage of him, which may show notability: [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] Fences&Windows 22:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep of those sources, perhaps the key one is the first, a discussion of him in a book (not just an interview where he's quoted); the final one, a NYT article, is characteristic of the others--it quotes a number of people, or whom he is one. We have normally not held that sort of interview does not contribute much to notability. But there's another possibility--he may be notable as a composer. If there are actual reviews of his compositions, I think they might count, as they've been performed at a few major venues. Naturally, there's a reasonable reaction against considering people notable whose autobio articles talk about their importance in half a dozen miscellaneous things. As for the politics, the way to handle it is to use some quotes by him, about which people will form their own judgment. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because notability not established per WP:GNG or per any of the more specific criteria in WP:BIO. The blatant COI editing and the legal threat above don't help Yeagley's personal credibility, but are not really relevant to the decision on whether to keep a cleaned-up article on him or to delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fairly weak case for notability, plus significant COI and BLP concerns. Nsk92 (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep though I won't cry in my beer if this goes toward deletion. There are enough references (thanks Fences) to scrape by. But note: Fences' first link, the one David refers to above, is published by Peter Lang--a rose may always be a rose, but a book is not always a book. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page is obviously self-promoting. Here Yeagley states that the user Badagnani wrote the article by proxy : "My opponents are clearly taking advantage of the ignorance of Wikipedia editors who know nothing of Indian things. That’s all. The “David A. Yeagley” page was created by a professional musician, Dr. David Badagnani, who met with scholarly accuracy every requirement of the Wikipedia biographical page templet. I did supply him with various documents and evidence. The rest he researched for himself. I did not create the “David A. Yeagley” page. I wouldn’t know how." Wheras here he admits that he wrote it himself: "Some time yesterday evening, Wikipedia administrators changed the entry under "David A. Yeagley." It now somewhat resembles what I originallyl posted at the beginning of this month." In any case, it is self-promotional. Btw Badagnani has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. [[43]] --Tiritomba (talk) 08:17, 9 August 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) 08:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East-West Rivalry[edit]

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

Non-notable rivalry between two city high schools. Should be shortened and merged into the Fairmont Senior High School article. Brian Powell (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rivalry is notable in the state and region because it is one of the oldest existing rivalries between two AAA high schools in the state of West Virginia. The series is also notable for the fact that the series has never missed a year, and the teams have met consecutively for nearly a century. Fairmont Senior High School is on the National Register of Historic Places, and the East-West stadium, the site of the rivalry game is also historic.

The rivalry as a statewide event in the 1940s through 1960s and its decline in the following years is an example of the economic growth and recession in north central West Virginia due to coal mining and the manufacturing industry. In addition, the stadium was built under the New Deal, and the WPA in the 30's-40's. The nature of this article is intended to be expanded to reflect that importance. As this article is under construction (the tag will be added), please add no further tags until its development is complete. Cmcginni (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to discuss the stadium, perhaps that would be more appropriate in an article about the stadium itself. Brian Powell (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Brian Powell (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge elsewhere, Little hard to verify stuff here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Title is misleading for one thing (I don't think it's the only East-West rivalry out there), and I doubt the rivalry itself is notable enough to warrant its own article (high school football rivalry is at most notable enough to be mentioned in the highschool article or league article if it exists). There are zero sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change by creator of East-West Rivalry:

Create an article East-West Stadium and merge the current information there. The new article would focus on the stadium's historic importance to the area as well as its creation under the New Deal. As the historic rivalry is part of the venue's history, the event could be mentioned there under a section such as "Events". This proposal would address the original concern of "non-notable" material by Brian Powell. Cmcginni (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal seems like an acceptable solution. Brian Powell (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would tend to agree, if such an article is properly sourced.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barring major re-write and location of sources, I'm just not seeing it. Will check back, of course...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:59, 27 July 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, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial article about an athletic rivalry between two high schools, unsupported by any reliable sources to indicate any notability. If the East-West Stadium is notable as a historic structure, let's see an article about it and we can decide. (For starters someone should write an article about East Fairmont High School, the other high school involved in this supposedly notable rivalry.) But there is nothing here to support even the existence of the article, much less the extensive detail of a type normally reserved for major nationally-known college rivalries like the Army-Navy Game or Big Game.--MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this rivalry information into an article about the East-West Stadium, which has historical significance. The rivalry could be listed under "Notable Events" or similar, as the rivalry is part of the stadiums history (89 consecutive meetings). I intend on undertaking this effort after the location of proper sources. Cmcginni (talk) 05:34, 8 August 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. Courcelles 02:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Taylor (Artist)[edit]

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

BLP prod--references subsequently added, though not very good ones. In any case, I don't think he meets our requirements for notability of creative artists. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:N articles require multiple coverage in reliable sources. Those provided are not enough. It is difficult to see if there are more, as a search for "Martin Taylor" brings up a lot of individuals, including at least one other artist. Without prejudice to recreation, if sources are provided in the future. Ty 17:38, 29 July 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, 1 August 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 5566. JForget 00:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Peng[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for nearly a year, and notability has not been established. Taiwantaffy (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't see a good indication of notability. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 26 July 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, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to his band, 5566 duffbeerforme (talk) 11:49, 6 August 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) 03:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Smooth[edit]

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

Non-notable dance. Web and news searches only find peripheral mention of the dance in connection with "Dancing with the Stars". An article with the same name has previously been deleted as the result of an expired PROD, so this time it goes to AfD. Favonian (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication that this dance is notable nor even that the definition given in the article is acurate. --Griseum (talk) 13:45, 25 July 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, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might warrant a brief mention in Dancing with the Stars but no more. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. While it has gained some significant media attention as a term, the style itself does not appear to be recognised by - as I would argue is most relevant - any dance association in Australia: see "smooth" + "Australian Dance Council", "smooth" +"Australian Dancing Society", and "smooth" + "DanceSport Australia". Deserves mention in Dancing with the Stars (Australian TV series), as it is a recent term but with wide currency, and it may well be accepted as a dance style. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:32, 1 August 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. JForget 00:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geesche Jacobsen[edit]

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

Delete. Article apparently written by its subject, notability not established, fails WP:CREATIVE. Seems to have been wriitten mainly to promote forthcoming book. WWGB (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. One of the references does not even mention her, and the other is a blog post by her. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did write it myself. I did not realise I could not. Am I not the best authority on myself? Should I get a friend to sign up and put up an entry instead? At least I am upfront about it... In any case, the language is neutral, unbiassed and all details are verifiable and true and correct. Several of my articles are quoted on Wikipedia, I may not be of world significance, but I cannot see why I should not be allowed to have an entry. Please let me know if you wish me to respond to any other concerns. (NOTE: transferred author comment from talk page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geesche (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are by, not about Jacobsen. clear self promotion (no you're not the best authority on yourself, you're not independent and you're biased). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:Notability (people). A friend put up to write about you would still have a conflict of interest but, regardless of the source, this does not meet Wikipedia's notability standard. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 5 August 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. Courcelles 02:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UMPF[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable compilation album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced non-notable album fails WP:NALBUMS. Aspects (talk) 03:30, 29 July 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, 1 August 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) 03:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True Independence II[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced non-notable album fails WP:NALBUMS. Aspects (talk) 03:30, 29 July 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, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only here to promote sales. Eeekster (talk) 00:28, 1 August 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. JForget 00:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nail Promotional 95/96[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced non-notable album fails WP:NALBUMS. Aspects (talk) 03:28, 29 July 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, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, and the content that is there appears to be lifted from discogs - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:46, 7 August 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.

Just to note, this promo cd info was not lifted from Discogs. It was in my physical possession and the information from the promo was put on both sites, hence the similarity.Leitmotiv (talk) 02:13, 8 August 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Trances LP Series[edit]

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

Half of these were never released, virtually no information on the ones that were. Anything meaningful can be covered in KLF in a sentence or two. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 19 July 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, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 1 August 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) 23:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tu Vida es Mi Vida[edit]

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

This article does not appear notable, a search of google news returns no information, and the stuff on google itself returns mirrors of Wikipedia and the homepage of the show Sadads (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 July 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, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 1 August 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 Obama Anak Menteng (film). Stifle (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Anak Menteng[edit]

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

Fails WP:BK. 2 sources dead. 2 of the Globe and the BBC sources are about the film. That leaves 1 source, from the Globe, to discuss the book. And it is a trivial mention. Fails WP:BK... No multiple sources, only trivial mentions, no awards. Lionel (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Lionel (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ sparingly into Public_image_of_Barack_Obama#Depictions. Content like this doesn't need to have independent notability to have a sentence or two in that article. There's enough coverage in reliable sources to add it.--Chaser (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into new film article referenced below.--Chaser (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is about the book and the film, which are pretty well inseparable, so the sources are fine. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect that the article was created as a promo piece in anticipation of the film. It should have been deleted at that time. In any event, the book is not notable. If the film is notable then the article should be moved. Lionel (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What should it be moved to? This is the title of the film. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (perhaps move a sentence or two to Public image of Barack Obama#Depictions as suggested by Chaser above). The current article is clearly a puff piece aimed at promoting a book/film: the most significant content in the article is that the book was written in four days after one month of research, which indicates the lack of encyclopedic appeal. An article on some aspect of the issue (perhaps political consequences) might be created if something develops, but the book/film themselves are definitely not notable. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't move/merge content from one article to another and then delete the first article because it violates the site license. See WP:MAD for more information.--Chaser (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my clumsy expression: I am recommending delete (my preference), or merge a sentence or two. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as Wikipedia's notability criteria are concerned the most significant content in the article is the list of references that include significant coverage in The Washington Post, the Jakarta Globe and the BBC. The number of days in which the book was written and researched is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether the article should be kept or deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - BTW the Post source is a dead link.Lionel (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is ostensibly about the book. On this account there is a trivial mention in the Globe and completely fails notability. The only possible way this article could be notable is via the film. Now, if we're trying to Keep this article because of it's impact on the film, the sources for the film are also weak. The sources fail all 5 criteria of WP:FILM. The sources are promotional, and are not reviews of the film. Sources titled "American Boy Cast..." and "Film makers Plan..." do not establish notability for a film. Lionel (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Lionel (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and rewite~~ ~~only if re-written~~. (merge now as per my comment below) As article title, the book does not have enough coverage to meet notability guidelines for a stand-alone article... however, the film has perhaps enough coverage, sources not currently included nor suitable for expanding a "book" article,[44] for the article to be re-written and re-named Obama Anak Menteng (film), with the book mentioned in a sub-section in context to the film (as with many film articles), instead of the other way 'round. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Schmidt, just wanted to clarify... If not rewritten, then your vote is Delete? Lionel (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a vote. Suggestion toward "keepable" improvement of article through regular editing per WP:ATD. Corrected above. If no one else cares to do it, I feel confident that I could bring it into line with a simple rewrite. Shall I do so? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Okay... I have re-written the "book" article... and suggest the article about the book be replaced with this new edit, focusing on the far better covered film... as the film has wide coverage to meet WP:NF and the book by itself does not. Note, I included contextual information about the book, and expanded and further sourced about the film. And yes, there is room for continued improvement. See: User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Obama Anak Menteng (film). Thanks --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Impressive. The inclusionist in me is breathing a sigh of relief. The deletionist in me is bummed a perfectly good AfD got away. Lionel (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I figure it's a win-win. As the film article is nearing completion, I will complete my work on it, move it to mainspace as a new article, and be back to suggest a redirect to the newer article. Seem fair dinkum? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and set redirect to Obama Anak Menteng (film) to preserve histories and contributions of other editors. The new article has the sourced independent notability the book article lacks, and has sourced information about the book included in an encyclopdically contextual manner. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse merge into new article as creator of the original article. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 23:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge into movie article as detailed above. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:10, 7 August 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 due to insufficient participation. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonja Buholzer[edit]

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

The comes down to a lack of WP:RS resulting in a failure to pass WP:BIO. One book and a few mentions on social bookmarking sites doesn't make a suitable entry, and hence this appears more like WP:ADVERT. Trident13 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the tendency towards WP:ADVERT in this article - it doesn't help that all the subject's published works are not in English, thus making it harder to judge notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - her books exist, and she has some coverage in local news, possibly just passing WP:GNG. The "career" section is completely unreferenced as it currently stands and should be removed (refs do not contain her name) -- didn't want to do that in an ongoing AfD but tagged the faulty refs. --Pgallert (talk) 21:27, 18 July 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, 25 July 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, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 August 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. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tallaght FM[edit]

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

Non-notable radio station; no references provided, none found via Google or Google News.Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Article is i) too short, ii) not notable, iii) no references are on the page. Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 26 July 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) 00:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as government-licensed broadcast radio stations are generally notable per hundreds of discussions on the topic. That an article is "too short" is a reason to fix it, not a matter for AfD. That the station is now defunct is not relevant as notability is not temporary. - Dravecky (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Community radio stations are notable, and many already have articles. Esteffect (talk) 01:37, 9 August 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) 22:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of '73: Rock for Choice[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article includes reviews from Entertainment Weekly and Allmusic. It has been noted. It is therefore notable.--Michig (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 26 July 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) 00:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are reviews by two major publications listed on the article, as well as hoards more news stories and reviews available as references. Appears to achieve notability. A8x (talk) 12:59, 1 August 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) 08:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardians' Bane[edit]

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

Neither book nor author are notable, as a quick Google search verifies. The publisher isn't even notable, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet I believe that the author's minority status in her own literary community warrents this entry be continued in both listing and development. This female, Australian author writes outside the traditionally accepted genres of her country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IamYorr (talk • contribs) 03:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC) — IamYorr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Well, I can't fault you for believing that. Problem is, Wikipedia articles need reliable sources that prove notability of the subject of an article, and those can't be had on this topic. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does that mean a author must be dead and famous and have many review written on and around their writing to prove notability?Gemstone101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC). {{spa|Gemstone101}][reply]
    - Dead, no, famous, yes. No secondary coverage, no notability--that's how an encyclopedia works. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fine, delete it. Coverage of my novel will occur elsewhere.Gemstone101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - You can recreate it with a few good sources. ~ QwerpQwertus · Contact Me · 04:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 26 July 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, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable to find independent sources. No prejudice against re-creation should the subject become notable at a later date. Edward321 (talk) 02:05, 4 August 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. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diggy Simmons[edit]

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

Being the son of a rapper does make make this 15 year old notable. He has never charted and has released only non-notable mixed tapes. He does not pass any test for inclusion. Bigvernie (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - His first mixtape is critically acclaimed has a well-developed GA article, The First Flight. One is released today and will no doubt warrant a page sooner or later. This is enough to keep this page. Candy o32 15:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Undecided - ~~from a procedural standpoint, the article for his album The First Flight would have never reached GA recognition if other Wikipedia editors hadn't found the sources verifiable and significant.~~ So if the album has received coverage at that level, there should be enough to go on for the kid's biography article. The article needs improvement, which should be fairly easy by bringing in information from the sources that are already cited at the album article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update to above vote - I see that the GA status for the album article was illegitimate so I have changed my vote about the artist to "undecided." But note that if we find the kid to be non-notable in this particular debate, per WP:ALBUMS the album article will have to be deleted too. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:21, 5 August 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, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I delisted the mixtape from GA level. There is some coverage of Simmons evidenced in the mixtape article, but not terribly substantial or substantiating criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. As long as there is no definite release that can attract critical coverage and possibly chart, the notability question is not solved and I don't think it's there yet. No prejudice against recreation if substantial coverage and a career happen. Hekerui (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Run's House. Not notable. –Chase (talk) 03:48, 5 August 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.mtv.com/news/articles/1644559/20100727/fiasco__lupe.jhtml
^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00t2xz6/Hip_Hop_with_Semtex_D_Double_E_live_freestyle/

[1] ttp://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1644559/20100727/fiasco__lupe.jhtml

[2] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00t2xz6/Hip_Hop_with_Semtex_D_Double_E_live_freestyle/

[1]

[2]