Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 August 14 August >

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 speedy delete. Direct cut and paste copyright violation of http://www.bryanbroadcasting.com/, with only the slightest changes (we > they). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Broadcasting Company[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Little or no coverage in reliable sources. SnottyWong converse 23:19, 13 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) 04:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Britton[edit]

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

This person is not notable, other than the fact he is engaged to Zoe Saldana.. See Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria Betito84 (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — Betito84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • delete. not notable outside of the company he keeps. Cindamuse (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. -- roleplayer 20:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zoe Saldana#Personal life where he has a sourced mention. Per available sources, his relationship... his being part of Saldana's personal life... is why he gets any coverage at all. While as an actor and as CEO of "My Fashion Database",[1][2] he has done something in life other than date Zoe Saldana... it would seem all that the popular media care about is that one relationship. And a 10-year relation, even one that continues to make the news, is still only ONE relationship... making his coverage a WP:BLP1-very-long-E which does not merit an independent article. BUT as his name is a reasonable search term, a redirect will take readers to the one place where his has his one-event coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability at all. His article is all of one line. Philname1 (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With respects, while not meriting an individual article, a redirect of a reasonable search term to the one place where he does have sourced mention in context to his coverage is sensible. And please note... I do not suggest a merge, as the redirect target already covers him sufficiently. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:15, 17 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 reference to the below discussion, which is turning into a resounding 'delete', and with reference to 2010081610006323, a request from the subject to have the article deleted, I believe that the only sensible recourse is to delete this article as a speedy delete under a mixture of 'request by author' and 'not notable'. Waiting an extra two days for the AfD to close would result in the subject becoming more upset, more votes being cast in favour of deletion, and a general snowball close. If anyone disagrees, please contact me and I'll revert my closure, or revert it yourself if you can. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William R. Craft, Jr.[edit]

William R. Craft, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a poorly sourced biographical article, the only source listed being one from the quote aggregator "Fundies say the darndest things." I suspect this may essentially be a vanity page for a poorly known author. Radical Bacon (talk) 22:55, 13 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) 04:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions with unusual key relationships[edit]

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

No qualifier for what constitutes "unusual." No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The word "unusual" is a subjective term indicating POV. What is unusual to one person may not be unusual to another. Cindamuse (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information (it is not cleat what "unusual" means, and with it is POV too). Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't pretend to understand this, but it sounds like we have a definition in the article: "deviate from the norm of modulating to the dominant (in a major key) or to the relative major or dominant minor (in a minor key)". It is not indiscriminate, and there don't seem to be an awful lot of pieces in the list. It could be restricted to notable works, but my gut feeling is that almost all of them could be notable. StAnselm (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is by no means unusual; countless works contain "abnormal" key changes. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while it sounds like the article has defined unusual, its not nearly precise enough to warrant the use of the word. ive found one article with the word unusual in the title which i support: List of cars with unusual door designs, which i think works, as exceptions are limited and easily defined. This article has no references, and we would need a ref showing this feature of each work, and mention in the main article on those few which have articles. it also seems to be limited to classical music, which is an arbitrary demarcation, unlike the car door article, which includes all cars. we would also need a reference to books showing this particular classical music variant is often remarked on. Basically, tenpound is right.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unmanageable because it does not have clear inclusion criteria. It is unreferenced, but I doubt sufficient references are out there to clarify this topic and set inclusion criteria. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 19:07, 19 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) 04:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butik Qalesha[edit]

Butik Qalesha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Jaizovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Malaysian kids clothes company. No evidence of passing WP:CORP. Sources are Yellow Pages and blog. Searches for reliable info come up empty, with few hits. Advertising piece by SPA creator who keeps removing the notability and advert tags without addressing concerns. "Contested" prod. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:28, 13 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) 04:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Pepper[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, anyone? Ironholds (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, he is also known as a graffiti artist as the article says therefore he is notable and it doesn't breach WP:BLP1E. MPEGLA (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does not reference that. It does not provide any evidence he is notable as a graffiti artist, nor any references; if you can find some, add them. If not, read BLP1E more closely. Ironholds (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note – !vote made by a sock of a banned user. –MuZemike 15:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Very Weak Keep, generally, Big Brother contestants that are able to establish notability outside the house are allowed their own article. It's been longstanding consensus that BB winners are inherently notable enough to warrant their own article, and within a week or so, that's a likely possibility. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Article was created by a sock of a banned user, but there have been some contributions by others, so I'm afraid WP:CSD#G5 does not apply. –MuZemike 15:17, 16 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 02:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Burton[edit]

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

Rejected speedy, does assert some notability in the sense of a filmography and television appearances. I still personally don't think it's enough, though, and I suspect that the appearances were all minor, undistinct parts. Esteffect (talk) 21:34, 13 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. The article needs to be cleaned up though. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kuzneski[edit]

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

advert fluff piece by publicist meant to showcase an author that narrowly skirts WP:N. #33 "honorable mention" on the NYT bestseller list does not cut it. Article is used solely to puff up client, and from there is routinely linkdumped onto much more notable articles Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The fact that The Lost Throne was in the top 5 on the UK charts, and The Prophecy was number four on the same chart proves notability. The mention on the NYT bestseller list and London Times bestseller list doesn't hurt either. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 14:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent reliable sources covering in depth. And I'm sick of the way he's being spammed all over the project. Delete his books, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plus a firm reminder to Steven J. Anderson to assume good faith and to be civil. Prose like "being spammed all over the project" is over the top and suggests a prejudice inconsistent with the pursuit of reasonable consensus. For the record, I don't know Mr Kuzneski, nor have I read any of his works, but it seems apparent at a glance that his name is popping up in a number of unrelated and notable sources. —Bill Price (nyb) 20:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • An additional note to the nominator: Recall that perfection is not required on Wikipedia, and that "I don't like the way it's written" is not a valid reason for deleting an article. If a person or topic is notable enough to warrant an article, then that article, if poorly-written, ought not to be deleted—it ought to be improved through collaboration. I've personally rehabilitated similar "fluff pieces" in the past, and frankly, it's not that big of a deal. It's just part of the job here. —Bill Price (nyb) 20:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's a firm reminder to Bill. Check your facts before you issue firm reminders. A quick look at Wikipedia:Ani#User:PenguinUSA_and_spamming_Chris_Kuzneski will confirm that the subject's name is being spammed all over the project and the guilty party indef blocked for doing it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm already aware of that. What I take issue with is your belief that punishment (in the form of wiping all mentions of the author off the face of the project) is the appropriate response. I say to assume good faith because I'm not convinced that the author is non-notable and I am open to the possibility that the author or his works do warrant mention in certain articles. This scorched earth approach you're following is unreasonable and uncalled for, especially when run in parallel to an ongoing discussion. —Bill Price (nyb) 20:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let me put it this way: I'm a third-party editor who has had no part in any of this up until a few minutes ago. What I'm perceiving here is an emotional overreaction to the overzealous promotion committed by the PenguinUSA (talk · contribs) account. But remember, the misdeeds of an editor do not have any bearing on the overarching goals of the project. The punishment ethos is wholly out of line with the five pillars of Wikipedia. —Bill Price (nyb) 20:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is little doubt the article's subject is a notable author, as he is nationally published and has sold significant volume, both in the US and UK. Notability is here irregardless of whether there is a WP:COI of the original editor. Sure, the article needs better references, but that can presumably be fixed. The spamming of other articles with the author/works is a separate issue that shouldn't determine notability here. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have much lesss notable authors and books with WP articles. this shows that publishers are using chris as a recommender for other, newer authors. I know this can be logrolling, but it does point to notability (not necessarily as well earned as hemingway or proust, but notability anyway).The article is, of course, overly promotional, along with the individual book articles. so trim them. I may actually do this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - two books on the UK charts would seem to make him notable. Definitely a "puffy" article though. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly a notable author with multiple books by major publishers. This article looking "puffy" is an editing issue, not a notability one. --Oakshade (talk) 03:46, 14 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. SPA votes aside, the keep votes are more based in policy (significant coverage in independent sources exist), while the delete votes are more like "needs work to remove OR" and "this is anti-Korean". —fetch·comms 01:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pure blood theory in Korea[edit]

Pure blood theory in Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such thing as a Pure "Korean" blood theory. The subject has never existed. The article itself is a synthesis and interpretation of topics relating to ethnic nationalism in Korea. Basically a POV-content fork of Korean nationalism. And by interpretation, I mean everything about the article is borderline original research. Akkies (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Hyperbolic swastika aside, this appears to be a well done article. The argument of the nominator that "the subject has never existed" seems to be belied by at least two and probably more cited sources in the article, including THIS ONE. I think there might be grounds for giving this the NPOV once-over twice, but I certainly don't think this is a subject that has "never existed," nor do I think that it is a matter that lies outside of an encyclopedia's purview. Carrite (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further reflection, a name change to Pure blood nationalism (Korea) might be in order. Carrite (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current title touches the point of this article well and it's a theory after all, nationalism is just a segment of this. --LLTimes (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The argument of the nominator seems unfounded by searching keywords such as korea cleanest race, korea pure race, korea pure bloodline, korea blood purity and 순혈주의 純血主義 (pure-blood-ism). The Korea Times, the oldest english newspaper in south korea had a series of articles on concepts of blood purity[3][4][5]. See also articles from NY Times[6] and this one archived by the Asia-Pacific Research Center of the Stanford University[7]. B.R.Myers also wrote a book on this topic The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters. (ISBN 1933633913)
The search result actually shows that the pure blood issue is widely discussed in the korean society under the names of "pure blood", "pure race", "single race" (danil minjok), "single nation" which are collectively called "pure blood theory" and "pure blood hypothesis" in the disputed article.
Maybe the name can be changed to "pure blood concept in Korea", "pure race hypothesis in Korea" or "pure blood issue in Korea" if a word "theory" is not scientifically accurate to discuss a topic related to fringe science ?
The history of revision also doesn't support that the nominator's observation that the topic is a fork from Korean nationalism. This one records the pure-blood related issues such as its origin of the notion, genetic analysis, discrimination on mixed blood, intermarriage's impact on "pure blood notion". --Winstonlighter (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! your reference to '순혈주의' is inappropriate. Because, this '순혈주의' isn't correlation. -- — Idh0854 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep as per above sources exist and the article is well written. Derild4921☼ 22:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources exist and pretty well written with few minor adjustable errors --LLTimes (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be well sourced. The topic is at least as legitimate as fan death (not that I'm suggesting WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, lol). Axem Titanium (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: well sourced, informative as an encyclopedic article should be, and if you believe there are synthesis issues, room for improvement is not an excuse for deletion. Additionally, I question the nominator's intentions, given my previous experiences with the said user: so when a controversial article comes up, it's generally fine, but when it's about Korea, it must be destroyed with fire? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above: well sourced. It is mentioned in this article and it is also well sourced. [8], [9] and [10]. Oda Mari (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Power overwhelming... should we call WP:SNOW soon? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! stop! use Inappropriate account, now! --— Idh0854 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
'또라이' is korean. This is mean offensive word. (≒ STFU) --— Idh0854 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Korean word "또라이" literally means "Stone-head jerk". It is very bad, offensive word. So, can you erase that word from your sign? - Chugun (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This document isn't NPOV. Because, This is just non'korea'cal opinion of connected japan people. Therefore, need delete. Thank you. --— Idh0854 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that Japan people are not fit to edit? See WP:PILLAR. Also, have you got any evidence to prove your claim that Japanese people have edited the page at all? I find your argument a bit odd. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete What's the matter? Is it just ANTI-KOREAN document? i can't understand why this is must keep.--— Saehayae (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Weakly Delete This article has some problems(such as NPOV, OR, SYN). I feel that this article explains all Korean has pure blood theory - in fact, some people only, not all. - Chugun (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 16:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC) change[reply]
    • I suggest this opinion is based on a misunderstanding of our deletion policies. Concerns that articles lapse from WP:NPOV or WP:SYNTH should be taken seriously. But if the topic itself is notable, then the deletion policies say that the NPOV or SYNTH concerns should be addressed through removing or rewriting the specific passages that lapse, through wikitags, or through discussion on the article's talk page. If that fails, the issue should be escalated to a fora like WP:NORN. Other respondents have asserted above that this topic is widely discussed. If they are telling the truth that establishes the notability of the topic. I strongly believe that it there are WP:RS there is no topics that can't be covered using a neutral point of view, given enough collegial, good faith effort. If the topic is notable, but our current coverage is biased, then address the bias on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It's WP:SYN. Although the sources are reliable, the conclusion is an orginal research. --Awesong (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I wrote above our deletion policies don't authorize the deletion of articles on notable topics, that cite WP:RS, due to concerns they lapse from WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV. Those concerns are supposed to be sorted out on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It is an original research. Also, the references published by Korean scholars are very unreliable. As Chugun said, the myth of pure blood is not common belief among the South Korean people. --Mintz0223 (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I wrote above our deletion policies don't authorize the deletion of articles on notable topics, that cite WP:RS, due to concerns they lapse from WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV. Frankly it doesn't matter what fraction of the Korean people believe in this theory -- if WP:RS have written about it it merits (neutrally voiced) coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Original research conclusion, Who came up with this wacky idea. If we leave this in we need to bringing in the Japanese Imperial Family and how they are Korean, see the Kufun period article from national geographics which show how the Japanese will only let monitored people in designated areas in the tombs after Korean clothes and artifacts were found earlier. If we add that Japan's Royalty should be considered Korea's pure line, This will open a can of worms. it will be too much. --Objectiveye (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I wrote above our deletion policies don't authorize the deletion of articles on notable topics, that cite WP:RS, due to concerns they lapse from WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV. Those concerns are supposed to be sorted out on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is most definitely not original research or synthesis; a cursory examination of the 32 sources will tell you that much. It is an important and oft-mentioned topic in Korean nationalism, contemporary race relations in Korea, and outsiders' study of North Korean propaganda. Quigley (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is never oft-mentioned topic about Korean nationality. In fact, the term '순혈주의' is used only when criticizing discrimination against 'mix-blooded' people. No Korean historians admits that the Koreans are really homogeneous. Also, many references of the sources, especially in this section, distorted major debation in Korean society. Jung Suk-keun, and Handan chronicle, are not reliable sources. Handan chronicle was decreed as fake at least 20 years ago, and Jung Suk-keun and few other 'out of the current system' historians are unreasonably claiming childish hypotheses, e.g. "Chinese letter was made by Eastern Barbarians(東夷,동이), who are the ancester of Korean!" Of course, Common historian did never accept their claim. --Mintz0223 (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing is a silly article that should be deleted but if you guys keep it, the 20 to 30 year old theories that people in Korea do not believe should probably not be used. In addition, If Koreans believe they are the superior race, then the subordinate concept would not make sense. We have to bring in references about superior beliefs, I think it will be a mess, but when you edit please keep in mind the article believes Korean superior pure race stuff, so subordinate would contradict the article. And please do not censor or delete references. Rewording may be better keeping in mind the article is about Koreans believing in superior pure race. --Objectiveye (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Objectiveye, I'm concerned of some your edits on the article. While you vote for deletion, you keep adding endless crank history and put them as a "fact" in the article, which may really turn out to be a reason to support the deletion.
By providing this NationalGeographic article, you proclaimed that [11] "historical evidence has pointed to Korea being the original bloodline for the Japanese Royal family from its inception." Not only is the tone wrongly put, I actually don't see how this part of content developed the pure blood theory in Korea. Maybe you need more explanation on the talk page before insisting to put these contents that apparently weaken the article. --Winstonlighter (talk) 06:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make the Japan issue and Korean superiority beliefs separate, because it is a continuation from WWII Japanese Occupation and their 20th century idea. While Japan believe they were pure by changing the date of Jingu from the Korean line of 4 or 5th century to 1st or 2nd century. In addition to moving the monument in Manchuria to Korea and changing Gojoseon to myth (which is also debated). If you are to believe this article that Koreans believe they are the pure superior race, then they would use all the archeological evidence pointing out Korean links with ancient Japan. Koreans would point out their superiority (If that is what they believe) That would be the only way for this theory to make sense. If Koreans do not clarify why they are superior to Japan this article is just some anti-Korean POV article made by a Japanophile. It wouldn't even make sense. No superior race would beleive they were subordinate to someone else with out clarifying the issue. And if you look at the article by Winstonlighter, Gojoseon history is stated to be a myth (Which is not true and is debated). But Winsonlighter wants to take out the section about Koreans bloodlines for Japan's Royal family because it is debated. Winstonlighter you cannot leave in one debated information but decide to delete another debated information. (That is censorship) That would be censoring certain information to make a POV article. You just can't have one withouut the other. Koreans cannot believe they are superior without justifying the Japanese occupation with evidence of Korean superiority. You can find article which state that Koreans never had a war with Japan in 1910 and it was a cowardly con job, in occupying and annexing Korea and that is why Koreans still believe they are superior or something like that or you can find articles about Western weapons which the West only traded with Japan and that is why they caused so much Damage in NE Asia, but without these weapons the Koreans believe Japan is still the Wokou and inferior. With these archeological evidence Koreans point out the inferiority etc or how ever you want to word it. You cannot have one without the other, they cannot be separated because you would be contradicting yourself in the article. If Koreans truly believed they were superior, Japan's introduction of this concept in the 20th century to this pure superior race bloodline would have to be explained and why Koreans still believe they are a superior pure race. I say delete the article, but if it is kept, this has to stay to make sense. I have no problems with you guys editing my stuff. I just wanted to correct the contradictory POV tone of the original article. When you edit please keep in mind you are in an article stating the Koreans superior pure bloodline is believed, so they would never be subordinate to anyone else without an explanation, and that is when all that Jingu stuff start to come in and not knowing why Japan limits the access of their Royal tombs, etc. Cannot have one without the explanation of superiority belief. Try rewording it in a way that makes sense to why Koreans are superior pure race etc. or just delete it altogether. Thanks --Objectiveye (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't complain that the Japanese and Westerners introduced the concept of racial purity to the Koreans. Komitsuki (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also South Korean public has an exceptionally huge problem with its own mass medias. So any news from South Korea has unusually big negative impressions outside of South Korea. This is a problem that Japanese and Chinese media faces too. Komitsuki (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This will breed massive amount of racist trolling in other English language forums. Komitsuki (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: inb4 WP:CANVASS, and WP:SPA. You should all be aware that this is not a !vote; WP:CONSENSUS is made from collecting arguments together, not by numbers. If someone told you to come here, then I suggest to cease in your partisanship. So far I have seen few of the delete !votes with a subjective discussion; they're all "this is an attack page against Koreans, this is an outrage". I seriously do not know what to say. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • From where have all these WP:SPAs all popped out of nowhere? None of these editors have been active since their votes, and they've all just arrived overnight. I suspect that forum shopping is going on by some editors in a bid to garner votes. And then there is the calling foul regarding WP:OR, which completely ignores a wide number of references given. I suspect that people have just been instructed to shout WP:OR! WP:OR! by others without really knowing what they're talking about. I guess it's one of the "easy way out arguments" that have been spread amongst people in forums. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
herp derp? Do you really have to belittle to the people who disagree with you? Komitsuki (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, be nice. I just got back from an argument about the 2010 Australian Federal Election on /int/, at least give me time to readjust my attitude. Plus, I've backtraced my words after I realised that they were unnecessary, I'm human, and God never made these vile creatures perfect. Don't tell me that you're a perfect specimen of humankind. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: Well, I don't see anything wrong with deleting it. Many anti-Chinese articles were deleted right before the Beijing Olympics. I don't like the idea of fueling anti-Korean racism despite I have a minor Chinese connection. If you watched a documentary from the national TV station, KBS (Korean Broadcasting System) a while ago, it argues and accepts the fact that 40% of Koreans have non-Korean ancestry in their surnames. Hypocritically the dictator, Park Cheong-hee, who promoted Korean racial purity considered himself as a Japanese due to his allegiance with the Japanese Empire; the Japanese Empire that promoted modern pre-WWII Japanese values of racial purity. The whole racial purity of Koreans isn't even 100% approved by the today's public but as a reaction to Japanese racial purity in the past and today's political mentality stemmed from the Cold War. So I find it very ridiculous to argue about this. Komitsuki (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said my first vote was invalid. Komitsuki (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Quote: "Many anti-Chinese articles were deleted right before the Beijing Olympics." - Where? Wikipedia? Source? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just from my personal experience in Wikipedia. Komitsuki (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For one, they don't get deleted for no reasons, as most deletions are viewed and contributed by admins too as well as other members. And certainly that is not a reason to delete this article either.--LLTimes (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "no reasons" or "with reasons" in my previous comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Komitsuki (talk • contribs) 07:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the reason why I voted the way I did was because this will be a constant mess. In order to not be contradictory

you have think about this and add it to the article for it to make sense. If Koreans believe they are superior pure race, then they will need to explain why they still feel superior after WWII. By adding in the archeological info about Japan they can come to that idea. You guys can re-word it but you have to explain why Koreans would still believe they were still the superior pure race. The concept according to the article was introduced by Japan in the 20th century but they were suppose to be subordinate? That would not make any sense, why would this idea would still persist today. You have to clarify how research after the occupation lead to Koreans feeling superior by (and you can reword it how ever):

Historical evidence has pointed to Korea being the original bloodline for the Japanese Royal family from its inception. The constant tombs with Korean writing, clothes and artifacts have added to the idea that Korea's pure blood is Japan's elite. In 1976 Japan stopped all foreign archaeologists from studying the Gosashi tomb which is suppose to be the resting place of Emperor Jingu. Prior to 1976 foreigners did have access. Recently in 2008, Japan has allowed controlled limited access to foreign archaeologists, but the international community still has many unanswered questions. National Geographic wrote Japan "has kept access to the tombs restricted, prompting rumors that officials fear excavation would reveal bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea"[1]

With Japans elite being of Korean blood, it didn't matter that they occupied Korea because they were under a Korean Emperor or something like that. In addition:

As science progressed the Subordinate race appeared to be the Japanese. The Japanese elite appear to be of Korean origin. The Japanese pure royal blood line was of Korean origin with ancient buddhist school, artifacts, sculptures, architecture and writing, including the introduction of iron processing and horses all coming to Japan from Korea.[2][3][4]"[5][6][7] These scientific researches lead to Japan limiting the access of Japan's royal tomb from the international community.[8]

and

Borrowing from the Japanese theory of nation and race[9], Shin Chaeho located the martial roots of the Korean in Goguryeo[9], which he depicted as militarist, expansionist which turned out to inspire pride and confidence in the resistance against the Japanese[9]. In order to establish Korean uniqueness, he also replaced the story of Gija whose founder was the paternal uncle or brother of the Chinese Shang emperor Zhou with the Dangun legend[10] and asserted that it is the important ways to establish Korea’s uniqueness.[9] These are analogous to the Japanese establishing their Emperor Jingu to be from the 2nd century and replacing their Korean pure lines while limiting access for the international community to the Korean artifacts/clothes found in the tombs.[11]

You have to add this above section to show they think they are correcting Japans fabrications, etc otherwise why would they think they were superior.

Someone needs to fix this because a quick check on history of China states they are older than 2333 BC

After the independence in the late 1940s, despite the split between North and South Korea, neither side disputed the ethnic homogeneity of the Korean nation based on a firm conviction that they are purest descendant of a legendary genitor and half-god figure called Dangun who founded Gojoseon in 2333BC[12], making Korean the oldest civilization in the whole world based on the description of the Dongguk Tonggam (1485).[13]

If we add this (You guys can reword it)

This "oldest civilization in the whole world" reference is in obvious error considering the History of China section states that the Jiahu culture, Yangshao culture and the Longshan culture of China are all older with dates ranging from 6000 to 2500 BC compared to 2333 BC Gojoseon of Dongguk Tonggam. Considering Korea doesn't believe they are the oldest civilization in the world and Asians easily finding references to Chinese civilizations dating in back to the 6000 BC time frame, how the writer of this reference stated studying archeology of Gojoseon Korea the "oldest civilation in the whole world" is questionable.

Anyways we have to fix these obivous contradictions --Objectiveye (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  1. ^ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080428-ancient-tomb.html
  2. ^ Korean Impact (2001), pp. 44-45
  3. ^ Korean Impact (2001), p. 46.
  4. ^ Korean Impact (1984)
  5. ^ NYT (2003): Japanese Art
  6. ^ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A05E0D91139E733A25754C0A9619C946097D6CF
  7. ^ http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln275/Jap-Kor-art.htm
  8. ^ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080428-ancient-tomb.html
  9. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference gries was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Andre Schmid, "Rediscovering Manchuria: Som Cj’aeho and the Politics of Territorial History in Korea," in The Journal of Asian Studies, 56, no. 1 February 1997
  11. ^ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080428-ancient-tomb.html
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference stanford was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Old Choson and the Culture of the Mandolin-shaped Bronze Dagger, Kim Jung-bae
Objectiveye, many users have also expressed that many of these points are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Things about the Japanese Imperial family belong in the Japanese Imperial Family article. Things about historical claims belong in the Korean nationalism article. This article should solely stick to the direct topic, and its effects on Korean society. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant, If as the article claims Koreans feel they are the superior race, this will not be subordinate. In the 70s when the Japanese stopped all foreign archeologists from analyzing the Royal tombs the Koreans would have used that to justify their superiority (If that is what they believe, I will re-word these references later once all the voting is in, but you get the idea) Superior race will not leave subordinate idea alone and that is why the Japanese imperial family stuff belong in this article. We can also link it to the Japanese royal family article itself.
We can just merge this with the nationalism in Korea article or we can correct these contradictions. A superior race will explain why they are not subordinate. And even if Korea is 6000 years old they are still younger than China because of the 6000 BC culture would make them 8000 years old. See how this is a contradictory statement. This is highly analogous to the 600 BC or older claim in Japan. We should delete the article altogether or related to the Japanese history of pure race as well.

In either case

1. Superior race will not leave a contradictory idea of subordinate alone without explanation
2. Quick History of China search shows they have cultures dating back to 6000 BC
3. This probably shouldn't be lumped in with the Nazi era stuff, because the time period would be after WWII
We have to fix these contradictions, or this article will appear to be made by some Japanophile editor with too much time on his hands with too much hate in his heart. --Objectiveye (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This data is most people claim korean histroy is 6000 years. But, this isn't true. Only some people claim 6000 years. Therefore, this data is WP:NOR. --— Idh0854 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

One, how is this relevant to Pure blood theory in Korea? Two, where in this article, or in this discussion, has anyone claimed that Korean culture goes for 6000 years? (Protip: Try CTRL+F.) -- 李博杰  | —Talk

contribs email 11:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Korea is 6000 years old or not doesn't even matter when the statement in the article doesn't make sense. Even if Korea was 6000 years old, Anyone who studied E Asian history knows that is not the oldest, A quick search of History of China will show 6000 BC cultures. If you are going to put up a controversial article like this at least try not to make such lazy mistakes. It doesn't even matter if Korea is 6000 years old. We need to focus and explain why Koreans believe they are the superior pure race. Is it because they are the progenitors of Japan's Elite, etc....Make article make some sense, or just delete the article or merge it with another.--Objectiveye (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References of Pure blood theory in Korea. --— Idh0854 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And, korean people isn't claim 'making korea' of Chinese character. This's claimed to Hwandan Gogi need people.(No most people!) --— Idh0854 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

English, do you speak it? Nobody here is talking about Hanja, Hwandan Gogi or anything else. Nobody is claiming that Korea is 6000 years old. I don't know where you're getting all these WP:NOR arguments from, when nothing has been said by anyone within this page. This article is about 순혈주의, if you have "WP:NOR" concerns about Hanja and Hwandan Gogi, this isn't the place to start a war of words. We are talking about how mix-bloods such as Hines Ward are perceived in Korea. We are talking about how Koreans see themselves from a racial point of view. All that you are referring to does not match with what is being brought across in this article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he types in English. He is pointing out the fact that not all Koreans are collectively racist by showing a rather different example. Komitsuki (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that he types in English, but how is what he saying relevant to the topic at hand? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because he's a Korean who criticized against Korean superiority. Korean "pure blood racism" goes hand in hand with Korean superiority. And as he was criticizing Korean superiority, he criticized Korean "pure blood racism". Komitsuki (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pure blood theory ≠ supremacy. Pure blood theory refers to the notion that the Korean race has minimal intermixing; that clearly has nothing to do with supremacy. Being pure-blooded does not make one superior. The two notions are different. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the majority of Koreans believe in both Pure blood theory and supremacy hand in hand, kinda like a product of Japanese education and social situations. Komitsuki (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You just contradicted your earlier statement. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really when I'm only pointing out what they believe in. I didn't say that I agree with the pure blood theory. Komitsuki (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you are one person. How else do you think these ideas have come about? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, Korean pure race theory is a para-political choice in protest against "old Japanese race theory" that Koreans and Japanese are hypothetically same race-nation. This was unfortunately promoted in South Korea by an undemocratic dictator. Komitsuki (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"This was unfortunately promoted in South Korea by an undemocratic dictator" - True, true, I 100% agree with you on that. But that then means that this theory does indeed exist right? Thus, it is not an argument that "this theory does not exist/is invalid", right? Then, there is no need for deletion. If you now have a look at the article, I have chemo'ed the cancer, so there is no more of this controversial historical business. In the case where you might still believe there are minor WP:OR problems, they can be fixed, and thus, again, deletion is unnecessary. Agreeable? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have told me that "you do not believe in this theory" and that "this theory is wrong", although "it does exist, introduced by (Park Chung-hee)". Not in exact words, but you implied those, right? Things aren't deleted from Wikipedia if people consider them to be wrong. Many people consider Nazism wrong, but that page has not been deleted. Same with Communism, White Power movement, polygamy... do you understand what I'm saying? Being disagreeable does not warrant for deletion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I think some china-related-people are insisting this document should not be deleted. Also this article is not neutral.Realidad y Illusion (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see "WP:NOR" being thrown around alot, but no one has yet been able to explain why that is so. Can someone actually please point out where the violations are, so they can be improved? It's better to contribute positively rather than killing everything with fire, is it not? If these nationalist newcomer editors are really as passionate in perfecting an encyclopedia article as one might claim, than that would most certainly be the case, no? If something has a chance of being fixed, then WP:AFD is not necessary, and the "problem" is not an excuse for deletion. WP:SOFIXIT definitely applies here. Accuse me of WP:ABF all you want, but I honestly don't know how I can WP:AGF anymore, given the current situation. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Alternative Suggestion: Make a new article called "Racism in East Asia". Incorporating "Pure blood theory in Korea" with Japanese Nihonginron, etc, or racial issues in China, Korea, and Japan into a single article. Because of the unfortunate late 19th and 20th century geopolitics in the past, I think all of these countries have inter-related form of racism. Komitsuki (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just call it Racism in Korea, disassociate with Nazi race theories. Komitsuki (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But to does not directly address racism in Korea. It is an article about a pure blood theory. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it does address racism directly or not. Plus, racism in Korea has a very political origin. Komitsuki (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be that you probably find this sensitive, because you consider Nazism wrong, or taboo. Let's get this straight. Nobody is saying that Koreans are Nazis. The article is stating that the Japanese introduced a concept which involved Koreans, and they themselves were influenced by the Nazi Germans, and Park Chung-hee later expanded on the idea, but nowhere does it say that Koreans = Nazis. Right? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really per se. The Japanese pure blood theory (which influenced "Korean pure blood theory") has its origin in pre-Meiji Japan Kokugaku, that later influenced Nihonjinron. Komitsuki (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I stress again, this article is not about racism in Korea. It was never intended to be that kind of article. If you want a "racism in Korea" article, feel free to be WP:BOLD and write one yourself. However, this article was intended to address this pure blood theory. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But why does this article also addresses racism in Korea? It could be an expandable topic other than the pure blood theory stuffs. Komitsuki (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, why? Are you trying to cover up something that you don't really like, by mixing it in with something bigger? Do you believe that this is "embarrasing" for you, or for Korea? I'd like to know an actual reason, other than a gut feeling that you think it will be a wonderful idea. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not covering it up. Because it's a darn concoction with the current racist trends in Korea. Komitsuki (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to rename this Racism in Korea. As a Korean, not all Koreans are racist, nor think badly of China (HK, Macao, and Taiwan) or Japan. It is the internet alright and sometimes we have unfortunate flamewars. Komitsuki (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that does not mean that there is no pure blood theory. And that does not mean that an article should be made about it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree this as a part of the whole racism topic. Komitsuki (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why WP:MERGE it into "racism into Korea" when the topic is clearly distinct enough? Why not merge Dangun into Korean mythology? Why not merge Miracle on the Han River into Economy of South Korea? Why not merge Hangul into Korean language? Why not merge Hanja into Chinese character? You don't have double standards like that, right? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with that proposed merge. If you read the sources, this topic is not always discussed in the context of racism - although Korean ethnocentrism may cause racism, that is not always the end-result. In essence, this topic is larger than the issue of racism in Korea. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because in today's Korea, 純血主義 is a very minor topic. Komitsuki (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In today's Japan, Chikan is a minor topic, yet we have an article on it. In today's China, konghanzheng is a minor topic, yet we have an article on it. Being minor is irrelevant. We have articles on List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters, for crying out loud. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take me wrong. I only saying that the pure blood theory and racism are so intertwined in Korea. Komitsuki (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say it like this: pure blood theory is a part of the history of "racism in Korea". Komitsuki (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just take a little time to look through some of the sources. Korean ethnocentrism is not only about racism. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want. But please do notice that Koreans still have a very uneasy relationship with its past. They don't usually deny it per se, but more like continuously being rolled over by many politically historical issues in par with bad Korean authorities that seem to be pro-American and opportunists. Especially right after the Korean War. Komitsuki (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implying that it's not the same for China (Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution) and Japan (Japanese militarism)? Every country has got one. Anyways, we're starting to get off track here. Regardless of whether or not it's a bad thing from Korea's past, it doesn't solely revolve around racism, as said above. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Park Cheong-hee was probably the worse leader in Asia in terms of diplomacy. Worse than Mao. Park Cheong-hee is the reason why Korea today is so screwed up. And brought discrimination policies against Chinese people living in Korea but it's getting improved today after President Roh. He should had become the minister of finance and economy instead of a dictator. The more you know. Komitsuki (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is obviously a controversial one. If you have concerns about the content of the article, there are a couple of things I would suggest you do to improve the article: 1) scrutinise the sources that are used for the article for WP:SOURCES, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:UNDUE. Just because information can be found on the internet, doesn't mean that information ought to be used here in WP. And some of that information may be presented in this article as fact when it could just be the opinions of a few. And 2) delete content that is not attributed to any reliable sources at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My english is so bad. But I want to speak. Therefore, I will speak korean. Sorry. 李博杰님께서 얼마나 한국에 대해 알고 계시는가는 알지 못합니다. 다만, 하나 중요한 것은 저기에 걸려있는 한국어 각주와 한국 뉴스 각주의 내용들은 모두 한국에서 정상적으로 받아들여지지 않는 것입니다. 그걸 알고 계십니까? 그것을 각주로 하였으며, 또한 'Xenophobia'은 몇 %의 한국인의 생각이라고 보시는 지는 몰라도 이것은 명백한 '독자 연구'입니다. 그리고 히틀러랑은 무슨 연관이랍니까? Thank you. --— Idh0854 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Translation(not exact, but same meaning): I don't know how much 李博杰 knows about Korea. But, most Korean regards that those cites and references are abnormal. Do you know that? And I don't know 'Xenophobia' thinks how many Korean think like that, but it is clearly OR. There's no relation with Nazi. - Translated by Chugun (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nazi and Korean Pure blood theory have "no" relation absolutely. Very unneutral page. --— NuvieK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Before you start talking about Nazism, have you even read the article, and the relevant section you are talking about? Where does it say that the Korean pure blood theory directly spawns from Nazism? Where? Tell me. Give me a quote, and if it exists, it will be promptly fixed. If you can't find a quote, then move on to a different argument. Everyone's been using the same arguments, even though such a claim is nowhere found within the article. The article states that Nazism influenced the Japanese to formulate an ideology to justify annexation; that in no way implies that the blood theory comes from Nazism. Are you even reading it in the correct context? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an underhanded tactic but if you look at the article it has a large picture of Hilter and Nazi innuendos. The article may not directly state it, but you can tell how unneutral the original editor was. Considering the original editor made the article appear as if Koreans were superior pure race, but at the same time left the idea they were subordinate to Japan without an explanation of how Koreans can consider themselves superior without clarifying this. Then you have the Nazi pictures in addition to a sarcastic quote stating this would make Gojoseon the "Oldest civiliation in the World" Knowing full well a simple study of East Asia or Egypt will show you this sarcastic remark was made by a person who didn't study E Asian history at all. Even if Korea was 6000 years old they will not be the oldest. 2333 BC, is young when compared to the 6000 BC Chinese civiliations and in Egypt they were writing in 3500 BC. Why would this reference think that Koreans were odd for thinking 2333 BC and why would he write this would make Korea the oldest in the world (ha ha unbelievable, or something in that context. If your going to try to make fun of someone at least get the facts rights) This article needs to fix these odd innuendos. I think we should merge it with Nationalism in Korea or clarify this superior/subordinate issue. Otherwise it comes off as if a Japanophile who dislikes Korea wrote this. --Objectiveye (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where, within this article, does it say that Korea was x-thousand years old? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so there's this one line about the Dongguk Tonggam. Removed for cancer-treating purposes. Can we leave this thousand-year history talk now? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, let's have a look at your points:
  1. It is an underhanded tactic but if you look at the article it has a large picture of Hilter and Nazi innuendos - the image isn't even considered large at all; it's barely larger than all other images on that page. Why is inclusion of that image controversial? The paragraphs, and the caption, do not say "Koreans are Nazis", it refers to the Japanese assimilation policies. Also, if you look up Wiktionary, innuendo refers to a sexual implication. I personally don't find Hitler eroticating.
  2. Considering the original editor made the article appear as if Koreans were superior pure race - how is that so? The original article described the facts; it never claimed them to be true. The Gundam 00, Starcraft and The Host (film) articles does not claim the story to be true, yet it describes it in great detail. How, I ask you, does the article claim that Korea is all-superior?
  3. I think we should merge it with Nationalism in Korea - already addressed above, with verhment opposition.
  4. Otherwise it comes off as if a Japanophile who dislikes Korea wrote this. - what is this I don't even. How does Japanophilia have to do with any of this? I don't understand how criticising or reporting about Korea makes you a Japanophile. The African-American rapper Ice Cube wrote a song called Black Korea, which attacked Korean-American storeowners for overcharging African-American customers; is he a Japanophile?
With sincere confusion, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well the African-American rapper doesn't include the idea that Korea is subordinate to Japan, then sing Koreans are the Superior pure race. Only someone with Japanophile tendencies will try not to clarify this. In the 1990s when the US asked Japan to stop unfair trade practices and stop manipulating their currency the US president Bush went to Japan to get a good faith agreement with Japan. 3 months after the agreement, Japan went back on their word on currency manipulation. This caused people in the US to call Japan back stabbers, and caused many people to smash a Japanese car and burn Japanese electronics, but just like the African-American rappers that incident has nothing to do with this discussion.
      • You probably need to look up innuendo not sexual innuendo. Innuendo dictionary dictionary definition; Merriam-Webster = definition similar to insinuation; to use of such illusion.
      • If you believe you are superior you will not leave the idea of subordinate alone without explanation.
      • Most people do not like being linked to Nazis, the only countries who probably can be linked are Italy and Japan, the rest of the world (no matter how small the picture or in whatever context) do not like the Nazi innuendos --Objectiveye (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I wrote above our deletion policies don't authorize the deletion of articles on notable topics, that cite WP:RS, due to concerns they lapse from WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV. Those concerns are supposed to be sorted out on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It is so unjust article based on anti-korean sentiment. Furthermore, most users of a supporting this article are known as a anti-koreans.--Historiographer (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Be careful deleting articles based on nationalist sentiments and accounts inactive and not participate in discussion with sole purpose for voting. Sammyy85 (talk) 15:45, 19 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 Withdrawn per sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge Records (1920s)[edit]

Challenge Records (1920s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:V. Antiquated, yes, but no books or news articles reference it even in passing. Utterly fails WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Tag for no refs and let it go. This is just a stub, like tens of thousands of others. Hopefully it will be developed over time. It's doubtful there is going to be much on the internet, tread lightly. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone already did tag it, four years ago. I think you need to read WP:BUILDER; you can't just say "hopefully it will be developed." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:38, 13 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. I feel snow Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interim velim a sole mihi non obstes![edit]

Interim velim a sole mihi non obstes! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N. Diogenes of Sinope was a Greek speaker, and there are several versions (in Greek) of what he may have said to Alexander the Great. This particular Latin phrase apparently appears in Valerius Maximus and the satires of Juvenal. A search for this phrase on Google Book Search reveals just 18 books which quote this phrase - mainly just Latin editions of those two authors. It is worth noting that a search for the alternative Cicero phrase mentioned on this page gives 24 books. Singinglemon (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The story about Diogenes and Alexander is certainly notable, but the place to treat it is where it is already treated, in Diogenes of Sinope. This Latin version of Diogenes' supposed remark has no independent notability. Deor (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story of Diogenes and Alexander is, indeed, notable. It's one of the most discussed anecdotes in history, written about by a millennium or two's worth of writers. I'm sure that there's a source or two for a fairly lengthy encyclopaedia article in there somewhere. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should probably mention that it's been painted and sculpted a lot, too. Uncle G (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Absolutely! I would like to make it clear that I also agree that the story of Diogenes and Alexander is notable. You've done a fine job creating an article on the subject. Singinglemon (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the shortsightedness of this nomination has been conclusively proven by Uncle G's contribution. Skomorokh 10:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't understand you I'm afraid. The works of Juvenal and Valerius Maximus contain thousands of Latin phrases. Why would there ever need to be a page devoted to the Latin phrase "Interim velim a sole mihi non obstes" when it's never quoted by anyone? Singinglemon (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pardon my opaqueness. My point is that this analysis is superficial, addressing only a portion of the sampled content; you found the title problematic, don't seem to have considered another to better represent the potential of the topic, and condemned the entire article as a result. The fact (shown to your satisfaction and mine by Uncle G, evidently) that the value of the content and the underlying topic (which in both the current and former state of the article was the interaction of Diogenes and Alexander) could be properly represented in an encyclopaedia article did not seem to have been considered. Skomorokh 20:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh I see. Our point of (trivial) disagreement is that I think there was nothing worth keeping from the page I nominated for deletion. It couldn't have been expanded under it's original name, and there is no way I would ever have moved that article, as it was, to Diogenes and Alexander. Even now I think leaving in the Valerius Maximus and Cicero variants of the quotes reads like mindless pedantry, but I've left them in for now, and relegated the Latin to footnotes. Singinglemon (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An encyclopedic treatment would include it as a subsection of Diogenes of Sinope, where, failing that, there should be a concise version of this article as a free-standing section, with a hatnote guiding readers.--Wetman (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know that in some versions of the anecdote, Diogenes is not one of the characters, and that it's not all about Diogenes, right? Uncle G (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We could conceivably decide to include only large articles: e.g. have one article only of Philosophy, and include everything under. Or we could conceivably decide to force everything in the world for which there are two individual references into a separate article. But experience shows people do not like to read very long articles with current computer systems, nor do they want to put things together in their head from a very large number of fragments. (Both of these change: on the one hand, connections get faster and screens get larger, along with improvements in navigating long texts; on the other, people seem to be increasingly willing to read & communicate using extremely small chunks for the sake of portability.) But the general rule is that someone comes to an encyclopedia expecting an article, not a book, and not an isolated factoid--there are other sites for those needs, and people use them. This leaves a wide range of possibilities, and I think the best guide is that if there is enough material to write a s decent article then we should do so, and include a summary in more comprehensive articles. (the main factors inhibiting grouping very small articles are the difficulty of linking reliably and stably to sections of articles,and the need for material within the range of what beginners can write. Personally, I look forward to a way of organizing the material as units in a database, with flexible recombination and aggregation arrangements, but at present we have an article based-system--perhaps my idea here would better be a separate project. For the present project, this is a sustainable article. But I am not happy with the title as given, (but its been cleverly redirected) If we use the phrase, since we do not know the authentic Greek phrase, if there was one, we should use the most common English rendition, or a suitable name of the Anecdote, like the current Diogenes and Alexander . If we're looking for a specific rule about phrases like this, if they've acquired a literature of their own, I'd give them an article (which turns out to be in line with the GNG, fwiw.) DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Renaming to Diogenes and Alexander removed whatever "rationale" there was. East of Borschov 21:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [EC] Keep per DGG, East of Borschov, and WP:HEY. Bearian'sBooties 21:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I never thought I'd say it, but keep per DGG. There's conceivably a case for merging this (although per DGG I think a weak one) but even so, merging would not require deletion, so this nomination should fail.--Scott Mac 21:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Scott Mac. This is the sort of article that make it all worthwhile. ϢereSpielChequers 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if I can vote against my own nomination. We effectively have a brand new page called Diogenes and Alexander in which Interim velim a sole mihi non obstes! is now redirected to. I do not want to see Diogenes and Alexander deleted! - that is not what I nominated, but there we go. :) Singinglemon (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a keeper alright; the original title was misguided but this meeting has caused much debate in the ensuing years and is a properly encyclopaedic subject.  pablo 22:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Diogenes and Alexander. This article is now a redirect, which could usefully be deleted, if all substantive links to the old ttile are uodated to the present one. However, redirects are harmless and cheap. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 15 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Carriger[edit]

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

This is an article on someone who has been nominated for an award but not won it, with no independent sources (the interview is clearly not independent). This looks like a clear case of WP:NOTYET, though obviously better than the copyvio we deleted. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The interview is independent - she's had two books (the third is being released in September) published by Orbit Books, and the interview is with Tor Books. Orb Books is an imprint of Tor, but Orbit is not. Two books published by a major publisher, plus one on the verge of being published, plus at least one more in the works (as per her website), equals notability. (And the 2010 Campbell Award hasn't been given yet.) DS (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No interview is independent, by definition. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons stated by DS. harej 19:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and Locus put her on their Recommended Reading List for 2009 (I've added the ref to the article). DS (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be deleted for the reasons stated herein. 74.66.89.144 (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC) JP]][reply]

  • Keep It appears that there are going to be five books in the series, and it's going to have a final end there, according to her website. The publication schedule, nomination for the Campbell, and Lotus recommendation, in my eyes, is sufficient. Thanks for pointing out what sounds like ideal beach reading. htom (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep books published by a major publisher, entry on Best Seller list, though sources seem scant in a search. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline keep - I'd like to see better referencing, but with what is there I think we can just barely determine notability. It's on pretty shaky ground though. Triona (talk) 00:06, 18 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) 04:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caught Inside (album)[edit]

Caught Inside (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Gulture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable 2003 album by Jimmy Z. No sources. No evidence of meeting WP:NALBUM. No reviews, no awards etc. Article is spammy. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:04, 13 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. The strong consensus is that this list is largely a duplicate of a list of female porn actresses, and that the great overlap makes this list unnecessary. There is room for a list of actresses who have only performed in lesbian porn... perhaps. But that is not the list in question here. All-in-all, this list has a strong consensus in favour of deletion. Courcelles 04:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of female performers in lesbian porn films[edit]

List of female performers in lesbian porn films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was presumably created as a mirror of List of male performers in gay porn films. However, we have that article and not this one for a reason; the same reason we have Category:People appearing in gay pornography, but deleted Category:People appearing in lesbian pornography. From the CFD nomination for that category: 'Most female participants in pornography will typically appear in lesbian scenes; in time I would expect this category and Category:Female porn stars to be near mirror images of each other.' I believe the same applies to this article; it could contain almost every female porn performer. It only contains two names at the moment, but could easily be extended indefinitely. Robofish (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wow, two names -- what an outstanding list! Beyond the utter incompetence of this list, what constitutes a "film"? What constitutes a "lesbian performance"? And why the hell does Wikipedia have a BLP catastrophe waiting to happen with a list like "People appearing in gay pornography"? This sort of thing must be TIGHTLY sourced or there may well be monstrous legal ramifications, I venture. It is time to stop making WP Your One-Stop Source for Pornographic Information. This is a fucking encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia of fucking. Carrite (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need any sources to confirm they work in porn for the list article, just sources in their main article the list is linking to. Although it'd be easy enough, if that was any real concern, to copy over a reference from their main articles to there. And Wikipedia does not censor itself, it here to include the sum of all human knowledge. Pornographic articles should be treated the same as any other. Dream Focus 04:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. List of African-American pornographic actors
  2. List of Asian pornographic actors
  3. List of British pornographic actors
  4. List of pornographic actresses by decade
  5. List of male performers in gay porn films
  6. List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films
  • Delete A potential BLP concern, although with proper sourcing that's not necessarily a reason to delete. I fail to see how it's encyclopedic though, as acting in "lesbian" porn is hardly a defining moment for porn actresses. To me, this looks like WP:IINFO. It's also not a mirror of List of male performers in gay porn films, since the vast, vast majority of "lesbian" porn films are not aimed at lesbian audiences and cannot be considered "gay porn" in any way. I'm also not quite sure why User:Suomi Finland 2009 (the article creator) felt compelled to change (and break) the reference with this edit, to make it read "examiner.cum". Was that a joke?--BelovedFreak 20:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a joke but WP software would not allow that link despite my anti-virus software saying it is safe.
From a google search, there appears to be some female porn stars that refuse to do scenes with men.
  • Delete. Nom is generally accurate, and list inherently lacks well-defined inclusion criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep according to WP:SimilarTreatmentIsOkay I am not an expert in this field but I have heard of female performers that will only perform in lesbian films. I cannot think of any names because I do not watch these. This article and the article "list of male performers in gay film" should BOTH be kept or deleted. There should be careful consideration of both of these articles and the same treatment applied to both. In Wikipedia, there is too much drama where people choose one set of rules and ignore conflicting rules. There should be a systematic way on how to consider conflicting rules and varying treatment. After all, you would not like it if you were jailed for trying to follow one rule but not another (the worst example are articles of people with much coverage but known for one thing; there are plenty of AFD on that type of article)
When googling "lesbian porn", it exists. Google shows up spunkzone.com which says "This site contains explicit lesbian porn material which may be offensive to some viewers. You must be at least 18 years of age (21 according to U.S. or any ..."
According to that source, it means that lesbian porn does exists and not just lesbian acts for heterosexual porn.
Google also list a website called pornstarslick.com, which is characterized as "WELCOME TO THE WEB'S FIRST PORNSTAR LESBIAN SITE. The Muffia Team put this site together for surfers that wanted to see the most beautiful girls..."
(joke) As they often say on the internet, "if there aren't pictures, it didn't happen"
Further research on google shows that actress Sunny Leone only did lesbian films for some time and refused to work with male actors until later in her career.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipedia:Similar treatment is okay is an essay (by you) that doesn't address any of the concerns raised here. Also, I don't think anyone here has said that lesbian porn (which ever way it's defined) does not exist.--BelovedFreak 21:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too broad and essentially useless and a near mirror of any list or category of female porn stars, as most female porn stars will perform sexual acts with women. i WOULD support a list of actresses who ONLY perform lesbian scenes, as that would be notable. Oh, and dont google lesbian pron, you'll go blind...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This may help http://www.afterellen.com/node/294 It is a discussion about lesbian porn. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was contacted by email by the creator of this page. So, while I would vote keep, you probably shouldn't count me. It is notable as heck, though.[12] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lesbian porn is a real thing, easily verified, and this is a list of notable people involved in it. The fact that the list is currently short isn't relevant, nor anyone's displeasure at there being so many sex related articles on Wikipedia. There are obviously a lot more names that could be added in. Dream Focus 04:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With respect to the comments about notability, obviously I can't speak for others participating here, but I am certainly not denying the notability of lesbian porn, both in the world of "straight porn", and porn that is aimed at lesbians. It's definitely notable. But is performing girl-on-girl scenes actually a defining enough thing in the careers of porn actresses? I don't think this list as it stands is encyclopedic. We don't have an article on lesbian pornography, but a section in Lesbianism in erotica states that "Most porn actresses perform in sex scenes with other women at least occasionally." If that is true and verifiable (currently uncited), then where's the encyclopedic value of this list? The bottom line of the point I'm trying to make is that, unlike gay porn, lesbian porn is just a genre of mainstream porn, so this list is similar to List of actresses in the MILF porn genre. And no, I'm not calling for less sex on Wikipedia, just fewer unencyclopedic articles.--BelovedFreak 09:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its a notable genre, quite well established. Its valid just as List of male performers in gay porn films is. MILF isn't clearly defined as a genre, so that's a totally different issue. Dream Focus 17:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong spill the beans 16:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did leave a reason for me adding it. [13] Dream Focus 17:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The vast majority of female porn stars would appear in this list. Therefore, it is duplicative. If this were a list of female porn stars that exclusively create lesbian porn films (and are known for that, per reliable sources), then it might be a different story. SnottyWong spill the beans 16:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps call it a List of lesbian pornographic movies that notable pornographic actresses have stared in then. Same information listed. How many notable porn actresses have done lesbian films? Do you believe its even half of them? [List of pornographic actresses by decade] Dream Focus 17:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a list for list's sake is not necessary. create a category if necessary. Dream Focus logic is flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.251.42 (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 213.65.251.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Another anonymous IP address, which makes no edits anywhere, except in AFD I participate in, mentioning me by name each time. Seems like the same person. Dream Focus 10:09, 17 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) 04:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bimini Bay Resort[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non-notable hotel. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Article creator's short editing history shows several attempts to insert PR material and/or delete negative information from several articles, indicating a possible conflict of interest. SnottyWong comment 17:53, 13 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) 04:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RoleModelsFromHell[edit]

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

Thin notability. No sources found at all on Gnews. Links at bottom of article don't mention him or are unreliable or both. Notability is not inherited from working with other artists. Article reads like a PR piece. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:52, 13 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 - withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). SnottyWong gab 14:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Songs for Eleonor[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. While this article has some references, they are either primary, not reliable, or only have trivial (or no) coverage of the band. Article created by WP:SPA. SnottyWong verbalize 17:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've started to add secondary and tertiary resources. I agree that there were mainly primary sources but I also disagree to say that all of the quotes listed on the article were trivial. I am working to update the article with new references. I've started by including this one: Olvera Cabrera, María Fernanda (2007). Sonidos Urbanos. 150 bandas 2000 - 2005 MX/DF. Sonidos Urbanos Producciones. pp. 248 - 249. ISBN 978-970-95666-0-4, which I think has to be considered a secondary source. Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Todaslasartes (talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added another source: (in Spanish) MarvinTV - Entrevista con Songs for Eleonor. Mexico: MarvinTV. 2008. This is an interview made by an music magazine in Mexico City.Todaslasartes (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another one: Pacheco, Jesús (Friday December 19th. 2008). "Rockola Gourmet" (in Spanish). Reforma (Mexico): p. 36.Todaslasartes (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another one: Waizel, Uriel (2010). "Siete músicos nacen. Promesas Chilango" (in Spanish). Chilango 80: 40.Todaslasartes (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another magazine: "Pop Sutil" (in Spanish). Gatopardo 95: 86. 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Todaslasartes (talk • contribs) 04:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another source: Santana, Ana Paula (2009). "La fortuna de la belleza" (in Spanish). Tierra adentro (CONACULTA) 159: 76.Todaslasartes (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I took my archives and notes and quoted as I should have from the beginning. I was going to get back to it when I first wrote it but I didn't. I think this should be enough to correct what Snottywong pointed out: lack of secondary and tertiary references. Apart from the ones that I just pointed out I also incorporated these ones: "Songs for Eleonor" (in Spanish). IndieRocks! 17: 12-13. 2007. "Songs for Eleonor" (in Spanish). 192 (192) 1 (1): 28. 2008. "Kar & Bon. El perro que hace reggaeton" (in Spanish). Sonika 64: 30.What does everyone else think? Can the article stay and the label that considers it for deletion be taken away? Todaslasartes (talk) 05:39, 18 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 Global warming controversy. —fetch·comms 18:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming skepticism[edit]

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

This article is a rather obvious POV fork of the existing articles on Global warming controversy and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. The ground that it covers is already covered in those articles. I really can't see any good reason why a duplicate article needs to be created. I'm open-minded as to whether deleting, merging or redirecting is the best course of action here, and will leave it to the judgment of AfD participants. ChrisO (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As a counterpoint to Global Warming Denial. It is necessary to have an article which describes the sceptical viewpoint of AGW and not just the supposed denier side of things mark nutley (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, rather than attacking other editors, you could explain why you don't believe it's a fork of two existing articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not attack any editors, I merely pointed out the same thing that Jimbo did, that this was "made by a highly political editor with a long history of politicized editing." As to the fork issue, how is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming relevant? It is a list, not an article. How this article is a POV fork of a list is beyond me. As to the article on Global warming controversy, it does not cover skepticism, it covers controversies, and while some controversies may involve skepticism, not all skepticism involves controversy. Second, there are plenty of articles on similar but differing issues, such as Climate change denial, Global warming denial, etc. There are 33 articles in the Category:Organizations of environmentalism skeptics and critics and 83 articles in Category:Environmental skepticism - and not a single article on what either global warming skepticism or climate change skepticism are. There are 7 articles alone on IPCC reports. This is, as I stated, a blatant attempt to show one side of the issue only. It was nominated due to your POV, and as WP:POVFORK states: Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement my recognition of that fact is not an attack, but a statement grounded in policy. GregJackP Boomer! 20:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrative Delete - This is an information fork dealing with matter in one of the two ongoing editorial bloodbaths in the midst of long investigations by the Arbitration Committee. There is absolutely no way that any end run around the Arbitration Committee should be allowed. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite: Why do you believe this article is an "end run around the Arbitration Committee"? I'm not sure I follow. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I take it you would have no objection to merging all 7 of the IPCC reports into one article? They are all about the same thing too. GregJackP Boomer! 20:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care whether they're all covered in 1 article vs. 7 separate ones. What is the relevance to this AfD? MastCell Talk 21:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's obvious that the GW articles need rationalising. However, the other articles mentioned by MastCell are rather out of scope of this AfD, so we can only act on the Global warming skepticism fork for the time being. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will make one point. I have not edited the article further, because I will rework the article and reintroduce it. Right now it is a pile of junk that I was going to try and fix and make a decent article out of. However, there is no incentive to do any additional editing to the article at this point. I'll wait until after you take action here, then write a new article that is substantially different from the current article (thus avoiding CSD G4), and we can go from there. This nomination is premature - the article has not been worked on in depth yet, so there is no way to determine whether it is a POV fork or not - unless y'all have ESP and can tell what the article was going to say. How many of you even know what the first section was covering? Do what you will, I'm done arguing with AGW activists here. GregJackP Boomer! 21:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Global merge. WP:IAR and merge the MastCell list into one article. Then fork properly. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep -- the article is under construction (see the tag?) and being worked on by at least three editors. You don't even know what it is going to say yet, AfD is premature. Additionally, global warming skepticism is not thoroughly covered elsewhere, certainly not in the two articles that the nom mentioned. Global warming controversy article is already way way too long and covers a range of topics that should be split into separate articles. Denialism is covered more extensively, but there is obviously a great deal of difference between denialism and skepticism. The list of scientists opposing the mainstream is a hodge podge list of views ranging from outright denial of warming to slight skepticism over the scope or impact of AGW -- it is not accurate to say that the article adequately addresses the topic of skepticism. The fact that there are separate articles on climate change denial, scientific opinion on climate change and climate change alarmism essentially begs for this article to be created to fill the remaining void where skepticism belongs in the spectrum of opinions on global warming. Finally, this nom is a rather blatant POINT-y attempt to suppress non-majority views and lump them in with more fringe denialist views, brought by an activist editor with an unmistakeable agenda. Let the article take shape, then nom it for AfD if it's appropriate. Minor4th 21:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you should propose a split rather than start a fork then. Why does nobody ever do this the right way round? I guess the answer is that it may not suit the POV they wish to put forward. Polargeo (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I propose a split. All better? BTW, I don't see this as a fork because it is a broad enough topic that a stand alone article seems warranted. This is especially true since editors such as ScienceApologist remain confused about the difference between skepticism and denialism and believe that they are interchangeable points of view, each having exactly the same meaning as the other. There is a great need for an article on skepticism so that such confusion does not continue unchecked. The problem is so acute that it led ScienceApologist to label Anthony Watts a "denialist" and even represent that three peer reviewed journals called him a "denialist" when in fact they referred to him merely as skeptical of the majority view. See the problem and hence the need for this article? Minor4th 21:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion doesn't meet the criteria for a speedy keep. I assume you meant "strong keep"? As an aside, the more you can focus on the article's merits and resist the temptation to badmouth the nominator in personal terms, the better. MastCell Talk 21:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does meet the criteria for speedy keep. The nomination is caused for disruption and that are so erroneous that it is obvious that the nominator has not even read the article in question. ChrisO claims that it is an obvious POV fork - which means that he could not have read the article. As the article stands now, the lede and the first section have been rewritten, with the remainder of the article to go. Of the portion that has been rewritten, all it covers thus far is the consensus view is AGW exists and is valid, and cross-links to the main article. How is this a POV fork? GregJackP Boomer! 23:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, disagreeing with you does not prove that ChrisO is disruptive or that he hasn't read the article. As an admin who's closed a lot of AfD's, I can tell you that no admin in their right mind is going to believe that this meets speedy-keep criteria. Really, you (all) need to stop taking wild swings at the other participants here and actually engage their arguments. MastCell Talk 23:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, accepting for the sake of argument that it is not an WP:SK, please explain how it is a POV fork. The article does not meet the criteria for a POV fork. I will accept that it is possibly a content fork, and that the subject of the article represents a POV, but under content guidelines, this is allowed so long as "the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view." That is what I am doing, writing neutrally on a POV topic, which is allowed. There is no way to say it is a POV fork, since I have made no comments on the content of Global warming controversy nor have I indicated anywhere that I disagree with the contents of that article. I feel that the matter is sufficiently notable and different for a separate article, and can be done neutrally. How can it be determined that it is POV at this point? GregJackP Boomer! 00:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I might add that all scientists are sceptics, so it seems a little unfair to appropriate the term for a small subgroup of them. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is also slanderous to label any scientist that disagrees with the consensus view as a denier. GregJackP Boomer! 23:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but "skepticism" in the context of global warming has particular meaning -- maybe wait til the article is finished, and I think it will actually be clear what the term means in this context. @Mastcell - no, I meant speedy keep; the article is not complete and AfD is premature. Minor4th 23:05, 13 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) 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sabieh Anwar[edit]

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

The article appears to fail WP:PROF. Being an assistant professor in Pakistan or a Rhodes scholar does not convey automatic notability against the guidelines. The unsourced awards may be worth consideration, however they appear to be scholarships rather than notable internationally recognized awards in physics or engineering. Searching Google Scholar reveals little that could be considered a widely recognized key publication in the field. The article has enjoyed a 3 month grace period before this discussion, so it seems unlikely to have a radical improvement in sources in the near future. Fæ (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the awards/honors listed in the article, including the Rhodes scholarship, are student-level awards (graduate and undergraduate), and hence they do not contribute to academic notability according to WP:PROF. Citability in GoogleScholar and WoS is minimal, the Assistant Professor position also indicates junior academic status. Nothing else in the record to show passing WP:PROF for now. Nsk92 (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete scholar search turned up little, though in fairness he is young. Awards seem to be unsourced and of graduate level calibre which fails WP:PROF. Im not seeing anything in the current form in the article which suggests why he passes PROF, or gng for that matter via significant coverage in relaible secondary sourcing. At this state I lean towards deletion. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's getting enough citations for his papers to convince me he's on a successful academic career track, but not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF — as happens frequently, the article was created too early in his career. No prejudice against recreation in a few years when his notability should become clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 14 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) 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Neamati[edit]

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

Contested BLP PROD. Article about a physician and software developer that besides being a COI violation (the user is clearly writing about himself) is still completely unreferenced from reliable sources. roleplayer 12:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete quick scholar/ news search didnt indicate any notability to pass prof, top links online show many facebook links not much secondary to himself it seems available. Unless something can be found in terms of reliabale secondary sourcing I have to lean towards deletion. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My search has been limited to only english sourcing so i can't confirm or find arabic sources. Can anyone else?Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't speak or read Arabic either. -- roleplayer 17:57, 13 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. I'm not sure why Sladen says "it seems that the delete didn't get done". It was deleted on 22 November 2008 and recreated on 17 October 2009. However, the present article has if anything even less to commend it than the one that was deleted, and CSD G4 applies. In addition consensus below is perfectly clear. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Schneider[edit]

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

Unsubstantiated gibberish/self-promotion that immediately fails WP:BIO and WP:V. Previously nominated two years ago, with a general delete result, but it seems that the delete didn't get done. —Sladen (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - This has already been debated, has it not? Carrite (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7 (no indication of notability) or G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. (Almost two years?!) Bigtop みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:28, 13 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) 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NateGames[edit]

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

No assertion of notability through published, reliable sources. Seems to not meet the general notability guideline. Teancum (talk) 11:46, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autosessive[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Internet searches does not reveal significant usage. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Of the hundreds of similar neologisms, this is one the least worthy of an article. No sources on the web. Twenty (!) googlehits says it all. Signed: Tubehead. East of Borschov 11:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom and above. Tagged as CSD A7 as non-notable. Bigtop みんな空の下 (トーク) 11:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think this qualifies as an A7 speedy; it doesn't appear to be about an organization, named individual, or website of any kind. It still is a non-notable neologism and original research about a new word for a car buff: The car is so much more to an autosessive. It’s their passion, it makes them smile, gets them excited, it soothes them when they are stressed. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is evidence of a neologasm, which is a warm, happy feeling caused by clumping together two words in a catchy way and then publishing the witty combination for the world on Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have come across this phrase locally (UK), unsure how old it is but seem to have originated in classic rally circles. I guess these guys don't use the internet much for the word to not score many googles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonwrx (talk • contribs) 06:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You signed up just to contribute to an AFD debate? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is evidence of a term currently growing in popularity - already showing 92 Google hits. As a colloquialism it is beginning to trend more and more on social network sites and this should be reflected with an entry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.223.217 (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No hits where the term is used with any context. Most are related to: the registration of internet domains autosessive.com etc.; Advertisements of a new website "Autosessive"; twitter tweets by user "autosessive". Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:39, 16 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. —fetch·comms 02:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Company of Death[edit]

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

I have check on Google for search results for the article, all it turns to be a catering company based in Manhattan, New York City, New York. I suspect that the article may be a hoax. I suggest this article should be deleted because of that. Also, Cunibertus should be blocked for disruptive editing. --JJ98 (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't assume that the unit is a myth just because the person is a myth. After all, Bugs Bunny is an Honorary United States Marine. Fiction could have been applied to a real entity well after the fact. As to the veracity of the hoax claim itself, it's hard to tell since I can't read Italian, which all three sources are written in. I'd lean towards not, since the has survived since September 2007. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Yopie (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know many historical persons are considered legendary including William Tell, Zoroaster and Bogomil ? According with your no-logic you should propose also the delation of every article related to Switzerland as it has never been created as its legendary founder is a fictionous personage evidently someone ignores that in pre-modern times the use of a collective pseudonym was quietly common to designate the related realizations of a group of individuals, evidently someone never read the jewish or the christian Bible (forex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah#Authorship) and for a better research about the Company of Death, which is simply a spinoff of the article of the Battle of Legnano ((Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)) about the relevance of the Company of Death, "Battaglia di Legnano" picture made between 1860-70 by Amos Cassioli, Florence, Galleria d'Arte Moderna di Palazzo Pitti portrying a Knight of the Company of Death with the symbol of the skull and bones on his suit it is related to the main article to which it is linked, The Battle of Legnano [14] and of course to the Barbarossa, the History of the Holy Roman Empire. In the long term the decline of imperial power would divide Germany until the 19th century the Investiture Controversy. The dispute did not end with the Concordat of Worms. There would be future disputes between popes and Holy Roman Emperors, until northern Italy was lost to the Empire entirely. The Church would turn the weapon of Crusade against the Holy Roman Empire under Frederick II. According to Norman Cantor: The investiture controversy had shattered the early-medieval equilibrium and ended the interpenetration of ecclesia and mundus. Medieval kingship, which had been largely the creation of ecclesiastical ideals and personnel, was forced to develop new institutions and sanctions. The result during the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, was the first instance of a secular bureaucratic state whose essential components appeared in the Anglo-Norman monarchy."[14] Once again I have to complain about the interference on wiki of poorly competent individuals in matters they haven't any notion about. Cunibertus (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, stop folks. It's not a company as in business, it's a company as in a band of brothers. What on earth makes you think it's a hoax? To me it looks like a piece of italian historical research, badly phrased in English. Keep and rephrase slightly. Chris (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the name of Alberto da Giussano was mentioned for the first time by Galvano Fiamma who is also the source of the largely common notion amongst anglo-saxon scholars that the knights of death were an infantry unit (more exactly he mention both a larger cavalry force and a smaller infantry unit as part of the company)

“Saputo dell’ arrivo dell’imperatore, i Milanesi ordinarono di preparare le armi per poter resistere. E viene fatta una società di novecento uomini eletti che combattevano su grandi cavalli i quali giurano che nessuno sarebbe fuggito dal campo di battaglia per paura della morte e non avrebbero permesso che nessuno tradisse il comune di Milano; e inoltre giurarono che sarebbero scesi in campo a combattere contro l’imperatore ogni giorno. A quel punto la comunità scelse le armi e il vessillo e ad ognuno venne dato un anello in mano; e vennero reclutati come cavalieri al soldo del comune così che, se qualcuno fosse fuggito, sarebbe stato ucciso. Capo di questa società era Alberto da Giussano che aveva il vessillo del comune. Poi venne fatta un’altra società di fanti scelti per la custodia del carroccio, i quali tutti giurarono di preferire morire che fuggire dal campo di battaglia.” (Chronica Galvanica cap. 291 f. 81v).

'Known' s arrival of the emperor, ordered the Milanese to prepare weapons to resist. It is a company made nine hundred chosen men who fought on the great horses who swear that no one would have fled from the battlefield for fear of death and would not allow anyone who betrayed the municipality of Milan, and also swore that they would have taken the field to fight against the Emperor every day. At that point, the community chose the weapons and the banner and each was given a ring in hand and were recruited as knights in the pay of the town so that if someone had escaped, he would be killed. Head of this company was Alberto da Giussano who had the flag of the municipality. Then came another company made for the custody of the soldiers selected for Carroccio, who all swore they would rather die than flee from the battlefield."(Chronica Galvanic chap. 291 f. 81v).

Sire Raul a chronicler contemporary to the events is unfortunately a bit too much laconic in his style to be useful in correcting Galvano

as far as we moderns know the milanese army was commanded by a collective of elected magistrates, and amongst the main ones (consules and rectors) there were an Alberto da Cairate and an Alberto the Long, amongst a more specific group of 50 lower magistrates charged to direct the milanese forces there was also an Alberto Glaxianus (de Gluxano, de Gluxiano aka da Cassano) but those weren't supposed to be real military commanders but administrative officials, it is presumed by modern historians that an Alberto da Giussano as the heroe and commander mentioned in the later chronicles (Fiamma and Coiro) didn't exist at the time, the first one known in a similar role lived may be 50 years later, but that was simply a collective pseudonym as was also common use in antiquity and during the middle ages

note: the da Giussano were a family of the milanese warrior aristocracy yet important in the 9th century and estinguished in the 18th century, a Oto da Giussano (accordingly Fiamma one of the three da Giussano brothers who fought amongst the knights of death) was effectively a knight commander of the Lombard League in the years of the Battle of Legnano

Cunibertus (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicon Vincentii Canonici Pragensis in Monumenta historica Boemiae by Fr. Gelasius Dobner (1764)[edit]

apparently we have a czech who ignores his country has been a vassal state of the Holy Roman Empire (and in the specific of the Hohenstaufen dynasty who prized their loyal servants with the dignity of the Kingdom of Bohemia), his clergy had served Frederick I Barbarossa and Frederick II Hohenstaufen (and wrote chronicles about the events they directly partecipated, as a Vincenzo canonico di Praga or in latin Vincenti Canonici Pragensis , who were later used by more recent historians as Pietro Verri for their histories of Italy and Milan, see http://www.enricopantalone.com/ladistruzionedimilanoelesueconseguenze.html), that a chosen guard of 300 czechs knights usually served the above mentioned emperors in the italian campaigns and the same knight guard leaded the imperial forces who stormed Milan in 1162 AD (http://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Storia_di_Milano/Capitolo_VII).

Mediolanenses tandem, plurimis amissis, et captis, Bohemorum ictus non valentes sustinere, inter muros se retrahunt, quos Bohemi victores, usque ad ipsas portas caedentes, insequuntur.

An interesting detail from a czech who would claim to be an expert of medieval italian history and apparently isn't, of course he could be somehow aware that italians and czechs are ennemies traditionnels or nemici storici, as the traditional friends of Italy in eastern europe have always been Hungary and Poland, but that could also raise the light suspect that the above mentioned individual is pursuing some personal weird agenda with political connotations in the event he isn't simply ill-informedCunibertus (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's going on here but if we are assertain whether this is a hoax, it can be settled fairly easily. The Company of Death defending the Caroccio at Legnano is the subject of a painting by Amos Cassioli, a copy of which is in Wikipedia commons here
. Unfortunately, only half the picture is shown but the Death Company skull & crossbones is seen on the cavalry figure. Not much of a historical source but certainly proof of a pre-existing Legend. I have a large scale coffee table book Vezio Melegari The World's Greatest Regiments 1972 (originally published in Italy in 1968) which mentions the Company being led by Alberto da Giussano and consisting of either 300 (p.42) or 900 citizens (p.44) of Milan. So, not a hoax. Even if the exact truth of the Company cannot be established, it obviously plays a part in the national story of Italy and is worthy of an article on that basis. However, the article needs works to be brought past stub class and several statements are factually dubious (it is extremely unlikely that the Company would have been a light cavalry unit, for example). So Keep but improveMonstrelet (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops - embarrassingly large picture there - have reduced itMonstrelet (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the different consistence of 900 or 300 men is simply due to the fact that the "company" was really composed of two units, two companies, not one. a bigger cavalry force also known as the knights of death (this the unit the legend claim commanded by Alberto da Giussano) and an infantry force who had both sworn to defeand the carroccio to death. the infantry unit was 300 men strong. the consistence of the cavalry unit is debated, 900 men is the number we get from Galvano Fiamma, but other sources say 300-500 and the modern scholars agree, for different reasons, around 500. the traditional point of view has been that the knights of death were heavy cavalry but more recent studies I used as source consider it as a more flexible medium force comparable to later dragoons able to fight both as armored infantry and cavalry, see the southern italian sergeant at arms of the osprey book on the normans as a reference Cunibertus (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lombard (north italian) light cavalry 12th century AD http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Assets/Imgs/B/barbarossa--400x300.jpg http://static.screenweek.it/2009/8/7/Barbarossa-Raz-Degan-Rutger-Hauer-Federica-Martinelli-Kasia-Smutniak-Cecile-Cassel-42_mid.jpg Cunibertus (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in spite of the lengthy Keep !votes which fail to provide any reliable sources. Reliable sources do actually exist. [15] Calls and countercalls for editors with opposing views to be blocked are counterproductive. Edward321 (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 10:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Note that the 19th century English sources also called it Cohort of Death ([16]). Plenty of sources, either check Edward321's list above or browse your own library. Surely, everything from the 12th century might be a chronicler's error or a later gloss or simply a misunderstanding of modern interpreters, but uncertainty does not affect notability. East of Borschov 10:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrative Keep - Unfortunately the WP edit counter is (intentionally) off-line so it is impossible to count the edits of the initiator of this article, but they are sufficient and focused enough to pretty much dismiss the charges of the nominator that the article is a "hoax." The nominator also goes after the initiator personally, which brings into question the merit of this entire challenge. I don't like the smell of this... Carrite (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability can be confirmed through reliable sources. Inniverse (talk) 15:36, 13 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 deleted (CSD A7) by Malik Shabazz. NAC. Cliff smith talk 00:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ås tennisklubb[edit]

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

Not notable from a national or international perspective. A local club without achievements. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 13 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 François Dominique de Reynaud, Comte de Montlosier. Courcelles 02:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

François Dominique de Reynaud de Montlosier[edit]

François Dominique de Reynaud de Montlosier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

should be deleted as duplicate -- contents moved to 'François Dominique de Reynaud, Comte de Montlosier'. Dyuku (talk) 17:03, 11 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Dumb Century[edit]

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

topic is not notable, article relies on one source serioushat 09:30, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle City (online game)[edit]

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

Article differs from previously deleted version because of the addition of the Digital Man Competition nomination - therefore Speedy G4 declined. I have two issues with this citation. Firstly, a nomination is not notability (Battle City did not go on to be a finalist). Secondly, the competition itself seems unnotable (Anyone can start up a wordpress blog and host their own award ceremony), with only other blogs and forums referring to it. Marasmusine (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Marasmusine (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant coverage in reliable, published sources. --Teancum (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nomination for an award doesn't mean it won, and not even making the finals is a not enough for notability. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough. --Bettenchi (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conserve Please, take into account that I was playing this game about 10 years ago. I understand your view point when you see the retro looking graphix of it and the fact that it is not so much publicised, but I see it as a remake of an older game. If there is no legal issues to take this old game back again online, I see that mere fact as a great reconnaissance of the gameplay of it and the interest people have in it. Has I understand criteria for notability, an article for the game as a whole should be conserved. Even tought a google test point on the other "battle city" by NES, I'm pretty confident we'll find good enought source for that old 1994 game. A game surviving 16 years is not so common. Iluvalar (talk) 03:56, 20 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) 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleBunny[edit]

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

"WrestleBunny" seems to be a new/minor character in some kind of wrestling league. I very much doubt that this is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. It probably could be merged with something, however I do not know which other article may be appropriate. Travelbird (talk) 07:35, 13 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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

105th Military Police Company (United States)[edit]

105th Military Police Company (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This nomination is the result of a Proposed Deletion potentially frivolously removed by User:Inniverse. As a result of the removed proposed delete, I am repeating here that separate military police companies are not considered notable, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/118th Military Police Company (United States) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/54th Military Police Company (United States) Buckshot06 (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

  • Delete or upmerge to higher command. No evidence of notability sufficient for a company-sized unit in the US military. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The unit served in SFOR 6 the NATO mission in Bosnia in 1999 and 2000, the World Trade Center disaster on September 11, 2001 and in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 at FOB Kalsu. This Military Police Company is notable, and is a good candidate to be expanded into an excellent article. Inniverse (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In my searches so far I can't find enough sources to indicate to me that this company is notable by itself. Happy to change my mind if such sourcing could be found and notability demonstrated. Mentions of the unit could be made in either an article on the 102nd Military Police Battalion (if sourcing is available), or in 53rd Troop Command (but being mindful of not breaching WP:UNDUE). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Although the service history of this unit makes it interesting (to me at least), especially its involvingment in the response to the World Trade Centre attrocity I still don't think it meets WP:NOTABILITY. As such it is not possible to justify its own entry on wikipedia IMO. Article should be moved into an article on the 102nd Military Police Battalion (which I don't think exists yet). Anotherclown (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with eirtehr NY national guard or 53Rd A single company is not notable enough for its own article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong prattle 17:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the precedent set by the numerous previous AfD's on articles with similar topics (see nom for links). Non-combat separate companies are not normally considered notable. SnottyWong spill the beans 19:08, 17 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. despite valiant efforts the keep side has not demonstrated on a policy level that this meets GNG Spartaz Humbug! 04:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27th Transportation Center (United States)[edit]

27th Transportation Center (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/436th Transportation Battalion (United States) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States), this article is not notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

  • Keep - believe that unit meets notability threshold by it's existence, participation in major US conflicts and decorations.Sadads (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Participation is one thing, but the notability threshold is whether or not that participation was significant. It doesn't seem so in this case; the Army tends to award participation credit to support units for being in proximity to a conflict, and not actually fighting in it. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The unit was involved in both World War II and Vietnam. It has been decorated numerous times including the Army Superior Unit Award for 1990-1991, the Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Gold Star for Vietnam, and four Meritorious Unit Commendations for Vietnam. The 27th Transportation Center is notable, and it is a good candidate to be expanded into an excellent article. Inniverse (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: are there any other sources that can be added to the article? It seems like it is a battalion level organisation (unless I'm wrong), if a couple of other sources could be found and context added to the article it might be a keeper, but without this I'm not so sure. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination unless more references can be added to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Anotherclown (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no notability in its activities during the various conflicts. It seems to have received no more unit awards than any other transportation battalion on the source site so that is not to me a valid statement of notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added another ref. The fact that the unit was involved in multiple wars across generations is, to me, a testamenet to its notability. SilverserenC 22:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally thousands of Soviet rifle battalions that have been involved in multiple wars. None have ever been considered notable enough for an article to be created. Tens of thousands of other units of many many many countries are also in this category, but very few transportation units are considered notable, especially with only CMH data. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No shortage of space on the Wikipedia. Create away. The Russian Wikipedia might have such articles already. Dream Focus 05:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. The Russian wikipedia still hasn't managed to list all armies, corps, and divisions - let alone considering starting to memorialise such small units as battalions. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added a couple of refs and a great deal of text that was lifted in its entirety from the unit history at the US Army Transportation School. @Buckshot, rifle battalions vs. transportation battalions is apples and oranges. There are typically 9 combat (including rifle) battalions per division, but only 1 transportation battalion. My personal view is that nothing less than a combat arms regiment is notable (with exceptions), but that support units are notable at battalion or lower level. GregJackP Boomer! 04:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have added a great deal of unfiltered text written in an unencylopaedic style without wikification or any other attempt to process it for inclusion. Increasing the amount of text in an article does not necessarily affect its notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never thought that the amount of text had a bearing, and I disagree that it was written in an "unencylopaedic style." I am also aware that it needs to be wikified, but I wasn't going to stay up all night to do that. Comments above indicated that more detail was needed, I found that detail and added it so that editors with more of a gnomish bent than I could work on it, with something to work with. BTW, I tend to be a deletionist, but I think that this article has potential. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all of the text added by GregJackP, as it is an enormous copy/paste copyvio of this. SnottyWong babble 14:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored it, it is not a copyvio, perhaps I might suggest that you check public domain, U.S. Government Works, second paragraph, which states: "In practice, this means that much material on *.gov and *.mil, as well as material on some *.us web sites (such as the sites of the U.S. Forest Service), are in the public domain." The material in question was created by the U.S. Army and is clearly within the public domain. GregJackP Boomer! 16:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What proof do you have that it was created by the U.S. Army? I see no such evidence of this in the .doc file that you've linked to. Just because you ripped a file from a .gov site doesn't mean that it's automatically public domain. SnottyWong communicate 14:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I talked to the webmaster - he confirmed that this specific file was public domain. Do you want his name and phone number? Also, it was a .mil site, not a .gov, and this Army website clearly identifies items that are copyrighted - this one was not so marked. I know how to verify public domain, and I know how to write articles. I've explained it above, and an admin has explained it, and why your warning on copyvio was "ill-advised." Please drop the stick. GregJackP Boomer! 16:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A decorated unit, involved in many notable wars. Dream Focus 05:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dream Focus invents a criterion "involved in many notable wars". flawed logic by Focus. article fails WP:N and WP:GNG. 213.65.251.42 (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 213.65.251.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete My first vote was deleted why?Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong communicate 14:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There are thousands of such army units, and this one seems no more notable than any other. SnottyWong communicate 14:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep: while the massive data dump doesn't really help establish notability, it did show me that the unit's participation (despite all combat action being self-defense) was significant enough to just barely creep over my personal threshold. However, if the article isn't cleaned up seriously, then the mess needs to be deleted and started over. It needs serious trimming, a more neutral and encyclopedic tone, much more wikification, balancing, referencing, and supporting material. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 22:57, 16 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. A lot of sources have been added to the article during the course of the discussion. There may be a debate about whether the sources constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources" but there is no consensus here that they aren't, especially as just about all of the delete !votes came before the article's improvements and in particular do not appear to have considered the book-based sources. Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elfwood[edit]

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

The article fails the notability guidelines due to a lack of demonstrable impact in independent sources (apart from Wired 1996, where the article does not actually mention Elfwood). Discussed four years ago, there was no consensus with several editors claiming self-evident notability, however in the intervening years no sources to demonstrate impact on the historic record have been added, and Google News today shows only (old) minor and tangential mentions (mostly reviews pointing out it exists as a forum without establishing notability), consequently this is unlikely to be addressed in the near future. Fæ (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost all Google hits are false positives; what isn't false positive is trivial. Size of website doesn't matter. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Elfwood has appeared in the news in the past from numerous independent sources, which have not been tapped into. It's not as huge as generic websites, but it is a notable as a niche website. Just a quick look through a google news archive search of "elfwood art" finds this, this, and this. Another quick google news archive search for "elfwood science fiction" finds this. Just use your browsers find function (ctrl+f) to see where Elfwood is mentioned in those sources. —CodeHydro 20:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checking these as sources shows (1) just tells me my search session expired, (2) very tangential mention as part of an interview and nothing to establish notability, (3) tangential mention in a child kidnapping case (is the site notable for paedophiles?) and (4) a brief mention in a list of sites establishing the site started in 1996 but nothing else. The nomination seems to be factually supported by the sources you have discovered, thanks. Fæ (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your snappy comment is unfounded and the sarcasm is not appreciated. As I said, those sources are just quick finds. There are certainly more sources out there. Also, the first source is from San Jose Mercury News, titled "TRY THIS, ELFWOOD," and says "Karen Chien, a junior at Leland High School in San Jose, opened an online fiction gallery when she was 12, writing fantasy stories with political themes about alternate universes. She publishes her work on Elfwood (www.elfwood.com), which describes itself as the world's largest science fiction-fantasy art Web site. The Elfwood community is diverse, talented and supportive, she said. 'It is a very interactive place where people are very supportive...'..." Also, here's another quick source that spends half its length covering Elfwood. —CodeHydro 20:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No sarcasm intended, just factually checking the links you provided. I'll not respond further to avoid offending you. Please add any you think are good sources to the article or the article talk page rather than here. Fæ (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and TenPoundHammer's analysis. GregJackP Boomer! 02:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Click Google news. The first result is San Jose Mercury News, which unfortunately requires a pay subscription to view the entire article, but does mention someone notable enough for them to talk about, using Elfwood, and what it is about. Other articles I find seem to be dead links now, but it had coverage previously. The only place on Wired magazine I found mentioning elfwood is where they talked about a notable artists who post her work there [21]. Dream Focus 05:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That someone notable has posted in an on-line forum does not automatically make a forum notable. If there are a couple of quality sources (such as a national newspaper or magazine) that at some point in the past rated the site the largest or most significant for its type then these would be strong support for notability. Currently there is little to distinguish this site from many others (such as http://www.scififorum.org). Fæ (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A notable artists post their work in that website dedicated to artists, makes it notable. It isn't just an online forum where someone said hi. Dream Focus 17:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:At 12:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Colonel Warden responded to the Article Rescue Squadron alert by adding a citation to an independent reliable source which discusses the topic in detail.
  • Keep It is, in fact, quite easy to find sources which establish notability such as Visual Worlds and Digital Fantasy Painting. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong spout 14:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of reliable, secondary sources which verifiably discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. Also fails WP:WEB. SnottyWong spout 14:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:At 16:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Colonel Warden responded to the Article Rescue Squadron alert by adding a citation to an independent reliable source which discusses the topic in detail.
  • Comment. This article has been greatly reorganized, expanded, and improved upon by yours truly. The reference list has increased in size by over a factor of 10. Anybody whose vote above was to delete should reconsider based upon the current version. —CodeHydro 21:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per outstanding rescue work by editor CodeHydro. Noteability now well established. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:34, 20 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 per WP:SNOW. "One of the best known religious paintings of the 19th century." Ty 06:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Scapegoat (painting)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG, the two sources, first is a listing of the artist's work, second is the artist's biography, none are directly about this painting. Does not seem to be a panting by this artist that is notable in it's own right. — raekyT 06:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep William Holman Hunt was a notable article and this is a notable painting. Liverpool Museums say "one of the best known religious images of the 19th century". AllyD (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source? The article needs sources to establish notability of the painting, not the artist. As it stands now it has none, and makes no assertion of notability. Looks to be more likely an article made around a picture we have. — raekyT 07:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough. It's certainly discussed in many books: [23]. There's a lot of junk on Wikipedia that needs to be deleted, but I don't think anyone out there is complaining that we have too many articles on pre-Raphaelite paintings. Zagalejo^^^ 09:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A well-known painting, not just mentioned in reviews, but discussed at length as primary subject [24]. East of Borschov 10:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not much that can be added to the above. So I've added nine sources to the article instead. There's plenty to write, here, not least from what Waldemar Januszczak, John Ruskin, William Michael Rossetti, and George P. Landow had to say about this painting. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of course I would say that, as I created the article, but it is a clearly notable painting. If the nominator had just typed the title and artist's name into google he would have saved everyone's time. the fact that the article does not footnote evidence of notability is not, imo, a good reason to nominate deletion. footnotes should be to appropriate sources for specific points made that require citation, not a parade of significance. Paul B (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Lack of reliable sources is a perfectly valid reason to question notability. An article that doesn't quote any sources at all is indistinguishable from original research. You appear to not have a good understanding of the notability guideline. As the primary creator of the article it is in fact your job to do (at least the initial) googling to prove the article's right to exist. Oh BTW I agree with the consensus to Keep. Roger (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • An article that doesn't quote any sources at all is indistinguishable from original research. — Only by those who don't put the proper effort into looking for sources themselves, which of course is expected behaviour for all editors. Putting verifiability into practice correctly is not a zero-effort exercise, and writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. Uncle G (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't have much to add to the above (good work!). Just that I'm surprised this discussion is even happening. It's a pretty well-known and notable painting. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Glad to see this page saved from deletion. It appears that adding sources was all that was necessary to establish notability.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – definitely now satisfies WP:GNG with significant coverage in the many listed reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I was astonished to see this AfD proposal on such a famous work of art. — Hebrides (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a quick look at Google scholar show a decent amount of coverage. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 15 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behistun Palace[edit]

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

notability, completely lacking sources, written as travelogue, WHC dubious, as those articles are simply written better Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand this nomination. Chris, as a very experienced editor you have probably done your homework... Could you clarify exactly what exactly makes the Unesco entry [25] dubious? Which articles are simply written better? The Behistun Inscription needs more work, too. But it's about the inscription, not the whole site. And "written like a travelogue" can be fixed by regular editing, can it not? Or is it the ...'palace part of the name? East of Borschov 10:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article was horribly written at the time of the nom, the underlying topic is notable, and I got rid of the blatant original research. (As a result, the article is now two sentences long, but it's still better than it was.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good job TheCatalyst31 for removing the hyperbole. It does seem to be a notable historic topic. [26] The World Heritage Committee is not a "dubious" source. --Oakshade (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as Its high importance for wikiProject Iran. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing per save measures, and if truly it is high importance for wikiProject Iran, then it is worth you guys cleaning up.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:38, 14 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) 01:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Bennett & The Lovedogs[edit]

Pete Bennett & The Lovedogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this band meets any of the criteria set out at WP:BAND. Jeremy (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more references, just awaiting new article about upcoming EP.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay then. It fails to meet any of the WP:BAND criteria 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12. The music seems only to be available on download and one of the references in the article says He failed to establish himself as a pop star, but Tourette’s sufferer Pete did secure a £1 million advance for his autobiography [27] (no mention is made of this band in that source) Polargeo (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was announced that the single would be released on iTunes on the 25th of July....the song has received some excellent reviews and is currently selling well on iTunes - so well, in fact, that it missed the UK charts completely. Not a notable band at all, suggest redirect to Pete Bennett -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this band has failed completely to establish any kind of notability. -- roleplayer 21:04, 14 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) 01:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viralogy[edit]

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

Pure advertising copy for a non-notable startup company. I have found no coverage. Haakon (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 13 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) 01:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People in need partnership[edit]

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

worthy but not notable organisation. No independent sources and I cannot find anything significant on google in reliable sources. noq (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability not established -- roleplayer 21:05, 14 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I Didn't Love You[edit]

If I Didn't Love You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-charting single, no sources found, WP:1S. Delete for lack of notability, and to free up this title for a notable Steve Wariner song which is currently at If I Didn't Love You (Steve Wariner song). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's really nothing to merge, the band's article already has the info. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Argybargy. Delete, especially if there's a notable song that might be eventually placed here... 2 says you, says two 22:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until further notice. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this thing is really unverifiable, then we shouldn't have an article on it. DS (talk) 00:00, 18 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On-demand scan[edit]

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

I propose that this article has no contents. It is just consists of two vague sentences about its subject and links to other articles. It merits speedy-deletion per Criterion 3 for articles: No contents but since one editor has contest the speedy-deletion, I have escalated this issue to AfD. Fleet Command (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ajnabee Shehr Mein[edit]

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

Article explicitly states that the film has not begun principal filming, thereby failing WP:NFF. I had prodded but it is ineligible as this article was previously deleted at AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator has since edited the article so that it now states that principal filming has begun, but has still not provided a source for this claim. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 13 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) 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharda Convent,Buldana[edit]

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

No indication why this school is notable. No references provided. — Timneu22 · talk 15:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. Google does give a few scattered listings for similarly named schools in Buldana that might be this school, but without a school website or some other source (primary, secondary, or even tertiary) that contains the basic facts, there isn't any basis for the article, even under the generous guidelines for schools that I am normally happy to follow. Of course, if such sources turn up later there is no prejudice against recreating the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:29, 19 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agenskalns gymnasium[edit]

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

Nothing more than an informational page, so WP:ADVERT. Also, no sources, indications of importance or significance. — Timneu22 · talk 14:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Roger Axt[edit]

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

Non notable actor and writer, fails WP:ENTERTAINER & WP:GNG Jezhotwells (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't see any significant coverage in reliable sources using google, gnews, gscholar or gbooks. Can't see anything in the article that would suggest he meets any of the notability guidelines.--BelovedFreak 23:39, 13 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) 01:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vendesign[edit]

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

nn promotional advert only Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
  • Delete per nomination. This business makes candy vending machines. Obvious advertising: increasing customer satisfaction and reducing service calls and maintenance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of this article is a notable international vending machine manufacturing company. They have received excellent reviews indicating that they are one of the higher-rated manufacturers in operation. They have also pursued and received patents for specialized technology not previously available in manufacturing. Yes, the article is poorly written and lacks references. It would be advantageous to tag the article appropriately to address tone and prompt the need for references and copy editing. Cindamuse (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And where are those sources to be found? Uncle G (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. Just run a google search. You'll find plenty of technical and industrial information, but if you take the time to check out the information, you will find that the sources are available and can be referenced if someone wants to do the work. Tag the article appropriately and the editor that just added the article will most likely step forward and do the work. I'm not here to add citations to each article nominated for deletion, but to offer recommendations as to whether or not sources can possibly be found to support inclusion on Wikipedia. Cindamuse (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You aren't showing any evidence that your recommendations aren't simply plucked out of thin air. You claim that sources are to be found. So, once again: Where? What is your basis for that claim? What did you do in order to arrive at that conclusion (presuming that you didn't just pluck it out of thin air)? Uncle G (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Same answer. Who, what, where, why? I see their vending machines in almost every business I frequent, so I ran an effective search on google. Try it. Cindamuse (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, that isn't the same answer. This is the first time that you've even mentioned doing anything yourself, for instance. But you still haven't told us what your search turned up. Getting a decent keep rationale, founded in deletion policy, from you should not be like trying to pull teeth. Tell us what you did and what you found, up front. Uncle G (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find singnificant coverage in independent reliable sources, WP:GNG  Chzz  ►  05:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I searched on google, gnews, gscholar, gbooks and could find no significant coverage of this company in reliable sources. There were lots of mentions, but I can see no significant coverage.--BelovedFreak 23:44, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Hamilton (author)[edit]

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

Non notable author, not be confused with comedian and writer of the same name. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Subject is not notable, WP:N, fails WP:AUTH, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:Promotion, and WP:Not a dictionary, concerning the use of two neologisms; "self-sufficientish-ism", that uses a British (hyphenated) form and "Selfsufficient-ish" that uses an Americanized (non-hyphenated) form. Good attempt though by getting them published through Wikipedia thus showing up on search engines. - Otr500 (talk) 05:58, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presents for Sally[edit]

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

No reliable third-party citations. Forty twoThanks for all the fish! 09:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 13 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 M4 carbine. Note to Jrtayloriv: For legal reasons, it is not permissible to merge an article and then delete; see WP:MAD. So merge only. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M4 feedramps[edit]

M4 feedramps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article that will likely only warrant inclusion in general article about M4. Doesn't deserve own article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Just to clarify, I wanted to merge the article with M4 carbine, and delete this article, not simply to delete this article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:10, 13 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. The advice to stubify to remove the OR is a very good idea Spartaz Humbug! 04:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superman curse[edit]

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

The article contains only speculation and has no real evidence for a "curse", with certain "victims" having faced little or no hardship at all. The suggestion that the president of the United States of America was murdered because of a work of fiction is, in my opinion, offensive. The article contains few references and just looking at the list I can see none of them mention a "curse" in the title, perhaps none back up this speculation. I don't think this article meets the notability requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia as it merely lists people who have died or who have suffered some sort of hardship that have had a connection with Superman. tb240904 Talk Contribs 03:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hits:
Google - 20,600

News - 75
Books - 21
Scholar - 5
Images - 895 (0 labeled for reuse)

Youtube - 386 [28]
Wikipedia - 317 [29]

Simple English - 1 (completely unrelated) [30] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tb240904 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete This is WP:Original research stupid. Bad things happen to almost everybody. What has been done here is to go through the list of every person with some connection to Superman and mention those who had some misfortune as victims of the "curse." I know taste doesn't count for much on WP, but the whole thing is very offensive -- as the nom mentioned. But delete because it's just not notable keep because WP's mission is to reflect what is considered notable by "reliable sources." No matter what the depth they will go WP must follow, by policy. Wolfview (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We all have out superstistions, There are plenty of other articles based on superstition such as things like Bloody Mary. I see new reason to delete. There are gHits. --DefyingGravityForGood (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know most people have superstitions (personally, I don't believe in that kind of stuff), but this particular superstition is not suitable for inclusion on the English language wikipedia as it does not meet notability requirements, it fails WP:SYN and is entirely WP:Original research. It is nonsense, and as I said above the thought that the most powerful man in the world could be killed because of a work of fiction, a claim that is backed up by no references, is offensive. Much of the curses that are included on Wikipedia that I have looked at are complete rubbish. I'll request the deletion of any articles that fail the requirements set by the Wikipedia community. --tb240904 Talk Contribs 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common way to refer to him. It may or may not be true, but it is not offensive. Wolfview (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, all right, okay. But honestly, I don't think anyone would really want to live in a country where the leader is the most powerful man in the world. Just saying. Guoguo12--Talk--  11:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it apparently fails WP:SYN. Some of the sources do not specifically attest that the "curse" was by any means related to the deaths or injuries. Guoguo12--Talk--  15:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adding my vote to this. See my nomination above. --tb240904 Talk Contribs 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need to cast a separate "vote"; an AfD nominator will always be counted as a "delete" recommender unless they specifically say otherwise. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for the time being. Generally I'm not a fan of articles which, effectively, promote coincidences into superstitious curses. However, there are sources which discuss the idea of a "Superman curse", so the article in general is not original research. That said, the inclusion of many of the entries is original research, because sources are not provided to establish that the persons were victims of the supposed curse. I note that Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Max Fleischer, Dave Fleischer, Kirk Alyn, Danny Dark, and Marlon Brando, all listed here, each outlived the average life expectancy for white American males born in the years they were born. Richard Donner is still alive and has already passed his life expectancy as well, and the "curse" on him apparently consisted only of his getting fired from directing Superman II -- after which he went on to direct several more hit movies. John F. Kennedy is portrayed here as a victim of the curse as well, because prior to his assassination he had agreed to be portrayed in a "Superman" comic book -- but if curses were real, JFK would already have been subject to the Curse of Tippecanoe, which was noted by the public before Superman ever debuted in comics. The article becomes more absurd by claiming there is a "Superman Video Game Curse", in which videogames about Superman are doomed to be bad games. It should also be noted that one of the sources used in the article that does discuss a curse contains a significant inaccuracy by stating that "previous TV Men Of Steel GEORGE REEVES and KIRK ALYN lived forever in the shadow of their TV careers as Superman, unable to find work and driven to early graves by drink." But Alyn played Superman only in films, not on television, and lived to be 88 years old. I would recommend that if this article is to be kept, it should be limited to including only statements which can be supported by independent sources which comment on the curse (whether in a believing or disbelieving way), and exclude any original research based on the idea of "bad things of any type which happened to anyone with any involvement with Superman or to their relatives". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the first reference, at about.com ([31]), states "There's as much circumstantial evidence to suggest there isn't a curse as there is to suggest there is." therefore this reference does not exactly support the theory that there is a Superman curse. At first glance, the wikipedia article doesn't suggest that "there isn't a curse". --tb240904 Talk Contribs 16:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stubify. Sources exist.[32] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article isn't "promoting" it per se, but rather cataloguing a folk tale/urban myth that has existed in fact before Christopher Reeve's accident. I remember it being invoked at the time in conversation, and presumably in the news as well. The precise content of the article is a topic for cleanup discussions--it's certainly possible to excise whatever OR does in fact exist, since the underlying myth really does exist, although perhaps not always by this name. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to see some sources that refer to the idea of a Superman curse that were published on or before May 26, 1995 (the day before Reeve's accident). I couldn't find any via Google News myself. (Searches for articles containing the words "Superman" and "curse" don't seem to turn up anything relevant published before the accident.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many reliable sources discuss the concept of a "Superman Curse" or "Curse of Superman." Anything not attributed to a reliable source in the article should be removed, of course. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then the whole thing is trivial. A few people said there was a curse after Mr. Reeve's accident. It that worthy of an article? Wolfview (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are you describing as "a few people"? I'm looking at sources like "Sports help after 'Superman curse'" Straits Times 07/13/2008, "'Curse of Superman' behind Bloom-Bosworth split" Hindustan Times 09/23/2006, "CURSE! WHAT CURSE?; New hero Brandon vows to defeat Superman jinx" Daily Star 07/13/2006, "Curse of the cape?" Buffalo News 06/25/2006, "Superman curse flies in the face of logic" The Courier Mail 03/11/2006, "BACKSTAGE - SUPERMAN JINX' STRIKES" Daily Post 07/16/2004, "Will the curse ground the new Superman?" Canberra Times 10/18/2003, "HOLLYWOOD STUDIO BATTLES THE SUPERMAN CURSE" The Statesman 08/07/2003, "Is the Superman costume cursed" The Daily Telegraph 08/01/2003, "Curses! Or maybe not; Does the 'Kennedy curse' -- or any curse -- hold water?" Fort Worth Star Telegram 07/19/2003, "'Curse' stalling Superman film" Plain Dealer 10/12/2001, "SUPERMAN CURSE BEGAN IN 1948 ORIGINAL MOVIE MAN OF STEEL DIES" Edmonton Sun 03/25/1999, "THE EVENT THAT GAVE BIRTH TO THE SUPERMAN CURSE" The Record (Bergen County) 12/29/1996, "Superman 'curse' hits again" The Advertiser (Adelaide) 04/26/1996, "Dean not fazed by the curse of Superman" Sunday Mail 04/14/1996 and many, many more. This is obviously not just original research by wikipedia editors, nor is it "a few people said," but rather a multitude of reliable sources around the world writing about this topic over the course of many years, which makes it "worthy of an article." Thanks for asking, Starblueheather (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. News media entertainment writers have nothing better to do than repeat and comment on stupid things that other news media entertainment writers have written. That equals coverage in multiple "reliable sources" and hence WP notability. I will change my vote to Keep. Wolfview (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by "use common sense" WP:COMMON. I don't think that any of the sources really say, or believe, that the "curse" is real. They are just repeating each other to entertain the public, as Wolfview observed. The topic has no real importance. It is kind of a case of "one event" repeated over and over by various celebrity beat reporters who need to fill up their pages. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously notable, notability is about the strength of sourcing available, not the current state of the article. AFD is not clean-up. A cursory glance at google spits out [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. Issues like original research are solved by editing, not deletion. Someoneanother 20:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article about Chelsea Clinton's wedding was up for deletion (not sure how that turned out) on the grounds that just because something is talked about in the news does not require WP to have an article. I think the same principle applies here. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Someone another's sources seem like a reasonable enough level of coverage to base an article on. Alzarian16 (talk) 07:16, 21 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) 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Crushmore[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. No catgories, only source is MLB official website. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and it is a non-notable neologismus. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article contradicts itself, saying first that this is an honor (based on a poster, but maybe it was just computer wallpaper) for players who hit 600 home runs, but then that it was first established when McGwire and Sosa were both trying to break the record of 61 homers in a season. It looks like in 2002, right after Barry Bonds became the fourth player to break 600, someone at mlb.com made an illustration of four faces, kind of like Mount Rushmore, but it's four baseball players instead of four Presidents, and the short explanation is that they're on there because they were known to "crush" the ball (like "roundtripper", it's a seldom used synonym associated with hitting a home run) "more" than other MLB players. Get it? This was a year before the BALCO scandal gave a clue as to how Barry's homer production increased so dramatically in his 30s. The speculation that this is an honor that has been discontinued is based on the assumption that a Mount Rushmore like monument wouldn't stop at four stone faces, I suppose. The unimaginative expression has been used from time to time to describe four baseball players [42], but it also gets used to describe eyesores and four of anything else [43]. Mandsford 19:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Article on a neologism without any chance for relevant secondary sources and based largely on faulty or unprovable original research? No thanks. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 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. There is no clear consensus to delete this article, however there are concerns about it which need to be addressed. The table itself does not meet Wikipedia polices regarding Copyvio and Primary source so would need to be removed entirely. The BBC list may be linked to rather than copied, while the BBC article mentioning the list may be used for content for RS commentary on the list. The gisha list declares that it is unverified, so is speculation, and the organisation is promotional so should be used with care per WP:POORSRC. I am minded that people have commented that they find the list useful because it encyclopedic to know what items have been banned or permitted, however, as the sources are speculative and state that Isreal deals with matters on a case by case basis, the list is misleading. The article should reflect what can be verified, and make clear what is speculation. A list makes things appear more certain than they are. SilkTork *YES! 13:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this page for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion's point 4 (Wikipedia:Content forking. Almost all of the text is already presented at 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip. That article is not over the limit laid out at Wikipedia:Article size with 7845 words and less than 52kB. It is getting long but another paragraph or two won't hurt it. And it could be argued that some of the other stuff there could be trimmed. So what is the purpose of the article? The actual list itself is the strongest reasoning. It was originally a list. If it was still a list I would support its inclusion but there was not enough support for that on the talk page. It was originally heavily biased. Most of that has been taken care of but it still seems like a potential coatrack with some soapboxing that already gives undue weight to the Gisha Center for Freedom of Movement. Please again see WP:DEL#REASON where the final point is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. User:Kasaalan has put enough effort into this that I actually think the list could turn out well. But with editors insisting that it needs to be an article we just have a redundant page with some tables added to it.Cptnono (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge The table is definitely something to be kept whether as a standalone article or may be merged into main article. Some user created article, but the data was essential for other articles so I converted the list data to a sortable table. Some other users added background information from other articles, and some new information. I prefer table based article with new information, but I also respect other editors opinion. Gisha is an internationally credited HR and the main Israeli Human Right Organization that took the banned items to Israeli court, Israel state did not reveal full list, but removed the ban over basic supplies (mainly food/health care/daily care) after Gisha case because the ban over items like chocolate had no logic or standard in the first place. [Gisha and the ban is quoted by multiple international RS media sources] There is also another independent and comprehensive BBC study, and other partial item lists by RS that supports the banned item list of Gisha and BBC. For FORK issue, only 1/4-1/5 is repeating text from other articles, and the list is mainly focused on stricter ban after 2009 and gisha case. If standalone article is not wanted I can merge the data with main article. But the main article is a bit long. But I also agree the article text has some visually distracting parts. Kasaalan (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up on your comments. "table based article with new information" is essentially what Wikipedia:Featured lists are. Check out some of those. IT might be a good direction. And our math is not coming to the same thing with how much is duplicated. Last time I did a ctrl+f through the main article, almost all of it was at least mentioned. And there is some room for expansion. And the lead of a list can go into some detail so don't think it will be empty. And nothing wrong with Gisha having a mention in the lead here maybe but for sure over at the other article.Cptnono (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Shuki (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the topic of what was banned by Israel from being imported into Gaza is a notable topic of its own as shown by the sources specifically discussing the materials that Israel banned. This is a notable, encyclopedic topic of its own and merits its own article. The BBC even hosts a list of the items banned by Israel. nableezy - 20:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have not seen the page or read any comments here, but to have such a list here is weird. It just needs to be summed up elsewhere. Chesdovi (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay so was toilet paper permitted or not?! Machlokes tanoi'im? Come on. Chesdovi (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, please familiarize yourself with at least the article being discussed, if not the discussion itself, before offering opinion. Otherwise, the opinion is of little value. --Atypeoferror (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really called for and doesn't add anything of value to this discussion. Agree with the sentiment bur it is rude for you to assume he did not.Cptnono (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took "I have not seen the page" to mean that (s)he has not read the article. I was also driven by having found the description of the list's presence here as "weird" to be entirely unhelpful; but perhaps you are correct, and I should allow the admin to make these determinations. My apologies for any rudeness. --Atypeoferror (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the view that toilet paper should have been allowed, but concur with the claim of AFP that it was banned. Chesdovi (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable and very interesting list. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a content fork that properly belongs as a brief section of 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip.AMuseo (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It does not seem that the closing admin's sentiments from AfD #1 have been addressed adequately. As before, we don't need to see a laundry list of every single item that has been banned; the ban itself is what is notable, not the items, and it should be addressed in the appropriate article. This has been an ill-conceived, un-encyclopedic concept from the outset. Tarc (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing that a ban be described without an explicit statement of what, actually, is being banned? Do you not at all find that notion to be self-contradictory? Also, when you say "we don't need to see a laundry list", who do you purport to speak for? The blockade is clearly a topic of great interest to many people, and a more precise description only serves to enrich WIkipedia. --Atypeoferror (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're way off the mark, and a bit hysterical about it to boot. The ban can be described along with a few details of what goods are on the list. But to make an encyclopedia article out of the entire 200-odd list itself is just ridiculous, and goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE to boot. An encyclopedia is not a repository of statistical minutiae. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because a list is long, does not mean it is overly specific. One of a possible litany of examples, the List_of_current_United_States_Representatives_by_age_and_generation is much more "long and sprawling" (as WP:INDISCRIMINATE puts it,) and certainly is less exciting reading and less "encyclopedic," yet WP:INDISCRIMINATE is applied neither there nor to a plethora of other such lists - why should it be applied here? --Atypeoferror (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this topic is highly encyclopedic (with particular usefulness as a Wikipedia article, in that it is so easy to update it), and it is clearly notable given coverage in reliable sources. Meets WP:GNG quite easily, in my view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't put up or deletion based on notability. Care to respond to the given reasoning?Cptnono (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would agree that there is some redundancy with the blockade article. I believe the proper resolution is actually to expand this article, by merging the contents of 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip#Goods blocked into it. There may still be some repetition (dates, for example), but it is far from unreasonable to include a brief historic summary with the list, and falls squarely within WP:CFORK usage. Actually, this article is exactly the way content is meant to be forked, per WP:CFORK: "... new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."; and I think we can all agree that the blockade article needs some managing. This proposed merge will
- Eliminate the redundancy.
- Result in a more logical organization.
- Prune the sprawling monster that the blockade article has become, instead of worsening the situation. --Atypeoferror (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I almost love that idea and even considered retracting my request. However, my concern with it is that the goods blocked should be part of the primary scope of that article. That article failing should not mean we run and start a new one. That article should be fixed. And since no one has put in any effort to fix this article, I have little hope it will succeed. An RfC on how to fix that article and a separate merge(or split if this is deleted) discussion are options option.Cptnono (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Including the list in the blockade article seems like a logical approach. However, upon reading it again, the level of historical detail in that article is so great, it seems quite reasonable to split out things that can at all be presented as tangential. Also, because the blockade is still happening, that article is bound to only get longer, so any logical splitting that we can do now seems like a good thing. I agree with you that the blockade article needs to be fixed - and I prefer to think of keeping this page as a step towards fixing it. Now we have a place for banned-item-specific information, so the main page can focus on past and currently developing political and social aspects, without getting especially bogged down in the minutia. --Atypeoferror (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful and educational, and notable. Kingturtle (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. this survived an AfD less than two months ago.[reply]
  • Keep Notable, sourced, and informative. The ban is independently notable, hence not a CFORK. Asummary and link should appear in related articles. Verbal chat 07:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Marge to 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip. Unneccessary Content forking. Marokwitz (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is to long for a merge with 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is the one who constantly added content to the article so that "it would be worth keeping" Altough nominator, me and some other users prefer the article as a table. If it is fork why did he expanded it, yet voted for delete both in slim and expanded version of the article. Kasaalan (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding content to articles so that they are worth keeping is sort of the point of editing Wikipedia. Having introduction and background are appropriate when the details of the list are in question, as in this case.~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 19:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The table should be deleted since it is a duplication of a primary source - this is not Wikisource . And it is not a useful table since it lists allowed items with blocked items in a very confusing way, in what seems to be an attempt to hint - based on no evidence - that these items are blocked (the source doesn't say so). After removing the table, this article will be short enough to merge. Marokwitz (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all this is a nice AFD unlike the first one. Nominator properly notified users, comments are generally about the debate etc.
    • It is not illogical or WP:INDISCRIMINATE to make an article about the indiscriminate ban of a state which violates Human Rights of 100.000s of people as a collective punishment and self-admitted economic warfare. Most of the banned items [food and household items] has no relation to security whatsoever. That is why the Israeli court decided to lift the ban over nutrition and household items like chocolate or razor.
    • Try to think what would you do if you had no razor, soap, blanket, baby wipes, toothbrush, chocolate, biscuits, jam, fruit, agriculture material/farm animal/fishing supply etc. etc. at your home. Palestine cannot produce such things because of the war, and if they cannot import such items, they cannot accomplish their basic human needs. The table is important to understand the scope of the ban that affects basic human needs.
    • Also article is improved. Building such a categorized sortable table costs countless hours. 26 June 2010Change between 2 AFDs Goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza Kasaalan (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because the list itself has a noteworthy history involving lawsuits, legislation, and multiple concerned parties, it seems to be a notable topic on its own. Also the list itself is useful and it's keeping with policy to keep the list at a separate article. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 18:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The exact details of what is and is not a part of the blockade is important, and yet too large to be merged onto the 2007-present blockade of the Gaza Strip article. Also there is lots of text repeated many times on Wikipedia, like every country's main page is merely a summary of indepth articles on the country, so that it shares some text with another page is no reason to delete the page. Passionless (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I almost feel bad voting delete because I actually find the list interesting, but that's not a good argument for retaining it. Unfortunately this page is dominated by the truly impressive table, the rest is nothing that should not be contained under the page for the Gaza blockade. Sadly I do not think the table alone merits its own article, however interesting it may be. It would be nice if the table were able to be retained somehow but it's too cumbersome for the blockade article and isn't an article all on its own. - OldManNeptune⚓ (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the table has been able to mislead you. If you read carefully you would see it is actually a list of ALLOWED items, which proponents of keeping are deliberately trying to confuse the public, to think that they are BLOCKED items. Marokwitz (talk) 08:22, 22 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. Mkativerata (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kai Ryu[edit]

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

Non-notable school of martial arts. All references are related to the subject. All inline citations are just footnotes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:10, 13 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) 04:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of knowledge base management software[edit]

Comparison of knowledge base management software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially original research and a link farm of non-notable entries. -- Boffob (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there was a previous, withdrawn AfD. Didn't quite figure out how to link it here in this new one.--Boffob (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator arguments --Snowded TALK 10:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article should not be deleted as it contains valuable information for knowledge managers worldwide to help them figure out the features of knowledge management software solutions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.146.254 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) 11:38, 13 August 2010
Comment - I have restored the comments deleted by this IP's edit -- John of Reading (talk) 12:49, 13 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. Jujutacular talk 00:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Justice Collaborative[edit]

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

Unsourced, non-notable group, yielding zero news search results. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 01:31, 13 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. Jujutacular talk 00:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of richest Tamils[edit]

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

violation of WP:OR and WP:Synthesis --CarTick 00:46, 13 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. The article has been substantially improved during the course of the discussion. There is now a firm consensus to keep it. Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cairo International Model United Nations[edit]

Cairo International Model United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

G-new indicates it exist but not much beyond that Falis WP:GNG Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have added in more references and an EL that covers all the information stated in the article and its notability. Being the largest Model UN in the Middle East and, seemingly, one of the most important is the world is definitely an indication of its notability. SilverserenC 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete model UNs tend not to be notable except to those who actually participate in them, and sparse level of coverage confirms this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Sparse level of coverage"? Did you look at the references and the EL's? SilverserenC 17:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can verify it exists but beyond that the sources don't say enough to write about it.Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um...yes they do? This one alone is an article entirely about the group. SilverserenC 17:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Student newspapers usually arent Sufficient for a Organization to be fully notable Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In Egypt, there has long been a need for an independent, privately owned newspaper to provide unbiased and forthright news and analysis. Daily News Egypt (which launched in May 2005 under the brand name The Daily Star Egypt) is the country's only independent English-language daily. It carries local business, political and cultural, news and analysis, from an Egyptian perspective. Daily News Egypt is distributed with the International Herald Tribune (IHT) the world's foremost global newspaper. The IHT is the only English-language international paper printed in Egypt and available the same day. Together with the IHT's first-class international news service, Daily News Egypt provides readers with a complete bouquet of all the news they will need."
I'm not sure what you mean about student newspaper? You mean the ones for the college? SilverserenC 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears i was incorrect, I was under the impression that it was the Student new paper but one article does not make a subject notable. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just went and added some more sources. SilverserenC 20:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sources two and eight are press releases, not articles. One is a SPS, the book you found is the an Author Bio blurb in the back of a book. four and seven are both press relases hosted on the schools website. 6 is highly questionable at best. Just saying your trumpeting 8 sources and 7 of those are definitely questionable meritsWeaponbb7 (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain to me how source 8 is a press release? SilverserenC 22:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
has identical Language by two different papers, its a press release. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Weaponbb7's findings, and previous precedent that Model UNs are usually not notable, and generally deleted. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a valid reason for deletions... If something is generally deleted doesn't mean it's the right thing to do... The article includes references for notability and is very well known throughout the middle east. Various notable speakers have asserted its notability. I don't see why you want to delete it so much--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm seeing two non-PR non-school publications that cover the topic in detail. [44] might be a press release but it isn't listed as one and [45] looks very strong indeed. [46] also has reasonable coverage. Hobit (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
look at the two sources weekly.ahram.org & albawaba.com and you provided. Compare the langauge between the two... Its an identical match which leads me to think they are portions of a press releases as i have not found any relation between the two news services. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or it could be that one took from the other? If you have no real proof that it's a press release, you can't just surmise that from similar news articles. SilverserenC 17:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO thats what they look like to me, but either way press release or plagiarism that makes me question both their reliabilities. Having worked in PR office at my school that is what they smell like to me. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okaaaay...but without any valid proof, you can't label either one as a press release and, thus, have to regard it as a normal source and, thus, it is reliable. SilverserenC 17:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if there is any doubt of a sources reliability it is not a WP:RS both smell fishy either way niether seems reliable to me Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, either way it's reliable, just might not be independent. Hobit (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, then, with them, the sources are more than enough to meet GNG? SilverserenC 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, if it is a PR it doesn't count for WP:N. I have doubts about it being so, but I'd say it's 50/50. Without that we've got one _really_ good source and one in-passing reference plus a bunch of other PR-releases which makes it really tight. Finding another source would be handy, even a good one (in detail) from a school paper. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the one that's an EL? SilverserenC 20:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This could be useful as well. SilverserenC 20:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's plenty. Are they in the article? Hobit (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The EL is, the other one isn't yet. SilverserenC 00:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has various independent references verifying notability.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [47]CIMUN is the oldest student activity at AUC, and has become the largest Model United Nations program outside North America. Notable coverage of the organization found. Dream Focus 16:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong express 16:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it wasn't me. :D SilverserenC 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources added appear to satisfy WP:GNG. SnottyWong express 16:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is significantly better shape than it was at nomination. I have greatly reorganized the page and expanded on it significantly, incorporating even more third-party sources, and expanded the article. —CodeHydro 18:18, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Poonen[edit]

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

Zac Poonen was deleted in 2006 after the first nomination, due to lack of notability. The current version, created in 2010 suffers the same problems - there are no reliable independent sources to verfiy/substantiate Poonen's notability as per Wikipedia policy. Google searches will reveal many self-published hits (books, blogs, own media), but there are very few, if any, secondary sources where independent sources are talking about him. The information in the article, therefore, cannot be properly verified and therefore also fails Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - ABEBooks shows 21 copies for sale representing 3 or 4 titles — not enough to indicate broad readership. Lack of reliable independent sources to constitute notability. No page on Conservapedia either, for what it's worth. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is not a notable person, not every minister or missionary is notable. Also, twitter is not a reliable source for information. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An author of 25 books and articles may be notable. ABEbooks is probably not a reliable test: does it operate in India on a sufficient scale for this to be a good test? There seems to be a prjudice against article son Indian Christians on the basis that Christianity is a minor religion in that very populous country. However there are more Christians in India than people in some small countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 14 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. —fetch·comms 18:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Springs[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Eeekster (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If a source can be provided to back up the statement that it has been a source of 30 million year old fossils, that would count toward notability (I've not heard of it myself). New editor, first contribution, so I don't want to be too tough on a newcomer. On the other hand, if it can't be shown by verifiable sources, I can't see a reason to keep. Mandsford 02:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 7 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) 00:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I try to leave wiggle room on articles for geographic features, GNIS verifies a "Johnson Spring" in Kentucky but it is nowhere near the location of the spring in question. I'll keep looking for sources but right now I can't even find anything to indicate this springs existence or notability. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe Johnson Springs does exist as Thelma Stovall Park does exist and there are mentions in unreliable sources such as this and this of the spring's existence. Whereas most articles on streams are notable per WP:5P this particular body of water does not meet WP:RS and is not listed by any form of government federal or local therefore I must say delete. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:36, 13 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. —fetch·comms 02:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ikiwiki[edit]

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

This wiki software seems interesting, but I can find very few press or book mentions of it - the most notable one seems to be this Network World article. That article's author is presumably the same Joey Hess who's the author of ikiwiki - which I'd say doesn't detract much from its notability; but still, it's just one article, which doesn't seem like enough. Yaron K. (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote delete it. Of course, it does not follow the wikipedia standards. Please, remove another article. Don't improve it. Just delete it. Finally, there will be just a hundred of articles.... this is the result of a radical application of a policy.--Xan2 (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclining towards keep, even though there are few press or book mentions, but a googling on "ikiwiki" indicates that independent blog users are really trying to use it, that there is a Debian package for ikiwiki, meaning that it is established in the advanced user sphere. Unless there are strong policy violation reasons for delete, I think keep and abide is the best thing. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:35, 10 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) 00:05, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cahills Farm cheese[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I originally PRODded for questionable notability. There aren't any neutral, independent sources in the article. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, reads like an advertisement with no third-party sources. Also, the article seems to fail the criteria mentioned in WP:COMPANY. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 03:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable award-winning Irish cheese, listed on Bord Bia website which is, contrary to what is said above, referenced in the article and an independent source. --HighKing (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with HighKing on most things but this is a clear exception. The article is one of a series on the subject and the references stand up. To PROD a 10 minute-old article on dubious grounds is just being provocative. LevenBoy (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, referenced. It would be nice if the awards could be identified and sourced, etc. The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 7 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) 00:04, 13 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. Nomination withdrawn. Courcelles 00:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah Country Day School[edit]

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

Preparatory school that appears to fail the guidance of WP:ORG. Notability was discussed on the talk page in 2007 after a PROD was removed, it was claimed that sources were available and would be added; they never materialized and there seems little prospect of this being addressed in the near future. Fæ (talk) 04:23, 6 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) 00:04, 13 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. —fetch·comms 02:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman Bob[edit]

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

This is so vague and general. It's only purpose has been to redirect to Roundy's. This phrase is also being used in a demeaning and libellous manner by a vandal on Bob Avakian. As such there is no encyclopedic value in this "article". Peopleriseup (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A Wisconsinite here who can explain things; "Chairman Bob" is a 'character' in advertising for Roundy's Pick 'n Save stores who is the actual CEO (and chairman) of Roundy's, Robert Mariano, thus the "Chairman Bob" series of ads, which was meant as an affectionate parody and not at all as you thought as an insult against him (which without the background story would have seemed like it). However the campaign has been over for a year and the only use of it remains as pretty much as a denoter of their generic Roundy's brand products within their stores, and there has been no further establishment of notability of the ad campaign. This can safely be deleted without any consequence. Nate • (chatter) 08:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability would only count if we were discussing having a whole article here. In fact, no-one is. Indeed, this whole discussion is mis-placed and really belongs at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, since there is no, and has never been any, actual article here. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was going by a whole battle over the direction of a redirect and that there was an existing article, but you're right, this is just a very overreactive nomination as there was no issue at all with an Avakian redirection (it was only brought up by Peopleriseup as part of the misunderstanding I listed above and the RD has just been blanked, not redirected to Avakian). Based on that, Keep as a harmless redirect and a reminder to Peopleriseup that dicussion on a talk page or a friendly reachout to the redirect creator is better for the next time. Nate • (chatter) 08:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Normally I would say keep it as a search term, but there's very little in the Roundy's article about him. I suppose if someone thought it was notable enough to mention the ad campaign in the Roundy's article, I would say keep. As it stands I don't see that it's doing any harm, though. As a side note, when I lived in Madison, I found that Roundy's "Chairman Bob approved" potato chips were terrible. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the above discussion. I wondered why this wasn't at RfD, but I figured I just wasn't in the know. Now that I understand the backstory, I don't see any reason why this redirect is harmful, so default to keep. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 01:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a verifiable fact. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, they could use more salt for sure. Nate • (chatter) 08:19, 8 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) 00:04, 13 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) 01:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C I Host[edit]

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

This article, initially speedily deleted (restored by me under the assertion it contained salvageable material, which I'm willing to open up to the broader public, and that it was not purely an attack page), seems to have initially been set up as a borderline attack page. With the weasel-words and footnoteless "controversy" pieces removed, we're still left with two sources that are even conceivably reliable news entities, the rest being from forums. With the page shifted to a (somewhat) more neutral position and the uncited information cut, I am not convinced the skeleton that remains demonstrates notability. - Vianello (Talk) 06:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the topic is notable enough, owing to the marketing tactics, which have received coverage from independent sources. It's not an attack page. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No, it is indeed no longer an attack article. An exclusively negative article riddled with weasel words is, but I think it's evolved a bit past that now. The attack issue is not the thrust of the deletion argument; the presence of only two halfway reliable sources that do not conclusively demonstrate notability (in my subjective opinion) is. - Vianello (Talk) 20:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As far as I can tell there is no company by the name CI Host anymore. It appears some of their assets were likely bought by "Cassiopeia Internet, Inc.". This company does not appear to be notable, even though tattoo adverting is somewhat unorthodox, they were not the first company to use this form of advertising (per the Human_billboard#Tattoos article). Also, much of the article still appears to be unsourced. 71.123.160.4 (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 7 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) 00:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a medium sized web hosting company. Leaving aside the allegations in former versions about questionable business practices, and the tattoo advertising business, neither of which are going to make this business a subject to remember in future centuries, this is an entirely run of the mill online business without historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 13 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. Creator agrees to a merger proposal; no other !votes present. Merger can be dealt with on the talk pages or just the author doing it himself. —fetch·comms 02:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travel didgeridoo[edit]

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

No notability shown for this group of products. Sourced by stores and a manufacturers website. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation of modern didgeridoo designs into one article[edit]

The issue with the modern didgeridoo designs - including travel didgeridoo - is that they don't fit into the traditional didgeridoo category, and if there is going to be an expansion in the description of modern didgeridoo designs on wiki, it's better that this happens under a separate article heading, because it will otherwise clutter the existing didgeridoo article. Also, these modern didgeridoo developments are not true didgeridoos, and it's arguable that they shouldn't be included to any great extent under the current didgeridoo article. To represent these distinct musical instrument innovations, I propose that the compromise solution is to have a separate article covering modern didgeridoo designs under the one heading. This would include slidedidge, didgebox, spiral didgeridoo, etc.. John Moss (talk) 08:20, 7 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) 00:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the travel didgeridoo article, I'm ok with the article being deleted, on the basis that there is a consensus that a broader article on modern didgeridoo innovations is an appropriate solution - not just for travel didgeridoo, but also for the other modern didge designs, including spiral didgeridoo and didgebox, which are also up for deletion. Collectively, there shouldn't be any argument on the notablility of modern didgeridoo innovations. It would be nice to have some feedback and consensus on this. I appreciate constructive collaboration. John Moss (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence of notability for modern didgeridoo innovations. There is a major lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P 95, Illustrated Encyclopedia Musical Instruments, Wade-Mathews,M., 2003: "McMahon has also played the didgeridoo with London Philharmonic Orchestra, and invented an instrument that he calls the "didgeribone". As its name suggests, it is a cross between a didgeridoo and a trombone, and consists of two wooden tubes placed one inside the other." That's a modern didgeridoo innovation citing in encyclopedic document.John Moss (talk) 01:51, 18 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. Creator agrees to a merger proposal; no other !votes present. Merger can be dealt with on the talk pages or just the author doing it himself. —fetch·comms 02:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral didgeridoo[edit]

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

No notability shown for this product. Sourced by stores (one the manufacturers shop) and one non reliable source that merely verifies its existence. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation of modern didgeridoo designs into one article[edit]

The issue with the modern didgeridoo designs - including spiral didgeridoo - is that they don't fit into the traditional didgeridoo category, and if there is going to be an expansion in the description of modern didgeridoo designs on wiki, it's better that this happens under a separate article heading, because it will otherwise clutter the existing didgeridoo article. Also, these modern didgeridoo developments are not true didgeridoos, and it's arguable that they shouldn't be included to any great extent under the current didgeridoo article. To represent these distinct musical instrument innovations, I propose that the compromise solution is to have a separate article covering modern didgeridoo designs under the one heading. This would include slidedidge, travelbox, spiral didgeridoo, etc.. Cheers.John Moss (talk) 01:11, 7 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) 00:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the spiral didgeridoo article, I'm ok with the article being deleted, on the basis that there is a consensus that a broader article on modern didgeridoo innovations is an appropriate solution - not just for spiral didgeridoo, but also for the other modern didge designs, including the articles on didgebox and travel didgeridoo, which are also up for deletion. Collectively, there shouldn't be any argument on the notablility of modern didgeridoo innovations. It would be nice to have some feedback and consensus on this. I appreciate constructive collaboration. John Moss (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence of notability for modern didgeridoo innovations. There is a major lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P 95, Illustrated Encyclopedia Musical Instruments, Wade-Mathews,M., 2003: "McMahon has also played the didgeridoo with London Philharmonic Orchestra, and invented an instrument that he calls the "didgeribone". As its name suggests, it is a cross between a didgeridoo and a trombone, and consists of two wooden tubes placed one inside the other." That's a modern didgeridoo innovation citing in encyclopedic document.John Moss (talk) 01:48, 18 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. Creator agrees to a merger proposal; no other !votes present. Merger can be dealt with on the talk pages or just the author doing it himself. —fetch·comms 02:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didgebox[edit]

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

No notability shown for this product. Sourced by stores and a manufacturers website. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to didgeridoo. Article states it's a modern version of it. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • would have considered redirecting there as it is mentioned in that article but after experience with articles creator after doing that with Spiral didgeridoo where my edit was called vandalism I'm sure that doing so would have met with a similar reaction. (and nothing is sourced by independent sources) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation of modern didgeridoo designs into one article[edit]

The issue with the modern didgeridoo designs - including didgebox - is that they don't fit into the traditional didgeridoo category, and if there is going to be an expansion in the description of modern didgeridoo designs on wiki, it's better that this happens under a separate article heading, because it will otherwise clutter the existing didgeridoo article. Also, these modern didgeridoo developments are not true didgeridoos, and it's arguable that they shouldn't be included to any great extent under the current didgeridoo article. To represent these distinct musical instrument innovations, I propose that the compromise solution is to have a separate article covering modern didgeridoo designs under the one heading. This would include slidedidge, didgebox, spiral didgeridoo, etc.. CheersJohn Moss (talk) 08:15, 7 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) 00:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the didgebox article, I'm ok with the article being deleted, on the basis that there is a consensus that a broader article on modern didgeridoo innovations is an appropriate solution - not just for didgebox, but also for the other modern didge designs, including spiral didgeridoo and travel didgeridoo, which are also up for deletion. Collectively, there shouldn't be any argument on the notablility of modern didgeridoo innovations. It would be nice to have some feedback and consensus on this. I appreciate constructive collaboration. John Moss (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence of notability for modern didgeridoo innovations. There is a major lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P 95, Illustrated Encyclopedia Musical Instruments, Wade-Mathews,M., 2003: "McMahon has also played the didgeridoo with London Philharmonic Orchestra, and invented an instrument that he calls the "didgeribone". As its name suggests, it is a cross between a didgeridoo and a trombone, and consists of two wooden tubes placed one inside the other." That's a modern didgeridoo innovation citing in encyclopedic document.John Moss (talk) 01:52, 18 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. Jujutacular talk 19:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Antonov[edit]

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

There is a lengthy bibliography but the article appears to fail the WP:BIO guidelines as there is no evidence of independent quality sources to establish notability. Most of the publications appear to be highly doubtful self-published self-promotion. Fæ (talk) 12:31, 6 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) 00:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Tags on this article that have not been addressed, at least from Dec. 2007 (when tags were dated), almost take up as much space as the article. I can find related books by an author with the same name but can find no information to satisfy [[WP:BIO) guidelines. There is also the fact that the article is not sourced or has "any" references. Otr500 (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fringe POV push cloaked as a bio: He claims to have developed a new branch of modern science called Methodology of Spiritual Development. He founded the Scientific Spiritual Ecological Center, called Swami. Carrite (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Antonov's cult and his "theories" have been well discussed in Russian-language RS, but I see no prospect of maintaining the English article in neutral tone. Apparently no one cares, apart from the POV-pushers. Deletion is the lesser evil. East of Borschov 11:17, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadi[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. No indication of notability and the article is unreferenced.Farhikht (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passes notability test. Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadi was awarded a Fullbright fellow and fellowship from the Iranian Ministry of Higher Education and Tehran University. He received his Ph.D. in Prehistoric Anthropology from the University of Pennsylvania. Shahmirzadi is a widely published author, and for instance, his Dictionary of Archeology English-Persian-Persian-English, which was first published in 1997 is still in print. Shahmirzadi lead a team of archaeologists in launching the Sialk Reconsideration Project. The Iranian Cultural Heritage News Agency reported that Shahmirzadi discovered the ziggurat and headed the research team. Shahmirzadi spoke at the Bolaghi Gorge Seminar held on Jan. 20, 2007 in Tehran. Chapters about Shahmirzadi are included in books about Iranian Scientists and Iranian Archaeologists. And a professor in Boston University's Department of Archaeology thanked him for including him in Shahmirzadi's research project at Tepe Sialk. This article is now solidly referenced. Please remove the delete request. BacheMosbat (talk) 2:40pm, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

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, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. Carrite (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no basis for the deletion of this article. mdanti (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.238.12 (talk) 17:24, 19 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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Kudos to MQS for sourcing this BLP. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Jackson-Keen[edit]

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

Performer who has had one significant role, no fan base, no unique or innovative contributions, thus fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Apparently appeared at UK National Gymnastics Championships, but no medals or Olympic participation so fails WP:ATHLETE#Gymnastics Jezhotwells (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Twinkle seems to have failed on this one. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Normally, I would say that one stage role other than the première isn't enough. However, Billy Elliott the Musical is one of the most well-known and successful musicals currently running in the West End, he got a reasonable amount of coverage in GNews for this, and he appears to be the first UK actor to play the titular role, and that just pushes it over the bar for me. If keep is not an option I suggest a redirect to Billy Elliot the Musical casts#Billy Elliott. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? First UK actor? Last time I looked at an atlas the North East of England was considered to be part of the UK. He is apparently the first Londoner to play the role. That is not particularly notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we are looking for substantive coverage rather than announcements of joining the cast and rehashed press releases. As I noted above he clearly fails to meet the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER. Perhaps when he grows up and undertakes other roles he will prove to have some notability, but being one of just 20+ child actors who have appeared in a role in one London theatre is not enough. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The creator of this article has written nothing else. Is this a case of autobiography? If so, I do not think WP allows it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true, else Jimmy Wales' own article about himself would be deleted. COI is always a concern, but is sometimes better addressed through regular editing by others, rather than a deletion based upon suspicions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The lead in Billy Elliot is notable; sourcing should not be too difficult to find. The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:04, 13 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) 00:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As I noted above, three or four child actors play the title role at any one time (giving two or three performances per week), as the law forbids their over exploitation. The actors who played the title role in the première production were Liam Mower, James Lomas, George Maguire. Since then sixteeen others have taken this role in London, there are also productions on Broadway, Australia, Seoul, and there has been one US tour, soon to be another. Altogether at least 50 child actors have taken the role. Are you suggesting that all of these, including those who have had no other significant acting roles should have Wikipedia articles? I have checked out sourcing, one minor role in a television production of Hogfather and a few TV appearances promoting the musical. The GNews hits mentioned above are nearly all nnouncements of his casting. A few interviews, not substantial coverage. That is it and it does not confer the notability required by WP:ENTERTAINER. Maybe in a few years' time when he has grown up, been to college and starts taking other roles (if he stays in the acting profession), which may not happen, then he might gain some sort of notability - at present no. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant and substantial are not the same thing. Per WP:GNG, what is required is that the sources address the subject directly and in detail in a more-than-trivial fashion, and clarifies that the subject in question need not be the main foucus of the source's topic. Any actor is quite lucky to receive even two or three sentences in context to his performance a review that otherwise concerntrates on plot and theme and director and lighting, etc.... and his being determined notable enough to be interviewed for his by reliable sources is quite telling... specially for theater. That others might have performed a role maters not, as long as the subject himself has received the individual coverage for his own unique and individual contribution(s) to the role(s). If others in this role also have significant coverage, they might yes, merit articles as well... but with respects, this discussion is not about other unwritten articles... it's only about this one person, and the notability his has achieved for his own contributions... not unwritten contributions of any others, and the sources so far offered can lead one to a reasonable presumption that more sources exist, and that the project will benefit by this article remaining and be further improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's look at the guideline WP:ENTERTAINER.

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
    No, one role only.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
    No evidence of this.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
    No evidence of this.

Thus the article subject fails the guideline. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note further that of the ten references given above by Eudemis, five are mirrors of each other, actually mentioning that another boy had joined the cast, two which are mirors of each other announce that he is from London, the rest are just one line mentions, neither substantial nor significant. Oh, and it appears that 33 boys have now played the role in London. As to the interviews, all of the boys are regularly wheeled out for one or two minute spots on breakfast television by the show's marketing team. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your points, while nicely presented, tend to forget the forest while trying to fell a single tree. When a stage actor recieves coverage for his unique contribution to a role... it does not matter to Wikipedia that 10 or 50 or a thousand others might have performed that same role in other places or at other times. It is by an actor's own recognized individual contribution that notability may be determined. So, if or when articles appear on other young actors, we can judge those at that time.... but until that time, it remains a WP:WAX argument to speculate upon what does not exist, as we are here to judge this ONE... and not articles not yet written.
And your comments above toward "one role only", as if that was all he ever did in his entire young life, seems to forget that the individual has indeed done more than just the one stage role... his having been on several notable television programs... and his having competed in the UK National Gymnastics finals. Is his competing 4 times in those gymnastic finals a consideration? Did he win an award, or any recognition for his participation?
He won no medals, competed at junior level, fails WP:ATHLETE#Gymnastics. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So we need not worry about WP:ATH. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was his role as Young Albert in Hogfather significant? Was the character key to the plot, or simply a throw-away? Was his character of Jamie Parks in his single appearnce in an episode of The Bill a significant role in that episode? Was "Jamie Parks" not key to plot or storyline?
Both minor roles, just a few lines. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consideration of what comprises a significant contribution is based upon importance to storyline and plot. We do not count "lines" to determine if a role or character is significant to a storyline... specially as there are unarguably significant roles in certain notable works where the actor has no lines whatsoever. And it's not as if these roles were descriptives such as "boy number 2", or "schoolyard bully". They were named roles for this actor. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it of note that his work was considered by UK television to be enough worth discussing that he was interviewed in 2008 on both This Morning and What's on Theatre... and again in 2010 (well past his stage days) on The Alan Titchmarsh Show? Wow. An actor being interviewed on talk shows about his roles. Not so strange... as that IS what such shows do. And it does not matter if an actor is 12 or 72... as an interview is an interview.
A couple of minutes in each interview, with lengthier excerpts from the show. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even a governor might get only a very few minutes on a talk show, if the show's format is set to share multiple interviews over a restrictive show length. I am reminded of such notable shows as The Tonight Show and Late Show with David Letterman... where a star might make a guest appearance, answer questions for a few minutes, share excerpts of an upcoming film, and then depart. Such format does not make the star's appearance of less note. It is in being asked to appear that is the key. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And too, their production departments have guest criteria that must be met... such as a guest being of enough interest to the viewing audience so that they might watch... and so have a viewership that attracts the sponsors who pay for commercial time during the show's timeslot... sponsors who would not pay if audiences did not tune in. It is commercial televison after all... and a show that does not give the viewers what they want to see, soon gets cancelled.
One must use criteria sagely, and not as a bludgeon... and one must not look so hard at one thing that the overall picture is forgotten, as we Wikipedians should best determine an overall notability, even if minor, based upon an overall career... and not one thing taken out of context. Well... I may not have convinced you... but I have convinced myself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can agree to disagree. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And it is through this discussion that I have convinced myself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if someone cared to add some RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will be getting to it myself, as it does need to be done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The needed improvements and sourcing have begun... so far turning the unsourced stub as first sent to AFD into THIS. More to do yes, but definitely do-able. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:08, 17 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 without prejudice as to any merge. No one is suggesting deletion. The nom proposes merge and redirect, which is not a deletion. This is an editorial decision, which should be resolved on the relevant article page(s). Ty 06:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarion Alley[edit]

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

This San Francisco street is notable for only one thing: the Clarion Alley Mural Project, which there is already an article about. The article is therefore a needless duplication. The article should be reduced to a redirect to Clarion Alley Mural Project, and any usable information from this article moved to that one. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect to Clarion Alley Mural Project per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on The article was created because links from both Clarion Alley and Clarion Alley Mural Project were being redirected to the Mission School article, which I found quite problematic. Balmy Alley is listed as Balmy Alley. The Clarion Alley Mural Project is a different beast because the Mural Project is a collective that does other work in other sites. The actual alley is still a notable geographic place, while the Mural Project has the name of the Alley because of its origins there, but is much more as an organization. Further, the geographic space has undergone changes and registers as a symbol of gentrification, as well as inclusiveness and Mission District culture. This article needs to be expanded, but I don't think it should be deleted. Cleshne (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If this alley is in itself notable (independent of the mural project) then you could say the same of the majority of the streets in the city of San Francisco or any other large city. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have noticed that some streets have entries. This street has become a landmark because of the murals, but it has an interesting history as a location too. The Clarion Alley Mural Project is an organization that has done work and substantial projects not associated with the location, so it's difficult to merge the articles - if they were to merge, it seems better to redirect the mural project to the Clarion Alley page, which would match the Balmy Alley format (similar street with murals lining it, but without the collective that does off site work)Cleshne (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI just attempted to merge the articles to Clarion Alley. Not sure that works, so reversed it. Cleshne (talk) 19:33, 7 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) 00:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination wants to merge and this can't be done if the article is deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:55, 14 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don Valley Railway[edit]

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

Non-notable railway project. Generated minimal local press interest (1 article) when announced in 2006. Now looks to be defunct—there is no further press coverage, and their web site has not been updated since 2007. Jeremy (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable, and the first reference is stored on their own website. I cannot find it anywhere else. Goodvac (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if someone wants this, otherwise Delete. At the moment, we don't know whether this project will ever take off, so the question is whether this project would still be considered notable if it gets no further. Based on the coverage on GNews at the moment, it looks like a no. Should construction begin, it would undoubtedly be a yes, but we're not there yet. (There would, however, be a case for including this in a list of proposed/defunct heritage railway projects in the UK should someone want to do that.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Granted, notability's not well-established and acceptable sources are hard to locate; however, I did find this from a bit over a month ago, stating that a commuter service, in addition to the weekend heritage service, was another proposed use of the new line. That seems to indicate that there's still some life left in the project. I've added that information and source to the article; however,I've not yet located anything later than that news item to indicate any further progress. Northumbrian (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I held off from nominating this article for a long time to see if there were any further developments. In the light of the new information that you have found I am happy to say weak keep too. I'll maybe revisit the article in a few months. —Jeremy (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good. I found another source with a bit more content and restructured the article a bit. Certainly a slow-motion project to say the least. Northumbrian (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as above. Needs much more content but if this can be found then the article could be useful NRTurner (talk) 13:47, 10 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, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- In view of recent additions, this may now be a weak keep, but there is rather too much WP:CRYSTAL about it. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 14 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) 04:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giju John[edit]

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

Not sure he meets any notability criteria. Chris (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is a budding Musician, who had his album blending Indian music and Salsa. Was recognised as the 'Pioneer of Latin-Indian Music Genre by the Global NRI(Non Resident Indian) Summit in California —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.246 (talk) 12:35, 9 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, 13 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_August_13&oldid=1142642565"