Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 12

< 11 July	13 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Further discussion is highly encouraged on the article's talk page, but thus far there has been no consensus for deletion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bel-Air, Florida[edit]

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

Have lived in Seminole County my whole life, and I have never heard to anyone refer to any area in Seminole County as Bel-Air. There is a lake called Bel-Air, but only a hand-full of people know about it. This location is 1) Not Notable, 2) Lacks Citations (which would not be able to be found), 3) is an uncommon reference, and 4) does not exist as a place or city within the American FactFinder maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau

Weak Keep, but not as a town. - It actually appears to be a historical grove, called the "Belair grove" owned by Henry Shelton Sanford [1][2]The grove doesn't exist anymore and was probably developed long ago, hence the nom has never heard of it. This 1887 book about Florida agriculture calls it "famous as the birth-place of some new varieties, as well as the Belair Lemon, now so widely circulated." Other sources write of the grove too. [3] It probably should be re-named "Belair Grove."--Oakshade (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Census-designated places are all notable. The article does not some modification, though. Dew Kane (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a Census Designated place, please read the logic. Look through the U.S. Census website, it not recognized as a place. Frank0051 (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep According to the GNIS, Bel-Air is actually a neighborhood, and its coordinates place it within Sanford, Florida. (I've changed the article to reflect this.) Neighborhoods don't always deserve their own articles, and I'm not totally convinced we shouldn't just merge this into Sanford, but there appear to be a few other sources for this (mostly what Oakshade found for Belair grove, which seems to be the predecessor of the neighborhood). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any reason why we should keep it as a non-notable neighborhood, as opposed to perhaps changing it to BelAir Grove or just plain deleting it? Frank0051 (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against moving this to an article about Belair Grove, since there appear to be more sources about that. I'm not totally invested in keeping it as is; as I said, it's a weak keep, and even that's mostly because of the Belair Grove references. At the least, though, it should be redirected to Sanford since it is listed in the GNIS. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Sanford. If that is the situation, it is too non-notable for a standalone article. The city of Sanford does not recognize any neighborhoods on its website, and its only references to BelAir are to a street, BelAir Boulevard, and to the historic BelAir Grove referenced above. I was the one who contested the prod after finding Realtor references to it as a place, but apparently that was just Realtor talk. However, it was enough IMO to bring it to discussion instead of prodding it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack O'Lantern (film)[edit]

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

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

Subject is a non-notable horrow film (2004). No reviews by prominent critics or publications. A few reviews by very minor critics but not near enough to pass WP:NFILM. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Yup... a crappy film, panned by reviews on sites accepted as generally reliable for their genre... and bad as it apparently is, it has gotten more coverage than one might expect... specially for it being such an amateurish shlockfest. For what it is (and no, it will never be an major award-winner, nor would such as Roger Ebert review it), it squeeks through WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since DVD Verdict and DVD Talk appear to have well-established notability and the DVD has been distributed by a major house (Lionsgate Home Entertainment), I feel the subject is just notable enough to have its own article. As an aside, I'm kind of surprised that this article was created by an editor with the same name as one of the film's leads. I'm not really sure if there's no such thing as bad publicity. Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:02, 13 July 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 (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Madden[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. No indication that his roles have amounted to anything more than minor support. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is undergoing expansion and sourcing. I will grant that research is hampered by his having a common name, but my very first search found a terrific article about the fellow in The Scotsman,[4] and another in Herald Scotland.[5] More is in the offing as I continue work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up: The article has now gone through some major changes to meet the nominator's good faith concerns. What began as a one-sentence, unsourced stub[6] has now become a decent Start or B class.[7] Glad to help. --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Kudos to MichaelQSchmidt for wading through the swamp of Richard Maddens to find the specific references. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Lauter[edit]

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

Non-notable music producer. The only reference that can be found about him is from the alumni magazine of his own college. While some of the acts he has been associated with are notable, his work does not seem to have contributed to that notability (at least not so much as has been noted in any publications). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps he will gain notability int he future but not now. It appears he is in the up and coming category. There is this profile in Mix magazine which is the most (only) substantial item. He is mentioned here and there but that's not enough for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 13 July 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 (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unocore[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable neologism, fails WP:Madeup. Moreover the article reads like an opinion piece. De728631 (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, severely fails WP:MADEUP (and WP:N, of course). Glenfarclas (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only Ghits I can find are blogs and passing mentions on last.fm. The article also really talks more about ridicule of the band Rose Funeral than the supposed genre itself. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It may look opinianted but they are true facts. People DO play Uno at rose funeral concerts and the band is often is refered to as Rose FUNOral. There are some UNOCORE bands now that mock the sound of Rose Funeral and make fun of them so it is a real genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.65.90 (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. -- The Anome (talk) 13:45, 14 July 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 (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamin Thompson[edit]

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

doesn t at all appear to be WP notable as a tennis player, as a model, or an actor. The bio isn t a hoax - there is an ATP profile for him [8], however he never competed in the main draw of either Challenger or ATP level event (despite what the WP bio states) - in fact he apparently never competed in a main draw of a single ITF Futures tournament, the other type that gives ranking points. His high ranking was World No. 1270 in doubles and NR in singles [9] Mayumashu (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established through reliable sources. Google news archive shows only trivia mentions as college tennis player. Doesn't meet wp:ath. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorucing does not indicate he is a notable tennis player. Other accomplishments are not documented in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 13 July 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 (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Contra 7[edit]

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

Non-notable, a "hack" game Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) –MuZemike 01:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I cannot find any significant coverage in any reliable sources here. Nothing but a forum mention here and there and "download this ROM now!" sites. –MuZemike 01:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would have to agree with User:MuZemike here. I could find nothing at all in terms of reliable sources for this article. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources; just blogs and forum posts. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Gaming Wikia. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 05:26, 14 July 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 (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kou Dai Jing Ling - Fei Cui[edit]

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

Non-notable, a "hack" game Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) –MuZemike 01:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically the same thing as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Contra 7 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon Red (Famicom) (in fact, these three articles were all created by the same person) – I'm coming up blank once again as far as trying to find anything reliable is concerned. –MuZemike 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources; just blogs and forum posts. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 13 July 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 (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Red (Famicom)[edit]

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

Non-notable, a "hack" game Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing to indicate that this is anything other than a non-notable hack of an original game. I also asked for a reason why he removed the first PROD template I put on and there was no response. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is completely unsourced and does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of its subject. Furthermore, because the article subject itself is a non-notable unauthorized bootleg video game, it would be inappropriate to convert this page into a redirect. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) –MuZemike 01:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems pretty straightfoward to me. I can't find a single reference to this thing or the company that made it except on warez and ROM sites. While I suppose it could be notable within the ROM hacking community, I don't believe that is sufficient to fulfill notability requirements here. (am I supposed to put this above or below that note there?) Keyok (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You put the comment in the right place :) –MuZemike 01:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I could not find anything about this bootleg anywhere besides links to video sites, "download this ROM" sites, and otherwise unreliable blogs and forums. –MuZemike 01:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence given (and probably no evidence exists) of non-trivial mention in independent published reliable sources. RJaguar3 | u | t 06:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Gaming Wikia. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 05:26, 14 July 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 (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer to Peer (P2P) study model[edit]

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

The original version of this article had possible copy-paste issues, but after that was cleaned up it still doesn't seem to be a notable subject, as I couldn't find anything reliable. If anything, it could be moved to the Finnish Wikipedia (if there's a way to easily do that, let me know and I'll speedily close this). Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is a unique degree programme of business management studies. In this programme there are no lessons or exams, but all the studies are implemented through projects that are organized together with different companies. A non-notable course. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparently not notable. Nuujinn (talk) 16:41, 17 July 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 (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Brandon[edit]

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

This BLP has been unsourced for over two years. I could find no significant independent coverage of the subject to verify he meets general notability or WP:ARTIST. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 20:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search came up with nothing but his Myspace, Youtube videos, etc. After two years, some independent sources would have surfaced if the subject met our notability guidelines. Christina Silverman (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sorces available to establish notability. --Whpq (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the way of sources to meet WP:ARTIST. ~~[10] is probably the closest thing to secondary, reliable source I"ve seen and I'm dubious it meets RS.~~ --j⚛e decker ^talk 13:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That article is an interview with Brandon Heath who is notable and is not Heath Brandon. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well, that was a silly mistake for me to have made. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Then that makes two of us because when I first started looking into this AFD, I got the name backwards and was going to go with a strong keep as the guy was an obvious award winner and the article just needed expansion. Luckily, I noticed I had it backswards before committing my !vote and comments. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The BLP Rescue project is forcing me to recognize that these non-notable pages exist! I did find a video of the dude covering "I Kissed A Girl" on youtube, a little john mayer-like fun.[11] And he's appeared in some white castle commercials. But wikipedia is a negative for this young musician.--Milowent (talk) 17:43, 15 July 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. Tikiwont (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truth Be Told film[edit]

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

Film which doesn't seem to exist - no IMDB entry, no coverage can be found through google. I suspect this article is a hoax - key search terms just give the Wikipedia article - [12]. Claritas § 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have asked the author for a clarification. I'll wait to see if I get an answer before weighing in on this. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. This search doesn't even come back to anything. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a blatant hoax, but per the shovel I'm leaning on, I'm not removing the tag. Claritas § 20:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seeing that the author's response to my query about the film was to change the name of the leading actress from a very famous one to an unknown, I suspect the author has no intention of creating a valid article here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Hoax" has now become pretty clear, but even if it weren't so, there is no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just performed a search for every actor listed in the article. None were ever in a film titled Truth Be Told. I performed a search for every film ever titled Truth Be Told, and none of them have plotlines even similar to this one. Someone had a lot of time on their hands and a good imagination. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:08, 13 July 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 (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just Add Water -Yale[edit]

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

There appears to be no significant discussion of this group anywhere outside of the Yale Daily News--see this Google News search. No sources are provided that contribute to the article passing WP:N. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find one or two very minor references to the group in publications other than the school newspaper, (e.g., this one), but nothing amounting to significant independent coverage of the group itself. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete puff piece for student comedians. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was trying to be nice. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable IJA (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 13 July 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 (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaden Leigh[edit]

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

I cannot find independent coverage of this individual to verify the information in the article - the claims to notability are a bit of a stretch (such as the red carpet interviews) and the article seems purely promotional in intent. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 19:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMDB provides no credit list which makes it impossible to judge his body of work as tje article also makes no mention of it. Looking through the history of the article at older versions, it appears his work has mainly been TV commercials. There is no coverage about this person in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another article that the BLP Rescue project must part with, as he is not notable or verifiable in the least. Article creator "HollywoodPunkAss" originally posted the text of the article to Wikipedia:Introduction in May 2007, [13] -- Separate article was then declined for creation for lack of good sources, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2007-05-24#Jaden_Leigh. A year later, same creator came back and since his account was now old enough to create articles, I guess, he created it. Not suprisingly, the "HollywoodPunkAss" channel on youtube is closely associated with article subject.--Milowent (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in Gnews, Gbooks, nothing but two possible incidental references in the LA weekly that say nothing more than a person with this name who acted in a single play exists as a human being. I don't see how this can pass the GNG, never mind WP:END, etc. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:36, 15 July 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. The one outstanding delete comment was based on a misunderstanding. TerriersFan (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laborschule Bielefeld[edit]

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

This school doesn't meet IMO the critieria for inclusion in Wikipedia. In addition it goes against WP:Advertising Sulmues (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep, highly prominent experimental school with lots of public debate and critical coverage. Certainly more notable than all those routine US highschools we have articles on. Except of course for the fact that the city it's located in is a hoax. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As much as I'm a fan of cutting down on schoolcruft on Wikipedia I don't think this falls into that category. It's definitely notable (both for being an unusually-run school and for being called one of Germany's finest) and well-sourced for a starting article. It definitely needs an NPOV check, and possibly a gutting of any controversial unsourced statements but I don't see any reason to delete it entirely. elektrik SHOOS 19:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep One of Germany's most famous and most controversial schools. Received lots of press coverage and there are several books written about it. (As for unsourced statements. I translated the article from German. Unfortunatly not every statement had a source on the German Wikipedia)-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Claritas § 20:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable experimental school - subject of several books and many press articles. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I retract nomination. An admin can close. See also talk page. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete Bielefeld does not exist.95.209.176.248 (talk) 20:51, 15 July 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. Further discussion of merge/redirect options are strongly encouraged on the article's talk page, however. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball All-Star Game venues[edit]

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

One reference on a future site and that is IT. Makes absolutely no claim of notability and is completely unnecessary as it is merely a restatement of information already included at List of Major League Baseball All-Star Game winners. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per DB-A10. elektrik SHOOS 19:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A10 says "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic." A) This article was created 2 and a half years ago. It is not recently created. B) This article is about venues, not about results. The information on this article is not duplicated elsewhere. Kingturtle (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Major League Baseball All-Star Game winners. The title itself isn't somehow problematic, so there's no reason not to redirect to the existing article that contains this content. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (75.144.22.57 (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Why? Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could be a legitimate article if there was more sourcing, and of course a demonstration of notability. As it is though, it is superfluous. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am happy to provide sources. Kingturtle (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you said this a few days ago and I don't see any new sources. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - are you kidding me? This is useful information for baseball historians. Part of the history of the baseball all-star game is which cities and which fields get to host it. This content is very different from the page that lists the winners. This article is not about who won the games. It is about the venues. Which parks hosted it most often? Which cities hosted it most often? Which cities have been neglected the longest. There is no reason to delete this article. Do not redirect this to a page that contains different information and does not contain extensive venue information. Leave it alone. Kingturtle (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exact same information is mirrored there, and which locations have hosted the most can be summarized with a sentence or two in that article's lead. Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Results and venue history are different entities. Kingturtle (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But the information is included there. Very clearly. You can't just break off each individual factoid about an event with a main list without a claim of independent notability and make another stand alone list or every sporting event will have a list of winners, list of losers, list of venues, list of winning coaches, list of losing coaches, etc, etc, etc. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information that included there is not organized in the same way. And you are under a major misconception if you think that Major League Baseball All-Star Game venues is a break off the main list. Major League Baseball All-Star Game venues was created on its own. The winners article is about results. The venue article is about the venues, and provides easy access to information that is of interest. Kingturtle (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then where is the sourcing that satisfies WP:GNG or WP:STANDALONE? Because as far as I know analysts don't spend their time focusing too hard on the history of where the ASG was held. They mention it in passing if the game has been there before, but that's just about it. Same as why, as I've said, we don't have a venue list for a litany of other major sporting events. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The venue of the MLB all-star game is notable. And until the All-star Game determined WS home field advantage, one could argue the the venue was more important than the result. Lists of venues of important events are not unknown to Wikipedia: List of The Open Championship venues and List of NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament venues, for example. The article in question is different than the other article in that it is organized, and designed with a particular emphasis on the history of all-star game venues. Kingturtle (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is List of Super Bowl venues (redirects to winners page)? List of World Series venues? Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is third party sourcing showing an interest in the history of where the ASG was held. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete I think some of the info is interesting from a baseball history standpoint and worth keeping, but not in it's own article. Would support merging some of the info (if sources are found) to List of Major League Baseball All-Star Game winners, and maybe moving that article to a more generic name like simply List of Major League Baseball All-Star Games. Ryan2845 (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In baseball, stadiums hold part of the history. Each stadium has its own quirks, stories, and histories. All-Star Game venues are part of the lore of major league baseball. In fact, until recently when game results determine post season activities, the venue was more important than the result. The all-star game is used to showcase new parks. Major League Baseball puts a great deal of effort into determining which parks are to be used, and then puts a great deal of effort into promoting the specific park. Therefore, an article exploring the frequency and usage of stadiums for the all-star game makes sense. Kingturtle (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. All this article does is mirror the information present at the winners list. It does not somehow go more in depth on the grand history of baseball parks. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You proport that it is merely a mirror, but in that, you are wrong. There is indeed information in the article that does not exist in the other one. For example, the other articles says nothing about which parks are active and which are defunct, nor anything about parks that have not hosted the event, nor anything about hosting All-Star Game and post-season games in same season. Kingturtle (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is unsourced, both in terms of factual-ness (whether the park is closed) and in terms of importance (again, many much larger sporting events like the Super Bowl have no such venue list, so who's to say these things need to be on WP without sourcing to that fact?). Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Still waiting on a source that actually states what you claim about importance, or in fact satisfies WP:GNG at all. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So place a tag on the page requesting such things. It may take me weeks to find the proper references. I am quite busy these days, and have little time to go through my books. I'm not sure what the hurry is here. Kingturtle (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfying GNG is the basic tenet for the existence of an article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. We should be deleting List of Major League Baseball All-Star Game winners. That's trivia -- the actual playing of the all-star game is meaningless. But where the all-star game is played, and who plays in it -- that is useful information. The jockeying over the privilege of hosting an all-star game is one of the biggest civic battles that MLB team owners engage in; it's fair to call it their version of competing to host the Olympics (and boy, do we have plenty of articles speculating about future Olympic hosts!) --M @r ē ino 15:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an interesting page. Only part is restated in the other. The table of who has hosted the most is interesting to me. --LAA Fan 19:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per non trivial material. The article has encyclopedic value. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also rename to "List of Major League Baseball All-Star Game venues". --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:57, 19 July 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 (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Home Run Derby broadcasters[edit]

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

Makes absolutely no claim of satisfying WP:GNG at all. A giant standalone list of broadcasters and field reporters, heavily uncited, of a side-bar event to an already side-bar event with a one sentence lead that makes no claim of notability? And a most of the references which are there are from Baseball Almanac which, while a great site, has never solidly been established as a reliable source AFAIK Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What he said, that's one of the most complete AfD reasonings I've read. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual Home Run Derby articles mention broadcasters already, including non-American broadcasters, which are not mentioned in this article. Some members of the Toronto Blue Jays participate in the Home Run Derby (including this year's) and the Jays are not based in the United States (the Jays' home station is Rogers Sportsnet, which carries the Home Run Derby as well). Thus, this article represents US bias. I would keep this article only if it includes non-American broadcasters as well. I am both a member of WP:JAYS and WP:CSB. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any article with solely a list of broadcasters and no other useful information is not notable. Reywas92^Talk 02:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent characters#Nicole Wallace. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Wallace[edit]

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

Delete - no sources that indicate this fictional character is independently notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Otto4711 (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the relevant subsection of the character list. As the nominator pointed out, no significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and IMO pure fancruft - basic in-universe plot summary. Claritas § 20:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and Merge mostly per Claritas. There's probably a good balance between the excessive plot coverage in this article and the terse overview in the list article; the exact amount of merging can be left to a normal editorial process. Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Claritas. No independent coverage that would WP:verify notability. Merging in information can be left to editorial process. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent characters. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Rodgers[edit]

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

Delete - no sources indicate that this fictional character is independently notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Nothing is sourced and there's no obvious redirect target, so merger and redirect is not appropriate. Otto4711 (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent characters. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Neutralhomer. Note that the nom is incorrect: the article is sourced to primary sources, which meet V (but not N) and hence an excellent candidate for a merger. Name is a plausible search term, so even failing a merge, a redirect to the character list entry is entirely appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Neutralhomer as a compromise. Article only consists of primary sources which is not enough to WP:verify notability and makes this bad for a stand alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National dish[edit]

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

This was recently heavily trimmed and referenced, but unfortunately it still does not belong in the encyclopedia. The definition of "national dish" is far too vague and uninformative, serving only to assert that a list of pairing will follow, and the actual list itself - despite now being referenced - does not actually establish sufficiently that most of these are regarded as "national dishes", rather than simply being identified with some nation or well thought of there. Better to move this information to the individual nation articles (where appropriate and if it's missing) and delete this as an insufficiently well-defined list. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, redefine, and keep ~~I haven't formed an opinion yet, I lean delete.~~ I have always had a problem with the title of this article. The contents have always been problematic to source, and even now I am surprised foie gras is missing from France despite an easy source [14]. Although, it occurs that this could be salvaged by changing the title, "list of dishes popular by region" for example, that may be too indiscriminate. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Making a list of overwhelmingly popular dishes could be done, because that's a much clearer criterion. The current list is a mix of popular dishes, dishes that are explicitly a part of national self-identification (Italy and pasta), and dishes that are identified with some nation mostly by outsiders. It's the muddle that's the largest problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is just inviting endless debate over what constitutes a national dish. (I can see at least three foods on that list that I would change.) And while I will not debate the notability of having an article about a nation's signature cuisines, it should be in the form of individual articles for each country so that multiple foods can be included and discussed rather than one "signature" dish which would rarely gain consensus, perhaps with a portal that combines the respective articles. elektrik SHOOS 19:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The irony of your rationale is that, in fact, it is possible to verifiably say, based upon reliable sources, that people have strong opinions and conflicts over what constitutes a national dish, in an encyclopaedia article on the subject. Your rationale is not a deletion rationale at all, but rather article content. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. This is a good article worthy of project inclusion. A paper encyclopedia could not hadle this, but we are a perfect venue. For those dishes that are debatable, simply state it is debatable and list all entries that may be considered "national dish". There should really not be hundreds, there may be 2-4. I bet that google gets thousands of searches on "national dish". keep per WP:N. Take a look at the sourcing, it is adequate. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - who decides the national dish ? It's a matter of tradition, and can't be verified. Claritas § 20:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In some countries, the government, apparently. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The impossibility of finding an appropriate definition is enough. Both of the words are themselves not straightforward concepts (i.e. "national" and "dish"). The fact that Google hits appear for "national dish" says little about the necessity of its inclusion in an encyclopedia. I say this should be taken off the menu indefinitely.Jimjamjak (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. This article should be explaining the term "National dish" in general [de-wiki handles their article this way and I think we should do the same on en:wiki. The pre-existing article should be moved to "List of national and traditional dishes by country" (or similar) which gives us more freedom, should please our editors and give our readers the knowledge they're looking for.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Magnificent Clean-keeper. "National dish" is a perfectly notable concept, as you can get a flavor of by looking here. Compiling a list of national dishes may or may not present insurmountable problems (I wouldn't think so, if the list can be derived from reliable sources, e.g. this one). Still, there's plenty that can be said about the topic. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definition of list is not specific enough. The concept needs to be better defined in order to have any hope of consensus.SharkxFanSJ (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it needs work and the concept needs to more clearly defined to make it encyclopaedic, but a particular dish can be a significant part of a nation's culture- like fish and chips in the UK, for example. The concept itself is plenty notable enough for an article. Exactly what parameters we set is a difficult question, but not one that can be answered in a deletion discussion. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this article claims -- per a speech by an arbitrary politco -- that fish and chips is not the national dish but rather Chicken Tikka Masala is?! For me this is the kernel of the reason why this should be deleted -- its totally arbitrary. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's the kernel of the reason that you and some other editors should consider turning your hands to writing. It can be verifiably said in an article that national dishes are disputed, and not necessarily even national. You've come to an AFD discussion presenting human knowledge about national dishes as somehow the basis for not having an article about them. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to contain human knowledge. Propounding human knowledge of a subject as a reason not to have an article about that subject is a self-defeating argument. It's rather a reason for having an article, containing the knowledge being propounded. Find a source that supports this knowledge that you have, and write.
    And go and read the English section of the German Wikipedia article, too. Uncle G (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as with many of these lists, the content is totally subjective and quite impossible to source meaningfully. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As The Magnificent Clean-keeper notes, both the Spanish Wikipedia and the German Wikipedia have far better articles on this subject. I suggest that anyone thinking that it's not possible to write (sourced) analysis of this concept go and read es:plato nacional and de:Nationalgericht. The saddest thing about this deletion nomination and the rationales above, is that no-one seems to have clicked on that "history" link to look at the history of the article, where one will find that it used to look rather different, until this vandalism occurred in March 2010. That was actually the part of the article that should have been expanded upon and improved, as the Portuguese, Spanish, German, and even (to an extent) Hebrew Wikipedias have all done, not lost to vandalism and forgotten. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since that edit removed content that was entirely unreferenced I wouldn't call it vandalism at all. Blanking unreferenced content as an editing response to conflict is quite normal. Whether or not that was teh motive of the IP who blanked it (without an edit summary) we do not know, but this article has had serious edit wars in its history as well. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

- - Those edit wars weren't over that part of the article at all, and are wholly unrelated. Look at them. Some of The Usual Suspects were arguing over their usual bone of contention. And it's fairly clear that that edit was vandalism. Look at it. We should recognize section blanking vandalism when it is before us. This is pretty much its canonical form. Characterizing such blanking vandalism as attempted improvement, when in this case it removed the part of the article that should have been retained and built upon, and left the part of the article that was just a raw laundry list and that should have been turned into prose and eliminated, is, at best, a weak and wholly fallacious argument.
    Go and read the Spanish and German Wikipedias' articles, and go and read the actual prose that was vandalized. They are almost existence proofs that it is possible to have a verifiable article with analysis of this subject, and that it is possible to get to one by writing, without use of administrator tools at all. And that's to ignore the editors ironically justifying deletion here with potential article content. Uncle G (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit again, I see that what was added made it vandalism. Still, I'll stand by that removing unreferenced text isn't automatically vandalism. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

BTW, good job on adding referenced content, I assume translated from es. Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

- - It wasn't. I spent a couple of minutes looking for sources, found a reasonable one, took it in hand, and wrote. That was before I found the vandalism in the edit history, too. The Spanish and German Wikipedias, and indeed what was vandalized out of this article, show that there's much more to say on this subject, too, from shared national dishes in Europe, through historical changes to national dishes, to the problems of stereotyping. Uncle G (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I changed my vote. I'm sure your experience and wisdom will extend to shepherding the article to a good state. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep Hundreds of encylopedias recount the national dishes of various places. Scholars discuss the construction of such dishes as a matter of nation building - see The history of sensibilities. The topic is therefore notable and our editing policy is to improve rather than to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article provides a lot of good informations and also serves as some kind of portal for anyone interested in world culinary-art, its origin and connection with nations and even natonalism sentiments. And yes.., this article needs a rewriting and more references. Deleting this article would be such a loss of compiled informations provides by wikipedians (Gunkarta (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Keep this article is a terrible mess currently but it certainly notable , it's certainly can be referenced far better and it's needs some inclusion criteria. All of this can be fixed Gnevin (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the concept of a national dish is certainly notable. At issue is the actual content which is not a reason for deletion. There will be disputes over what is a notional dish. That's the reality. But the information can be sourced and worked through. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^verbalize 18:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but... delete the list of national dishes in the article. There are no sources which establish one singular dish as the national dish of each country. There are multiple national dishes for many of these countries, and listing only one is deceptive. For instance, Sauerbraten is listed as the national dish of Germany, but what about Bratwurst, Weisswurst, Schnitzel, Spätzle, etc. SnottyWong ^verbalize 18:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons above. Maashatra11 (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With sourcing well under way on the list, the only thing I can think of to add to it would be a brief description of the different items. I'm glad to see a concerted effort on this one. Mandsford 21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage for this. Clicking the Google news search link at the top of the AFD [15] you'll find the first page of results shows it mentioning the national dish of one nation after another. Dream Focus 07:54, 14 July 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 (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger L. Brooks[edit]

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

No reliable sources, single editor, definitely COI ccwaters (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just an online resume for a non-notable marketing guy. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - spam and no allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tribute to Eric Rohmer[edit]

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

Short film clip of questionable notability. Only provided reference is a dead link, and other than the title of the YouTube clip, there's no way to know if this was really made by Godard or not. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found about the film on Google suggesting it doesn't exist. Surely a film by one of the greatest directors on another great director would have some coverage? Hoax article? Lugnuts (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep - sources found to establish notability. Good work! Lugnuts (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have fixed the link to the article. The reference is about 3/4 of the way down. This is a real film, I included a link to the film itself as posted on youtube. You kids need to stick to cleaning up childish vandalism and leave the rest of us alone. Yinzland 18:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a hoax. or Redirect/Merge this stub to Eric Rohmer as the film tribute is about him. This hommage exists and was indeed screened at the "Soirée en hommage à Eric Rohmer" at Cinémathèque française,[16] but it does not (yet) have the coverage to meet WP:NF. If it recieves distribution and coverage, it might always be spun back out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its existence seems to have been satisfactorily established. Its notability was never in serious doubt. Varlaam (talk) 17:55, 13 July 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 Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 1)#Episodes. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Extra Man (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode)[edit]

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

Delete - no independent reliable sources indicate that this specific episode is independently notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Episode is covered in appropriate detail at Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 1), nothing here is sourced and the article's title is a highly implausible search term, so there is no need for a merge or redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See discussions for other episodes of this series here, here and here all resulting in delete. Otto4711 (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a season article; create one if it doesn't already exist. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had you bothered to read the nomination you would have seen that a season article already exists and that article already covers this episode in appropriate detail. No one in their right mind is going to type in this article title as a search term. Otto4711 (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to season article, as the article is merely a plot summary. Traffic statistics show enough activity that it warrants being redirected to avoid confusion by readers. AP1787 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic statistics do not prove that readers are finding the article through a search for its title since the stats do not indicate how the view is initiated. It is just as reasonable to believe readers are navigating to the article via the season list or navtemplate. Otto4711 (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, traffic statistics do prove that 166 people would have been confused last month had the page not been there, regardless of how they got to that point. There's no harm in leaving a redirect back to the season article there. AP1787 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 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. Rough consensus is that, although the article could use work, the subject seems to have ample notability. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul "Jah Screw" Love[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not up to wikipedia's standards and lack of references. IJA (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I requested undeletion to my userspace so that I could work on it. I have two respected encyclopedias on reggae that both have entries for Jah Screw, and would have preferred to have improved the article before it was judged here. See also Google Books results. --Michig (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Google Books result seems to indicate that it is worth getting this article into shape and retaining it. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to userspace Right now, the article is in abysmal shape, lacks references, and doesn't credibly state the subject's notability. It might be easier to just delete and start over than to work with what's currently there. If Michig would like to adopt the article, please do. I feel it will need a complete rewrite before it's ready for main space. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCLEANUP. No article should be deleted for being of poor quality. If it really is bad (though this article needs work, it's hardly "abysmal") , at the very worst you stub it, not least for preserving history.^walk victor falk^talk 12:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. If it was speedyable before, having people come here and !vote delete before I get a chance to work on it doesn't make it worthwhile putting effort into it just to see it deleted due to people having judged it in it's original state. --Michig (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep producer of dub legends King Tubby and Ranking Joe is notable. Sources readily available, see ghits, gbooks, etc ^walk victor falk^talk 12:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the key guideline here is WP:NOTCLEANUP. At the time of nomination the article probably looked hopelessly unverifiable but I think that's just appearances and if you dig deeper there is hope for the article. If we don't userfy per Michig's valiant volunteer effort, we could also consider calling in the Rescue Squadron to collaborate with Michig. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:30, 19 July 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! 06:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper bot[edit]

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

Non-notable, original research and lack of reliable sources or references. Visor (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Quake (video game) maybe? -Quartermaster (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For almost every popular game, including Quake, there are tons of custom fan-made stuff, such as maps, modifications, bots, etc. I don't see the reason to include this one in the Quake article. And what about other popular bots? Why not to write about them? There is no place in WP to list such things. Visor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably notable within the Quake community itself, however I couldn't find significant, reliable coverage (unlikely for just about any bot). --Teancum (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Teancum. The first two references are nowhere near reliable while the third one is inaccessible. –MuZemike 02:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article itself states why it is notable -- this was the first usable program of this kind to use i.a. machine learning combined with all its other features; and, a fortiori, it was thus a major breakthrough in bots in this context (FPS games) but also within AI itself. Why not write similar articles on other bots? A program that merely copies the Reaper bot and makes minor improvements in a game that already has proper AI functionality is not noteworthy. I find it completely unreasonable to delete the article merely due to poor references, there are thousands of poorly references articles that are not deleted by that criteria alone, it is widely known within the AI computer science community (as well as 'gamer' communities) that the Reaper bot was a breakthrough and is thus notable. Should it be deleted because it builds upon another work, i.e. Quake? Why? Remember that the core of the Reaper bot -- the AI -- is so distant from the work it uses to implement its AI, i.e. Quake (where AI in the stock product is completely non existent), that a similar argument could be used to claim all articles which describe programs building on Windows XP should be deleted, because there already is an article about Windows XP. As such I say we should find better references. Posix memalign (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good claim for notability if you can back it up with a reliable source. Removing poorly referenced material is perfectly reasonable as verifiability is a cornerstone policy of this encyclopedia. If you've seen other articles that have been kept through deletion discussion but are unverified, flag it up or let me know - it has no bearing on this discussion. Marasmusine (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - was, unfortunately, unable to find any reliable sources on this subject. From what I turned up there's unlikely anything verifiable to merge at this point either. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I concur with Arbitrarily0 that there's nothing verifiable to merge. Cunard (talk) 06:25, 20 July 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 (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Holt (actor)[edit]

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

Mrluke485 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject is an actor. Appears to be a non-notable minor actor with no major roles. Has done a large number of small-time work. Article has no references, the creator didn't even bother to add IMD or the subject's website. Could find no evidence that subject meets notability threshold. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. --DAJF (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's one of six actors with the same name. Many of his roles are voice acting, and almost all the rest are very minor, nameless roles. No reliable sources can be found, due to how common is the subject's name. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete He's this one And even though his work cam be verified, there are no awards and no coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mauj Jamshedpuri[edit]

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

Dubious notability, poorly sourced. A search for sources turns up little, although you might not expect a lot of English language sources for this sort of thing. Maintenance templates asking for more refs are quickly removed by two different accounts and IPs. Possible G4 speedy delete, previously deleted at AFD. Hairhorn (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Mauj Jamshedpuri has some of the credits notification for some music labels in India. Refer to the Music Guild of India. I think there might be some confusion with his original names and pen name ~~-- • Shyamsunder (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)~~ (comment from IP sock using faked signature, see below)[reply]

Note: Not sure about exact notability, but came across few on research journal on Jamia-Milia University site. Can anybody please review it here http://www.jmi.ac.in/archives/archives.htm • CordeliaNaismith (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)— CordeliaNaismith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Request for keep:I'm amused by the allegation made by hairhorn. I wouldn't have put my comments otherwise I thought I should because to prove my integity. I' a doctor and my age is 52 and is almost double the age of my fellow wikipedians. Only one constraint I have was, though I only want to write articles only on current generation classical urdu shayars of india, who are all noted by progressive writers association(PWA).And my constraint is I don't know how to use wikipedia correctly. Thats why hairhorn is correct saying that AFDs are removed. Yes I removed it multiple times, because I was wondering why it was getting changes. Then I realized that hairhorn left a message to come to debate page. Here I'm at the debate page, but still now I'm not sure whether I'm using the technology properly as it is very hard to read the user manuals.

The other thing that amused me was the notability criteria. Who and how it is decided that someone is notable or not. How does a admin sitting in Australia/US knows that if somebody is popular in India or not. Simple thing is that, "He should be in India". Things cannot be decided by number of internet pages fetched by google. Come to India, ask comon people whether you know this person. Or ask a pool of India wikipedia admins whether he knows somebody or not. For example, I was browsing the lower section of the "India debate page for deletion". I find someone has asked to "Keep" Viraf Patel. Now who is Viraf Patel? Does any Indian knows about him. No. If somebody creates his own website and does a junk TV serial, will be become notable? I'm also a journalist for bollywood magazine. Do I know "Viraf patel"?. No. But yes I know Mauj Jamshedpuri, Sardar anjum, hasar Illahabadi, ajay jhingran. They are bollywood poets and mainstream urdu poets. Ask people of India. See the bollywood trade magazine. There is another world apart from Internet and google. I've also written article for Sardar Anjum (surprisingly, its still there), Hasir illahabadi (deleted), Ajay Jhingran (deleted). For Mauj Jamshedpuri, I thought I will raise my voice. If you ask any urdu scholar in India or a scholar doing research on Ghazal and Urdu poetry, they know they have to refer the work and research papers of Mauj jamshedpuri. Ask all the popular ghazal singers in India, whose verses they have sung in their albums. You will find many lyrics written by mauj, sardar and Hasir in the Mp3/music label. You should go to northern India to find their popularity. Thats all I've to tell. Now its your decision. But before questioning integrity of someone, please ponder that someone can have challenges with software and its technology. Regards. • Akash_anand59 (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)— Akash_anand59 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

With due respect Akash Anand, this is a question of Verifiability. Since you are a journalist, if you add references for reviews for Mauj Jamshedpuri's work in magazines and newspapers (like the trade magazine you mention) or his interviews, there will be no problem in keeping this article. For Wikipedia, verifiability is important. People vote to keep "Viraf Patel" not because he is known across India, but because he meets the wikipedia notability criteria for entertainers/actors and it is verifiable from news reports. For an author the relevant guideline is WP:AUTH. Multiple published books with reviews in newspapers and magazines. You are asking for the doubters to come to india and verify for themselves. That is not how things work in Wikipedia. Here the burden of proof is on the creator - you should be providing the proof that he has done all the things the article says he has done. It is not up to us to go and do the research to proof he is notable - it is upto you.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User: Akash_anand59 has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, see the sock investigation page. I have blanked the other keep votes made by this user using sock accounts, here is the version of this page previous to this one. I have also asked User:Shyamsunder to confirm their comment above, since it was posted by an IP who pasted in the signature and also did several dubious test edits to the AFD page. Hairhorn (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not voted or commented on this nomination at all. Surprised with the vote using my name. Shyamsunder (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. No significant coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of football players with domestic, continental and world titles[edit]

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

This list seems like a totally arbitrary list. I don't think I've ever seen a source take notice of a player collecting all these honours as a particularly notable feat in of itself, (although rather obviously, in articles about the individual players, these feats will of course be noted), and the article certainly doesn't present any evidence they do either.

It seems wholly biased towards the feat of winning the World Cup, being the most dificult honour here to attain, which will eliminate hundreds if not thousands of equally fine players who have in their careers never won the World Cup, but have won their domestic league, continental club and continental internationl championship.

The focus of the list could probably be changed to be 'List of other honours held by World Cup winners', and just list the other top honours held by World Cup winners, that would make it aleast a little less arbitrary, albeit still of questionable notability or use.

I hesitate to use the rather derogatory term 'fancruft', but it really does look like this list has been compiled just because it can be, and not because anyone else in the world does. But lists, just like anything else, need to have a notable topic.

Note that just before I Afd's this list, it was just called List of football players with top tier honours, but I renamed it for accuracy, having had no clue what it eve was when I stumbled on it today. MickMacNee (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of this discussion has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject German football and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Spain task force. Ben Mac Dui 18:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Procedural note, ChaChaFut (talk · contribs) created the Afd page before I could, with this, so I am noting it here as I guess it can be construed as a 'keep' vote. MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChaChaFut wrote: "Please do not delete. If anything, rename. Very nice list which took a long time to compose. Thanks."Ben Mac Dui 17:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It took me awhile to get the list and to understand the complaint, but it appears to be that to get on here, one has to have played for a national team that has won the World Cup and an international tournament (such as European Championship), as well as having played for a club that has won a league championship and a club tournament (such as the UEFA Cup). Forty (40) sources, definitely more than a jock article is given. It appears to be original synthesis, but in the world of statistics, surely someone tracks stuff like this. Until that's located, I can't say keep just yet. Mandsford 17:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is well sourced and informative.

" It seems wholly biased towards the feat of winning the World Cup" . Not at all - the Main List is composed entirely of players who have won all four competitions. The "World Cup finalists who nearly qualify section does largely restrict itself to those who have played in a final, precisely for the reasons you suggest. It's not clear to me why you think this is a reason to delete the page. If anything it is a reason to delete or modify this section - see the talk page for discussion.

" The focus of the list could probably be changed to be 'List of other honours held by World Cup winners', and just list the other top honours held by World Cup winners, that would make it aleast a little less arbitrary, albeit still of questionable notability or use." is simply an Aunt Sally. It is not such a list.

I note that List of brain tumor patients amongst numerous others similarly "really does look like this list has been compiled just because it can be", yet this list (for example) is featured. As for "fancruft" - well I am not very active on football-related material on Wikipedia, but as with much else I presume people write articles about what interests them. You are quite right that the topic is generally covered in material relating to individual footballers, but there are numerous lists of that kind: List of players who have won multiple FIFA World Cups, List of FIFA World Cup Finals broadcasters, List of football (soccer) club nicknames in the Americas, List of association football families of note etc. etc. Of course, you could argue that these are all just as unworthy, but there isn't much doubt that in this case the achievement is notable. I am not aware of any policy that says the list as such needs to be notable.

Comment re the note that by MickMacNee that you changed the list's name immediately prior to AfD. I don't have strong views on this subject, but perhaps you didn't read the talk page discussion where a variety of options were discussed but no clear consensus emerged? Ben Mac Dui 17:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list being informative is not particularly relevant - see WP:INTERESTING. It being well sourced is also not particulalry relevant, especially when as said, none appear to address the actual topic of the list. Where lists are not simply for navigation or organisation, then they must demonstrate that their overall topic is notable - this is both a common Afd outcome for lists, and is represented in the principles that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the fact that the potential number of topics that can be created for listification is infinite. Why not for example have a similar list that includes domestic cup competitions, or ignores world cups? Who in the real world decided this combo was notable, rather than just listable? This list does not say at all why this combination is important, nor does it have any use as a navigation tool. This is all described in the relevant guidelines for lists, and is just common sense too. The World Cup bias angle is important because it is, wrongly imho, suggesting that being a Word Cup winner, a relatively hard and uncommon honour, is a definining aspect in whether the rest of these honours are listable as notable achievements as well. This is what makes it arbitrary imho, and the lack of sources seems to back this up. You can disregard the Aunt Sally if you want, it is not what the nomination relies on, it was just an after-thought. And yes, I saw the title discussion, and it seemed to support the idea it needed clarification. The rest of the post seems to be just OTHERSTUFF arguments - they are not terribly weighty in this instance, if even relevant at all. I am not about to investigate the reasons or rationales behind all those lists existing just to be able to nominate this one for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:OR, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTSTATS...need I go on? Giant Snowman 00:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you can easily see, I have created a number of other lists, although this is the only football-related article I have ever had any serious involvement in. The issue here is not one of black vs white as your comments suggest. The idea that this is "listcruft" is an opinion and one anyone is entitled to hold. However, I can't see anything on the list of 11 of defining characteristics that apply other than perhaps "Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.", which you refer to separately in any case. WP:SYNTH is quite explicit. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Which conclusion does the list violate? I don't think there is much doubt that these four titles - 2 at club and 2 at international level are the most prestigious a player can achieve - perhaps the article needs to stress that more, (to me it seemed obvious and hardly worth banging on about) - otherwise they would not be proudly displayed as achievements on every article page relating to the players concerned. (See Association football#International competitions and UEFA & CONMEBOL). NOTSTATS says "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." Don't see the problem there. Ben Mac Dui 09:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the crux - the original research and brand new conclusion that this list asserts is that achieving this particular combo is notable in of itself, in the same way as for example, being a Treble winner is noted as a feat in of itself. I'd be more than happy to withdraw the nom if you can find external evidence that it is considered notable externally, but as it is, it seems to exist because you personally think it is important - this very much makes it arbitrary in my opinion. I for example would actually dispute your idea that just these four are the pinnacle honours. What about for example domestic cups? Winning the FA Cup was for decades considered more important than winning the English league title, and arguably still is to some. And what about the FIFA Club World Cup? Surely that is the true pinnacle of club competition - to be deemed the world champion of club football. And frankly, there is much about this list that is just pure luck or chance, given the way confederations and nations are organised and their relative weaknesses/strengths, rather than demonstrating the player is the best of the best on these terms. Anyway, that's probably my last word, I'm starting to repeat myself. MickMacNee (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both know that the FA Cup issue is essentially a British phenomenon. It really is not hard to demonstrate that these are the premier competitions that clubs and nations compete for and I will be happy to provide a reference or two asap. Incidentally, if you are arguing above that the list should become an article along the lines of "Most successful footballers" that incorporated this and other definitions such as "More than 100 international caps", "more than (say) 7 domestic league titles" etc. then I think that's worth considering, provided some suitable limitations could be put on it. As you must surely realise, I am not a supporter of a national team that has a hope of having any of its players appear here, except perhaps as novelty achievement. Ben Mac Dui 18:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the topic of this list seems to be the arbitrary selection of three criteria that has not been noted outside of Wikipedia. As such, this list represents a synthesis of information. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You folks are hard to please but I'll try. I am not blessed with a library of football compendiums, but from today's news try the print version of The Guardian which lists the small number of occasions on which a national team has held a World Cup & Confederation Cup trophy at the same time and notes that "Iniesta and Xavi have won the World Cup, European Championship, Champions League, La Liga and the Copa del Rey" This coverage suggests that the concept is hardly original. I'll add a note in the lead asap. Ben Mac Dui 18:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC) PS I am not going to bore you all with a list of lists but there are no few football lists that assume that notability of achievement is a worthy end in itself and proceed from there.[reply]

This title - Lists of Football (Soccer) Players (2010) LLC Books - clearly refers to a very similar list - don't know yet if it is available in the UK. See amazon.ca. Ben Mac Dui 14:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I can't see where that product description "clearly" has this particular list, and secondly, very bizarrly, the random nature of those chapters reminds me of many lists I've seen on Wikipedia, I cannot for the life of me think why someone would create a book of just those lists, belgium? iran? etc - so either the author is just an odd follower of football, and has been totally plagiarised by this site, or he has ripped off Wikipedia (not illegal as long as attribution is given). What's more bizarre is that that the http://booksllc.net/?id=10953924 link given as 'more' redirects to a Wikipedia list - List of J. League players. Bizarre all round, but not really supporting notability here that I can see. MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That book looks similar to the stuff put out by Icon Group International which just autoscrapes stuff from a variety of online sources including Wikipedia and the generates a "book". I've been seeing a lot of hits to books published by "Books LLC" which appear to have nonsensical or odd titles when doing google searches. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It is available in the UK and I have ordered it. I will look for further information but I'd appreciate it if any closing admin could hold off until it arrives - should be Monday at the latest. There is another option - which is that the author of the book is also a Wikipedian - it's not me at any rate. I agree it's an odd situation, but until it arrives it is hard to know what it proves. If the list were of a very similar nature I believe it would show a significant degree of notability. If it were this list more or less verbatim, the logic is obviously absurdly circumlocutory, but if someone takes what exists on Wikipedia, wraps it up and sells it as a product - does that show notability? Arguably, but this is a conundrum that may not have been been encountered before. Ben Mac Dui 18:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alert! - Ben. I don't know if you can cancel your order at this point. I'm now positive it is a wikipedia scrape. The product decription at [17] includes "More: http://booksllc.net/?id=10953924" at the end. I clicked on the link and was redirected to List of J. League players. As for this being selected for publication thus making it notable, I'd say no. We look to independent reliable sources to establish notability because these soruces exercise editorial oversight into the selection of their topics. There is no evidence that any sort of editorial oversight is involved in this automatic web scraping. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. I'd never heard of autoscraping, but it looks like a right con, and it looks like that book might only contain the J-League list, based on the cover art, and this 'product description' is not a list of chapters, but a listing of what else you can get for free in their 'book club' (a.k.a. wikipeida). On reflection, I would say the rather bland looking cover art does look a bit odd, and auto-generated. MickMacNee (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the sort of stuff that autoscraping produces, the Icon Group (not Books LLC) can provide you with The 2009-2014 World Outlook for Bathroom Toilet Brushes and Holders for $795. But if you are looking specifically at the Chinese market, perhaps The 2009-2014 Outlook for Bathroom Toilet Brushes and Holders in Greater China would be a better deal at a measly $495. -- Whpq (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, but fortunately the investment in this case is more modest. I await the arrival of Postman Pat with interest. I have also been looking into other language sites. The absence of anyone on the existing list from an anglophone country is a disadvantage reference-wise. I've found a few that link to English language versions and will add them where appropriate. Ben Mac Dui 17:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; it's an arbitrary synthesis of stats. Karpouzi (talk) 14:57, 17 July 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 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Shraddha[edit]

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

The first ghit is this article, which is nearly unintelligible. I am unsure as to the notability of this subject. so nia^♫♪ 10:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is all I can find -- http://saishraddha.org/index.php?pgid=3. In the absence of anything else I would presume it to be nn. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This would appear to be a narrative of a pilgrimage of some sort. I remember enough Sanskrit to interpret pada yatra as "going on foot". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a non-notable private pilgrimage--Sodabottle (talk) 05:11, 14 July 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 (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sead Hajrovic[edit]

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

Violation of WP:ATHLETE, player has not made a first team appearence for either Arsenal or Grasshopper The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nom. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Acheived nothing of note. youth int only, never played at top level. references )half of which are from non-RS are only club profiles and such. May reach WP:ATHLETE level next October when the gunner kids get a run out--ClubOranje^T 07:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 06:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 06:40, 18 July 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 (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrap LIVE (television program)[edit]

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

non-notable vanispamicruftisement Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable TV program, the article is also written like an advertisement. Bidgee (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know if it's notable, but at any rate it's an advert. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sounding like an advertisement isn't a reason to delete... its a reason to edit. To me, if this program is non-notable, then the entire category of Australian Community TV is not notable. In my opinion, if the show gets cancelled, then we should delete it. --Hampton (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a reason to delete, that's why we have policies like WP:ADVERT. Further, statements like "if x is non-notable, then y is not notable" fall under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which is not a reason to keep.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established, unlikely to be established. Advertisement. Cancellation, in fact, may lead to notability. We can but wait. Bleakcomb (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been edited to read less like an advertisement. The program is naturally not as notable as shows on commercial TV, but as Community TV is not broadcasting in digital in most parts of Australia, the notability of it's program's has greatly improved. --Thewizkid93 (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor has a conflict of interest [18] as they are the Executive producer. Bidgee (talk) 11:23, 18 July 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, as per nominator's request (Non-admin closure). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enda Oates[edit]

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

~~Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw nomination and Keep. Congratulations to Dr Blofeld and MichaelQSchmidt for finding so many sources and transforming the article. Please can an univolved editor close this? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep This article describes him as "one of Ireland’s foremost acting talents for the past two decades". Not a lot of other coverage I can find though. A lot of credits listed in the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, expand and source . Just meets requirements Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The trouble is that WP:ENTERTAINER requires:
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
- I don't think there is enough there to satisfy this. Significant roles in notable films, TV shows, stage productions, etc. Perhaps the role in the IRish soap is enough. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Borderline, I agree.~~ Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and expand per available sources. WP:ENT does not "require", rather WP:ENT "suggests". How I read ENT is that meeting some of the criteria allows editors a reasonable presumption that sources exist... but if the sources do not exist, than the presumption allowed by ENT is failed. So, in looking for sources toward the subject (encouraged by WP:ENT or not), it is found that they do exist[19][20]... and notability in Ireland is notable enough for en.Wikiepdia. In improving the article, what can be addressed through regular editing in no cause for deletion. --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update Okay... I suggested it was do-able... so I've been working on it, and have so far turned the unsourced font of peacock[21] into THIS. Much more to do, but it seems the fellow gets attention for his work on Irish stage. As editor User:Jezhotwells grants that his work on the Irish soap opera might be enough, I'd like to extend that consideration of ENT and to Irish theater as well... as notable to Ireland, even if not neccessarily notable to the rest of the world, should be good enough for en.Wikipedia. If an Irish production received coverage in major Irish reliable sources, the production should qualify as notable, WP:UNKNOWNHERE notwithstanding. Still working on it though.... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the excellent improvement work done by Schmidt. This looks like enough for WP:ENT now, and probably WP:GNG as well. Alzarian16 (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... still at it. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Excellent work by Schmidt. I've also added much of the career section. This should be swiftly kept per the sources found. How you found those sources I don't know but it is commendable to the WP:Actors project. Well done! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:08, 12 July 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 (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Clayton (geologist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Unless someone comes up with more substantiating information, I would like this article to be deleted...--Gniniv (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article claims that the subject made a prediction, but the source says something that is significantly different: a newspaper wanted to know the effect of a certain hypothetical event (if it occurred, what would result?). The newspaper approached the subject for an opinion. WP:BIO is clearly not satisfied. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that there was no prediction, but an analysis that if x, then y, and that his analysis was the response to an approach from the newspaper - the article is clear on this, saying Clayton " was asked by Seattle Weekly to evaluate the potential impact of a lahar on Seattle. " I see no evidence that WP:BIO's criteria are met here. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Googlescholar[22] shows almost no citability of his work (there is an astronomer with the same name, so the results have to be filtered out) and nothing else to show passing WP:PROF. There is a little bit of newscoverage[23] but not enough to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll admit that the article is really quite poor. However, WoS shows a geologist named Geoff Clayton from the University of Dublin (Author=(clayton g*) Refined by: Institutions=(UNIV DUBLIN TRINITY COLL) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI) whose publications have around 150 citations, which arguably passes WP:PROF. Here is his homepage. Is this perhaps the same person? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The Seattle Weekly article states, "a geologist with one of the pre-eminent engineering firms in the state, RH2." I'm going to assume it's not the same guy from the University of Dublin. Be a bit strange a Seattle based company to employ a professor in Dublin for presumably doing local geological work pertaining to their engineering work. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am pretty sure it's a different guy. The Dublin Clayton has been at Dublin since at least 1989[24]. Nsk92 (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but the more unusual form of "Geoff" in Seattle would also be pretty coincidental. Is there a way to confirm conclusively one way or another? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  - That would be going rather beyond the call of duty, but here is some additional circumstantial evidence. Here is a link to RH2's webpage[25] explaining what kind of geological services they provide. I think the link makes it fairly clear that the kind of geologists they employ are not academics but rather technicians providing geological evaluations of various potential construction sites etc. So it seems most likely that the Seattle Clayton is not an academic at all but rather a commercial technical expert. Nsk92 (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point taken – only concerned about someone notable falling through the cracks. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
delete article as it stands now. If wikified, worked on and sourced properly, I can be persuaded to change my vote. Maybe. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One local news story is not notability, and as it stands the article fails WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7) by Anthony Appleyard. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. David Jernigan[edit]

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

Advertising for a chiropractor that uses alternative medicine to treat Lyme disease, among others. Also advertises his courses that he sells sells on alternative medicine. All his books published under Somerleyton Press which has 400 ghits. Mostly professional fluff about his twitter feed and linked in page. Already removed a blatant section. Fails notability. mboverload @ 04:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Lacks notability. Somerleyton Press actually has less than 100 hits. ttonyb (talk) 05:07, 12 July 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 (G3) by Anthony Appleyard. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Briskey[edit]

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

Potential CSD for blatent hoax. Claims to be touring with Lady Gaga and was on Regis & Kelly but 0 GNews hits. mboverload @ 04:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. JNW (talk) 04:23, 12 July 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 (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lisle[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF quite spectacularly. It is a curiosity to have a sheep-in-wolf's-clothing get a PhD in astronomy, but he's not notable outside of the creationist-cheering-squads as far as I can see. The CNN reference doesn't really do the trick; it's more spectacle than it is conferring notability on Lisle. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Crackpot POV peddling. Carrite (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing notable there at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I agree with the nom that once being a guest on a talking-heads program is not particularly significant and does not amount to coverage of the person himself. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and WP:PROF quite clearly. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think we have to be very careful here about rendering emotional or subjective judgments in this case. I don't see a real POV problem here, as was floated above. The article reports details on schooling, publications, place of employment, etc. – all of this is, in fact, good biographical fodder. Nevertheless, I feel the subject still fails the notability test per the following: First, because the subject has a doctorate and works very conspicuously under that title, we should probably be testing against WP:PROF. WoS shows 3 publications in Astrophys. J. and Am. J. Phys. (top mainstream physics journals), however, his h-index is also only 3 and the total (collective) citations are only 27 – far short of our traditional requirements. Also, his books are not at all widely held, e.g. "Taking Back Astronomy" (<40), "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" (<40), and "Old Earth Creationism on Trial" (<30). His debate with Eugenie Scott is interesting, but this seems to have been a one-time event. It may very well be that he becomes a prominent spokesman for Creationism in the future, in which case he'll genuinely merit a page on those grounds. But for the moment, he's notable neither as a scientist nor a creationist. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 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 (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boozembly[edit]

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

No reliable secondary source coverage. Melanesian obsession (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable social gathering. All I can find is self-published, and social-networking/blog/photo hits - no reliable sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Boing, provided no reliable, significant sources come to light. AP1787 (talk) 12:41, 14 July 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 per WP:SNOW. -- The Anome (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EUROLIVE PROFESSIONAL B1520 PRO[edit]

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

Included in this AfD

Warp Distortion WD300

BEHRINGER ULTRABASS BA115

Centari USB Guitar iAXE624-BD

Behringer Truth series

Articles that act as catalog entires for the company Behringer. Just speaker and other sound effects models. There is no justification for them being on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a catalog of products. Fails WP:GNG.mboverload @ 03:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - ALL CAPS TO KEEP WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE TITLE. CORPORATE SHILLING CAN BE DONE VIA A COMPANY WEBSITE. THIS IS AN AD. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I am adding AfD notices on all the relevant pages --Muhandes (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is already Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultrabass BXR1800H on one of them. Also, BEHRINGER ULTRABASS BA115 is under WP:PROD --Muhandes (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the creators of these pages, many of which look suspiciously the same. What do you think about Behringer Truth series, should it be added to the list? --Muhandes (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added Behringer Truth series to the list, and notified creator.--Muhandes (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising - almost certainly started by an employee of Behringer that has in the past caused problems with the main article about that company. I was going to nominate these all for deletion when I got time today, glad someone else noticed it too. Weakopedia (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. They're all just product advertising. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as Wikipedia isn't a catalog. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Dewritech (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination, and suggest speedy or snow delete as unambiguous advertising. Note that these are all about various pieces of musical or audio equipment. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. May I also suggest inclusion of Vintage Tube Overdrive VT911. Empty Buffer (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another: Guitar/Amp Selector AB100 - they're still being created. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note new account used for creating this one. Empty Buffer (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speedy deleted. --Muhandes (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources given are the manufacturer's own site, and sites selling the device. These are not independent third-party sources, as required by WP:RS. Any similar articles not citing independent third-party sources should similarly be deleted. -- The Anome (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding sheep[edit]

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

While it passes verifibaility to some level (in that there is noted references that sheep exist that explode in games), it doesn't really pass WP:GNG for a stand alone article on the subject. There is a lot of original research as well. The few references that note the meme could be mentioned on List of internet phenomena without compromising anything in this article. 陣内 _Jinnai 01:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this article isn't substantially different from the two previous Afds this article qualifies as db-g4. Just pointing out. elektrik SHOOS 03:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I repeat my comments from the previous AfD: "This is original synthesis. Yes, there are citations to reliable sources showing that each game has an exploding sheep in them. But no, none of these sources show that there is any kind of meme here. Strip away the synthesis, and we basically have a 'List of video games that include exploding sheep'." Marasmusine (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Marasmusine (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of what motivated the prior keeps, the concept of the exploding sheep is notable on different levels; originally, as the classic "Ssss...BOOOM.. Baaa!!" joke by Johnny Carson, but also as an image in fiction and video games [26] and, because it's so well-known, something that the press picks up on when it happens in real life "Exploding sheep spark earthquake fears" and even as a rather cruel means of clearing a minefield and having mutton for dinner "Bosnia lacks cash to purge killer mines". Sounding silly is not the same as non-notable. For people who worry about this being "embarrassing" to Wikipedia, about 35 percent of all the articles here qualify for that description. Mandsford 17:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If its so well known why cannot after this time an article not built around synthesis be created? I don't see how the concept is inherentaly notable just because its been in some video games and comedy routines.陣内 _Jinnai 18:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as a concept in that there do not appear to be independent reliable sources that significantly cover the subject. The article conflates sheep that explode in video games with sheep who trigger bombs with sheep that explode via growth. These are unrelated to each other and the conflation constitutes original research by sythesis. Otto4711 (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research by synthesis. No sources address this topic directly and in detail. Only indirect mentions or proof which are not enough to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as i opined the last time this was up for AFD, wasn't it just yesterday? Its a notable concept. Should need a supermajority to try to delete it this time after two keeps, since its always random who will show up to !vote.--Milowent (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the last time was October 2009, which I remember because I happened to have closed that AFD :) –MuZemike 22:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though I've seen this concept in a few games, there just aren't enough reliable sources that provide significant coverage to satisfy general notability guidelines. Sources that go in-depth are not reliable, and on the inverse any reliable sources provide only trivial mentions, which usually entail simply the words "exploding sheep" without any information as to the concept itself. --Teancum (talk) 16:13, 13 July 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 (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Parkin[edit]

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

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

Also see:

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

Subject appears to be unremarkable person. References are dead, don't refer to him at all, or give most passing of mentions. Could not find coverage elsewhere. Apparent COI. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and pretty plainly COI. Jrt989 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable.Nuujinn (talk) 16:54, 17 July 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 deletion under CSD G3 - Vianello (Talk) 21:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portoesque_logic[edit]

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

PROD removed, probably a hoax. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original PROD reason: Article is entirely unreferenced, and there are no relevant Google hits, Google scholar hits, or Google books hits. Moreover, the article is fairly devoid of meaningful content to the point of being borderline nonsense. I strongly suspect it is an intentional hoax, and if not then it is certainly original research. The PROD should never have even been removed: deletion is not even remotely controversial. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even a Google search on "Portoesque" found nothing even remotely relevant. At best it is non-notable, at worst a hoax. - Bilby (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't exactly call it a hoax because it doesn't say anything clearly false, but I do think it's a put-on. Could be one of Brendan's friends "winding him up" as our Aussie brethren say? Anyway we don't really need to know; there aren't any available sources and the only actual content is covered at principle of explosion. --Trovatore (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the search engine test, and one of the results for "Brendan Porto" suggests that this is a student joke. Paradoctor (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious nonsense/joke/lame hoax article. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax. Looks like Paraconsistent logic with a lot of claptrap thrown in. Hairhorn (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3 hoax or A7 unremarkable person. Or failing those, delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total nonsense, unfortunately not WP:CSD#G1 because it might not be total nonsense for everybody. You cannot base a logic on a contradicting axiom because (as the article rightly states) everything can be concluded from that. --Pgallert (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, at the very least, entirely non-notable. This Google search shows nothing that uses the word "portoesque" as referring to this other than this article. The article is nonsense. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant hoax. Googling "Brendan Porto hoax" finds [27] which identifies the purported founder of Portoesque logic as "Trained from birth in secrecy under the Italian mafia, Brendan was a master assassin and violin virtuoso by the age of 7. He became a stone-faced hitman, serving only to eliminate the enemies of the family", etc. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:33, 12 July 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 already speedily deleted by JamesBWatson. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention[edit]

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

Sounds like an advert to me, prod declined. Kayau Voting IS evil 00:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tough call. One has to pay money to access their website, which gives this whole article the odor of an advertisement. Carrite (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that their journal has been around since 1995 and seems to have some degree of scholarly reputation. I guess that longevity pushes me to Keep camp. Carrite (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The article has been speedily deelted as a copyright infringement of http://www.iscaip.net/iscaip/files/documents/brochure.pdf. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:30, 12 July 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 (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Chapman[edit]

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

I can't seem to find any reliable sources (or any sources at all, for that matter) to confirm notability. Swarm^Talk 00:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable. Dewritech (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable college student and amateur surfer who is not very highly ranked and, as best I can tell at GNews and GNews Archive, has received exactly zero coverage in reliable sources. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, a search yields no reliable source attesting to the subject's notability. AP1787 (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no arguments for deletion MINUS the nom JForget 00:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pacha Man[edit]

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

NN artist, only trivial coverage CTJF83 pride 05:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 June 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, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 14:52, 28 June 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) 00:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third relist rationale. I really don't like relisting articles for a third time but I found out that the AFD tag was improperly removed from the article by the article's creator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this Google News Archive search. Sources such as this, this, and this demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I can't read any of those, I can't verify if they are reliable sources. CTJF83 chat 03:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: by Cunard. Dewritech (talk) 14:17, 12 July 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 This Romantic Tragedy. JForget 00:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Cammilleri[edit]

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

Fails the notability guidelines of WP:MUSICBIO. All sources in the article are self published and he does not appear to have any notability outside of his former membership in the band This Romantic Tragedy. VQuakr (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to This Romantic Tragedy. I can find no evidence of independent notability in the form of coverage in reliable sources. Redirect as he was a former member of the band. -- Whpq (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 June 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, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to This Romantic Tragedy per the lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 01:48, 12 July 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) 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saghi Ghahraman[edit]

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

It is not clear whether or not this person meets the notability criteria- no independent reliable sources are provided, and my own google news search yielded no sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom.Farhikht (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep: I am not seeing many good sources about her either, but she is mentioned in many articles about homosexuals in Iran. Combined with being a published poet, I think there is enough notability here to merit inclusion of the article. VQuakr (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources in Google News Archive are passing mention. None provides more than a passing mention. Because this is a biography of a living person, extra care must be taken to see if there is enough coverage to satisfy verifiability, which this article fails.
Perhaps this article can be redirected to Iranian Queer Organization, of which she is a founder, as a compromise? Cunard (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no arguments for deletion MINUS the nom JForget 00:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burak Arıkan[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. no independent sources cited, and searching has produced blogs, social networking sites, promotional sites, but no significant independent coverage in reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His art has received enough attention in international news media [28] [29] [30] that I think he passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Also this [31]. There's enough coverage to establish notabilty. -- Whpq (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and Whpq. --Lambiam 20:30, 13 July 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) 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McSpirit[edit]

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

I cannot find any reference to this purported "professional" racing driver anywhere. If he even is a real racing driver, he likely only competes at a local short track and therefore fails to meet WP:ATHLETE/Motorsport Drdisque (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be very minor driver. No substantial coverage. Few Google hits. Fails WP:V. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Glenridge motorsport site confirms he races. He is listed as "Pat McSpirit". A search under Pat and Patrick finds no coverage in reliable sources. This "news" item is posted by somebody with the handle of "PR Director" is the most substantial material I could dig up. -- Whpq (talk) 20:17, 13 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communications Wireless Group[edit]

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

Delete'. As much as I support the work that the company does and the article is well referenced it does not seem to reach notability guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a business that recycles old cellular phones. The references provided are about the general issues regarding the recycling of phones, rather than this business in particular. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That's not really true. The links from LiveScience, TWICE, and Mother Nature Network are all about the company, or feature it prominently. Reasonably meets WP standards: I see nothing warranting deletion. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References (of which there are a few) do seem to give some level of coverage to the topic. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not notable. WP article should be referenced and notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the sourcing ain't great, but the coverage rises above mere mentions, and is there is enough of it to clear the notability bar for me. -- Whpq (talk) 20:11, 13 July 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 David Nichtern. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 Points Records[edit]

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

Non notable record company - fails WP:CORP no significant coverage of the company appears to exist ONLY claim to to notability is one of inheritance through founder and acts who have released songs via the company. Codf1977 (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage of subject. SPA creator. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to David Nichtern as plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to David Nichtern. -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 13 July 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 (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige Management[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable company - fails WP:CORP, only hits appear to be to US property management company Codf1977 (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no refs in the article, no refs to find. Dewritech (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable. No references. Was created by the company themselves. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they genuinely manage the groups the article claims, there should be no problem with citation. Instead, we get two sentences. The first step to passing wikipedia's notability guidelines is to actually TRY to cite that something is notable. In this case, there is no try - only delete. -Markeer 01:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German Londoño[edit]

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

No information on the page, let alone an assertion of notability. --ANowlin: talk 17:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's more information in the history. Read the article's talk page. Uncle G (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a reason why the page should be kept, then it should be included in the article. All this is is a single sentence, with no references or assertion of notability. --ANowlin: talk 23:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search of Google news hits turns up articles and reviews in Spanish newspapers [32]. If anyone is more fluent in the language, perhaps they can ascertain whether there's enough there to support some notability; I suspect there is. JNW (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there may possibly be some notability there. But since when do we keep articles around just because there "may be some notability somewhere" but its not in the article? --ANowlin: talk 04:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) We don't, and with respect to your rationale for nominating, I didn't vote keep. But the Colombian newspapers appear to offer support. Perhaps someone with a better comprehension of Spanish than I possess can be helpful. JNW (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update Using the supplied Google links, I've found nothing on the first 2-3 pages. No images what so ever. The only news articles talk about US people with the same name, and the article in Spanish is talking about a man receiving his sentence after being convicted of a crime. --ANowlin: talk 04:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These [33], [34], [35] are articles, either in total or part, about the artist. And this, from a museum exhibition [36]. A resume that lists several museum shows: [37].JNW (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my Spanish sucks, but Google Translate works pretty well. I'll mess with tomorrow. --ANowlin: talk 04:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pending translation of sources Based on the exhibition history and articles in Colombian papers. This will need some assistance with translation. JNW (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Also listed in this book on Latin American artists. -- Whpq (talk) 20:05, 13 July 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) 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starflight (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - One out of the many zillion K-Tel compilation albums they churned out. Although they did create some notable albums like Hooked on Classics, Starflight isn't one them. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 13 July 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) 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SKI-PP[edit]

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

Non notable record company - fails WP:CORP no significant coverage of the company appears to exist ONLY claim to to notability is one of inheritance through bands who (may ?) have released songs via this company. Unreferenced. Codf1977 (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. No substantial coverage. 5 years old and still a stub. Fails WP:ORG. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DAT Politics as they created the label. There's no need to merge as the meagre information in the article already exists at the target article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:55, 13 July 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.