Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 22 July 24 July >

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Podex[edit]

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

No reliable sources, no Google hits. At best this appears to be an informal game played at a few schools, nearly all original research. Doesn't appear notable. JNW (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, regretfully I'd really love to find some sourcing so we could keep this. The game clearly exists and is of some importance to the schools that play it. But I found literally nothing at Google or Google News for either Podex or Puddocks. Of the references provided in the article, two are dead links, one requires registration to view, one mentions the game in passing as "a cross between cricket and baseball", one is original research, and one provides lots of nice photos of people playing the game, but no text. The discussion page reveals lively disagreement over the rules, which seem to vary from school to school. I'm afraid this fails both the notability and original research tests. --MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 29 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. Jujutacular talk 13:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La Capilla del Hombre[edit]

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

Non-notable art gallery. This articles only sources consist of official web sites and travel guides. Neither of which make the subject notable. Unfortunately, I was not able to find additional sources, as much of the content is in a language I do not read. Akerans (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The New York Times quotes Frommer: "this impressive structure is in many ways the culmination of the work and dreams of Ecuador's great modern artist, Oswaldo Guayasamín"[1] It was "declared by UNESCO has (sic) a priority project for world culture and heritage for Ecuador."[2] There are 241,000 Google results,[3] 240 Google Books results,[4] and 47 Google Scholar results.[5] Ty 05:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the valid references and the NY Times...Modernist (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to the good research by Tyrenius. Can you add some of it to the article, particularly the UNESCO connection? --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to do so. Ty 16:33, 29 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie-Anne Leclerq[edit]

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

The article looks like something I would find on a fansite, entirely lacks any verifiable third-party references what-so-ever (the one third-party reference appears to fall under the category of being an unverifiable fansite) and thus is made up of realistically nothing but original research. Additionally, I seriously call into question the notability of this article as the character itself has truthfully played (and I say this as someone who observes the show) a non-pivotal, minor, role. If anything, it should be merged into List of True Blood Characters at absolute bare minimal. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 23:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of an actor or actress does not make a character notable, especially a recurring one at that. For example, Wil Wheaton is a notable actor, but one singular special guest appearance of a non-recurring character on Eureka does not make the character notable, while on the other hand, Q (though unfortunately not being the greatest of examples as it also fails to cite sources), portrayed by John de Lancie is a complete other matter as his role was entirely pivotal to the series, Star Trek: The Next Generation. Additionally, searching Google for reliable sources is a completely different matter. The fact remains that the article does not cite any. Concurrently, this fails to address the notability of the character or the fact that the article looks like a fansite. I should also point out that the article has been cited as failing to meet requirements of notability for well over a year now - being tagged as non-notable since June of 2009. I would be remiss if I failed to point out as it has been tagged as not citing sources for the same length in time. The character just is not notable enough under Wikipedia standards of notability to warrant it's own article outside of the character listing. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 22:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See response to Jclemens. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 22:02, 24 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. extransit (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First person to own Apple's Ipad[edit]

First person to own Apple's Ipad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined speedy deletion criteria A7 on this because the article's contents (as well as the title) do in fact make an indication of the subject's the importance/significance. That said, while I congratulate Anthony, WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS seem to apply here. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:02, 23 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 here is to keep, but consider opening a redirect discussion on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Nixon Cox[edit]

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN; coverage is not significant enough to pass WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability schmotability" is kind of like saying "accuracy schmaccuracy". Wikipedia isn't a government-funded agency or a public service. Mandsford 19:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Simply being born to someone who was born to someone notable is not being independently notable. By wikipedia's standards that is not enough. His "small business"is too vague and simply running for office is not enough, by wikipedia standards, to be considered notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.196.233 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete We don't have articles for the grandchildren of every American President, why should this one be any different. If we are going to have articles for Congressional candidates, than there should be articles for every single candidate in the country. Wikipedia is being bias. HE IS NOT A POLITICIAN NOR HAS HE EVER BEEN ELECTED TO POLITICAL OFFICE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pliggie1 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very few grandkids of presidents remain politically active, as he has. The sources show his notability. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm struggling to see how your first sentence is at all relevant. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person in question is running for U.S. Congress from New York's 1st congressional district. He has received sustained coverage in daily periodicals, such as Newsday, the New York Daily News, Politico, and other politically-focused news sources. The sources used on the page itself are all from reputable publications or the individual's official biography. It is noteworthy that his primary opponent, who has also never held office, has a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Altschuler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Em6641 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 8 "references", 4 of which are blogs and the other 4 merely establish that he's running for Congress which is not notable per longstanding consensus as WP:POLITICIAN. As for his relationship to Nixon, this is covered by Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Family: "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." As an additional point, I've just restored the AFD discussion tag to the article which user:Em6641 removed, so users please leave those tags there while the discussion is ongoing. Valenciano (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage alone justifies the article. Thriley
  • Keep - although blogs are not normally good proof of notability, I think an official NY Times blog written by a real journalist, in a journalistic style, probably qualifies. This is one such entry that really reads like an article and I think is sufficient evidence of notability, especially when coupled with the extremely minor notability granted by virtue of who his father and his maternal grandfather are. Powers T 12:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — An article is enough significant. Necessary to preserve and develop it. Elm478 (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to New York's 1st congressional district. If he gets coverage only because of his candidacy he ought to be redirected per WP:POLITICIAN. I'd do the same to the article on Randy Altschuler as well. NtheP (talk) 06:27, 29 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 --Mike Cline (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Dick[edit]

Edward Dick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete - Created by a corporate account with a COI. No reliable sources demonstrating notability. There are paid-for sources, user-generated sources, and sources with conflicts of interest, no reliable sources. The few sources that would be reliable are not directly about the subject, and only mention him in passing, which only establishes existance but not notability. - Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources from Time Out, The Guardian, The Independent and The Times are independent reviews of the subject's work and constitute significant critical attention, satisfying WP:CREATIVE criteria 3 and 4. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does Natalie Dew (Viola in the Twelfth Night) get an article just because she's mentioned in the Times article as well? Or Paddy Cunneen (did the music for 'Tis Pity She's a Whore) for being mentioned in the Guardian article? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because neither of them was the director of the play, whose work was being reviewed. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:ARTIST, as User:Phil Bridger says above. His plays have received plenty of coverage in reliable sources and have "won significant critical attention": This Google News search provides many of them. I quickly found these sources: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], and there are definitely more available. Theleftorium (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand or merge I don't see this AfD as down to notability. In my opinion, Phil and Theleftorium have established beyond any doubt that this man is notable. But the decision on whether or not an individual should have a stand alone article should always boil down to whether or not it adds encyclopaedic value, regardless of established conventions. If this is a reasonable summary of his life, and there are similar articles on similar people from the same company, coverage on both the company and the individual would be best served with a higher-quality, concentrated article, rather than having to click on multiple links for little snippets of the picture. For clarity, this content definitely warrants coverage on wikipedia. But as the article stands, a merge of some description seems a logical step. --WFC-- 00:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see several problems with merging. Firstly, the sources show that Dick has worked with several different companies, so none of them would be suitable as a merge target. Secondly, having this as a separate article makes it more visible, and allows it to have a stub template to encourage the expansion that my fellow Hornets supporter would like. And thirdly (this is starting to remind me of the apocryphal story about the Cambridge don starting a sentence with "seventeenthly"), if this was merged any expansion would probably lead to the subject having undue weight in the target article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point with the argument against a merge. Although I still maintain that, unexpanded, the article adds no encyclopaedic value. If a strict filter was applied, we could quite easily get everything on this page from the first page of Google, without the need to click on any links. --WFC-- 08:21, 25 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 with leave to speedy renominate. However, I notice from the article's history that the nominator is the only substantial contributor. Therefore, it might be eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G7. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baumrind's four styles[edit]

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

This content was copied from Parenting style before a major edit there. I didn't intend this article to exist by itself, which is why I had made it a sub-page of Parenting style. All of the useful content is still present on other articles. Rixs (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not split the articles though? I am not sure if Baumrind's four necessarily needs to be part of the Parenting article. If it is a trend in parenting thinking, it might have enough notability for independent status. Sadads (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This text is fundamentally about parenting styles, and so that other page is the proper place to explain it. Having looked into the topic of parenting, I've found no better theoretical overview of parenting styles. She set out to structure the topic of parenting styles, and she achieved it very well. So splitting it makes no sense to me. The text in this article was only copied out as a backup. Not for real use. I have no problem with the notability. It surely is noteable. -- Rixs (talk) 09:01, 14 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, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two of us that care about this page. I created it as a COPY of existing material on Parenting styles in a sub-page before editing. Then Sadads moved it to be a major article. It is still a DUPLICATE of the material, now reworked, on Parenting styles. This page is an unnecessary orphan. -- Rixs (talk) 19:35, 26 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. extransit (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Barr (jailor)[edit]

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

unverifiable of no encyclopaedic value ClubOranjeT 20:39, 23 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) 15:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Conners[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Non-notable artist. Article created by SPA-like editor who has a couple dozen edits on articles, all relating to people who have been published by "City Lights Publishers". Possible WP:COI. SnottyWong gossip 20:16, 23 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) 01:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella-Jade Wiliams[edit]

Isabella-Jade Wiliams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article appears to be a hoax. Though the article asserts that Isabella-Jade Wiliams is one of Australia's most prominent ballroom dancers, there are no reliable sources to verify this. A Google search returns no evidence to demonstrate that she is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (biographies). A Google News Archive search returns no relevant results. The article cites the Sydney Morning Herald as a source, but there is no evidence that she was covered on smh.com.au.

This article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:Notability (people). If reliable sources can be found to demonstrate that Wiliams exists and is notable, I will withdraw this AfD nomination. Cunard (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. Can't find mention of her famous parents either. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the nominator's Google search, there is a book by "Books LLC" (is that a respected publisher and a reliable source, or a vanity press?) with info about an Australian dancer of that name, and there seems to be a Facebook page. The article claims some coverage in Australian pape5s, but does not provide date of publication, and nothing with the unusual spelling of Wiliams" shows up about such an Australian dancer at Google News archive. I could not find mention of her or the particular news article about her cited as a ref in the archives of the Morning Herald, but archive searches don't always turn up articles which a paper actually ran. Appears to fail notability and verifiability of claims to notability, unless someone can provide some references to bear out the claims. Edison (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that book is a compilation of Wikipedia articles... Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commment Near as I can tell, everything by Books LLC is direct copies of Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure what that might mean in terms of copyright, but it might be something to be concerned about. Edward321 (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is what I wrote last year on the talk page of the article in question:
"I am pretty uncomfortable with this article. It may be a fake, invented by the first contributor. I have been unable to verify the existance of the supposed subject of the article; on Google only mirror sites come up. I have also failed to find her supposed partner "Michael Myan", and fail to find anything on the newspaper websites; you notice no links are given, but I went into those websites with no luck". Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:21, 24 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) 01:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raacca[edit]

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

This article about a deity appears to be a hoax. I cannot find any relevant sources about Raacca on Google. A Google Books search returns irrelevant results. This article was tagged as a hoax by WereSpielChequers (talk · contribs), who questioned the article's validity per the following content that s/he removed from the article:

Extended content

Other than that, not much has been documented about Raacca.

==Modern-Day Belief==

It is believed that Raacca selects her chosen every 900-1,000 years . The last known "chosen one" is documented to have existed exactly 1,000 years ago from today (7/19/2010) Some cultures still choose to believe that Raacca indeed exists and will make her next selection very soon. It is not known whether or not she has chosen.

Cunard (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • As User:Cunard says I spotted this probable hoax, my understanding is that there are no worshippers of the old Sumerian gods still around today, let alone "some cultures". Plus some of the other things feel varnished and insane. ϢereSpielChequers 22:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoax. Zero Google Books or Scholar hits for Raacca deity. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:09, 28 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) 02:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cristóbal de Entizne[edit]

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

This article appears to be a hoax. I have been unable to find coverage about Cristóbal de Entizne in a Google News Archive search and a Google Books search.

The talk page contains the follow comments:

Extended content

== Article issues ==

I can locate no references or mentions of a person by this or similar name, either in the usual print sources relating to Cortes or this period (Gomara, Diaz del Castillo, the Cartes, etc) or indeed anywhere else. This is concerning, unless there's some variant name spelling this person is otherwise referred by I have serious doubts that this is an authentic article. The (unreferenced) information provided is also suspect -- for example, the expedition sent north towards Baja California in 1532 by Cortes was commanded by Diego Hurtado de Mendoza (a cousin of Cortes), not anyone called "Cristobal" or "Entizne". The second ship was under Juan de Mazuela. True enough the expedition met a sticky end, but at least two members made it back from one of the ships to tell the tale. See the spanish wiki es:Diego Hurtado de Mendoza (explorador), also this reference here for example.

Unless references can be supplied (will ask of the article creator, tho this article's creation has been their sole edit thus far), I'd say this needs to be put up for deletion.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like anon ip user 64.113.123.122 (talk · contribs), who I presume is the article's creator when not logged on, has added in a section containing a handful of familiar primary & secondary sources on Cortes and the Conquest era.

However, none of these sources contain any mention, anywhere, of a person named Cristóbal de Entizne or something similar. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, do they contain any mention of someone else whose exploits fit the description given here.

I have asked the anon contributor to provide, if they can, the edition, chapter and page number details where this 'Cristóbal de Entizne' is supposed to be mentioned in these texts, and the full quoted passages where it appears to allow for verification.

Suspicions of a hoax or prank remain high, without any relevant, direct and verifiable citations proving otherwise. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 19:16, 23 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dhakkar[edit]

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

Not notable place. I'll teach you who rocks (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article needs some serious work but it has the potential to be improved.

As for the not notable issue, I don't think it applies to geographic locations. If it did, then we'd be left with mostly cities and all the villages and some towns with articles in Wikipedia would need to be deleted as well. Likeminas (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this link is not Google Maps and the coordinates given in the link are not for the location stated in the article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm having a surprisingly hard time verifying the existence of this place, either under the spelling given or under plausible variants. Those Maplandia maps (as linked by Shoessss above), are not necessarily to be relied on, and the place pinpointed there doesn't appear to be a town; the coordinates given in the article are in Oman, not Pakistan; and the only reasonably good "reference" I'm finding is this list, which appears to show that "Dhakar" (so spelled) shares a telephone code with Dinga. Probably the place does exist, but it doesn't appear to be labeled on Google or Bing maps, and without some evidence to satisfy WP:V, I'm reluctant to say "keep". I've listed this discussion at the delsort for Pakistan; perhaps someone there—or someone whose Google-fu is better tham mine—will be able to come up with something. Deor (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The coordinates given in the article are not in Pakistan. According to Google Earth it's Oman, and there is nothing at those coord. The coordinates in the source above at wikimapia ( 32°40'55"N 73°45'42) are in Jerusalem. In fact that source even says it's Israel. The coordinates from maplandia (34° 0' 55" North, 74° 6' 15" East) are for Israel as well. I don't know anything about Dhakkar, but I do know that this article isn't about that place. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, both 32°40′55″N 73°45′42″E / 32.68194°N 73.76167°E / 32.68194; 73.76167 and 34°0′55″N 74°6′15″E / 34.01528°N 74.10417°E / 34.01528; 74.10417 are in Pakistan, not Israel; but the latter location does not appear to be in Kharian tehsil (as the article says this place is), and neither is labeled on Google Maps. The location at the former coordinates may indeed be near Dhakkar, but in the absence of a map label there's no way to be sure. Deor (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first one from wikimapia appears in the Dhakkar article and the coordinates are listed in the page at the URL given there. The second coordinates are given above in this AFD. They're listed as "Google Maps" by Shoessss but it's actually maplandia. On that page it has the coordinates I used. Both are for a place called Dhakkar in Israel, although both are used (one in the article, and one in this afd) to justify this article. They're both incorrect sources for this. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, both sets of coordinates are for places in in Pakistan, not Israel. Click on the links in my comment above, and look at the maps. Deor (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Must be some weird character problem. When I cut/paste them into Google Earth it took me to Israel. Go figure. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those coordinates are not for the place this article deals with. There may be two (or more) Dhakkar/Dhakars in Pakistan, but the coordinates you've added certainly aren't for a location in the Kharian tehsil of Gujrat District. Deor (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh, darn duplicate names. (Incidentally, the Maplandia link is the same Dhakkar that I found, so it isn't verification either now.) After a little further research, I think we may have a case of alternate spelling here; there's a Dhakar listed in Gujrat district, not too far from the Wikimapia location. That's probably the subject of the article, and would explain why it's been so hard to find references. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:01, 24 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) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gelheads[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about this band through a Google News Archive search. The Google News Archive search returned this article from Broadway World, which is promotional (MotorCity Casino Hotel is proud to announce The Gelheads, opening for The Goo Goo Dolls, at Sound Board ...), and is thus not a neutral, third-party source. This article from the local newspaper Newcity provides some coverage of the band but not significant coverage. The rest of the sources in the Google News Archive search are either irrelevant or provide trivial mentions. I do not think there is enough coverage here to justify inclusion of this band on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the band's album for deletion:

Cunard (talk) 18:55, 23 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) 01:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mirage (Armin van Buuren album)[edit]

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

Doesn't qualify under A7A9, as the artist has a page. I simply don't think this album is notable enough on its own to warrant an article, especially since it hasn't been released yet. Seems like a bit of WP:CBALL here. — Timneu22 · talk 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable future album. SnottyWong gab 20:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Incubate. We have title, release date, artwork, and tracklisting.[20] It's bound to be 'notable' nearer to its release date (7 weeks time) if it isn't already. There's already a fair amount around of Google News. --Michig (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bound to be notable" = WP:CBALL — Timneu22 · talk 13:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a future album, but no we're not peering into a crystal ball for any of this - we know the release date, artwork and tracklisting. The artist is certainly notable and yes, the album will be, and an article will be justified in 6 or 7 weeks time. If 6 or 7 weeks is too long to wait then send it to the article incubator so that it can be worked on until then.--Michig (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • But there's no indication why this album is notable. — Timneu22 · talk 13:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • From WP:MUSIC: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia". Common sense should suggest that this album will receive sufficient coverage to be considered notable.--Michig (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Operative words: may have sufficient notability. Doesn't mean "does have". — Timneu22 · talk 15:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then what is your reason for claiming it "does not have"? Rlendog (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Because the article claims none. The article only talks about existence, not importance. — Timneu22 · talk 10:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It claims to be an album by a notable artist. That is already a claim of importance. Rlendog (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'll admit some concern over the lack of external sources, but with a notable artist, a title and a track listing, it seems to have enough to stick, even under WP:HAMMER. Rlendog (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The nominator may have doomed this AfD because by declining the A7 stating the artist has a page which suggests that the artist is notable. Furthermore, WP:CBALL states, "Examples of appropriate topics include the 2012 U.S. presidential election" which is more than one year away. This album is less than three months and as per another editor, release date, artwork and tracklisting is available. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand this at all. — Timneu22 · talk 16:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:MUSIC and WP:CBALL. Both state and I quote CBALL, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". As per previous posts in this AfD, this album is scheduled. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per moreno oso and Michig. This album is an upcoming album by Armin van Buuren (one of the best known Trance DJs in the world btw) so there will be an article for this album in the furture. Even this album (or compilation?) is not released yet the article should be expanded instead of geting deleted --D-Kuru (talk) 19:14, 29 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.

Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case[edit]

The result was Delete G10. Pages that disparage or threaten their subject. (amended by closer - see below) billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chosing which speedy delete criteria was difficult, however this page is contentious and may do potential harm. WP:IAR delete, with WP:BLP of an eleven year old, concerns due to poor sourcing and lack of balance, non-encyclopaedic, and invitation to review at DRV and restore if consensus agrees." billinghurst sDrewth 14:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure - It came out shortly after the above deletion that the closer had not really meant G10 so much as generalized serious concerns over harm to the point of early deletion (which was roughly his explanation). The wording above was my resulting comment and suggestion to the closing admin how he might help reduce drama by making the basis of his explanation clearer to the community for when the inevitable DRV was filed, and to clearly encourage review (which would probably be required and good practice even if not). I did not take part in any decision to early close nor express a personal view on the AFD. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non noteable article. Also, extremely biased. Crisis Doomsday /Clock 18:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it was apparently mentioned in ABC News. That's notable. And bias is nothing that can't be fixed with editing. --khfan93 (t) (c) 18:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: WP:SNOW Keep. It's obvious where this is going. Ingersollian (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Keep, obviously, as the article's creator. I must say, I've never seen a new article nominated for both AfD and DYK at the same time! To respond to User:Crisis, WP:NOTABILITY is easily fulfilled by the broad range of mainstream third-party references (in American and international media), and any bias you perceive should be addressed by editing the article itself and participating on its Talk page. Ingersollian (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable by now. Gawker, San Francisco Chronicle, CBS News, News Limited, etc. These are all from the first results page for the name. I also read the article a few hours ago; I didn't find it too biased at all. It is a pretty good article; if there's any obvious bias, then that's probably just a result of the actual events that occurred, not because the article is trying to paint the events in a way that it's not. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of notable sources, and what bias, it's a list of facts. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 18:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll give you an example. I just had to remove a segment of a sentence that said "she allegedly created nude photographs of herself and released them to internet pedophiles". As someone who posts occasionally on 4chan and was thus sitting in the eye of the shitstorm, the alleged pic is actually part of one of her videos, where she lifted up her top and covered her breast with her hand. That's not releasing it to pedophiles, that's releasing it to YouTube users in general. Crisis Doomsday /Clock 18:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're all glad you've corrected that inaccurate description in the article, Crisis, but that is not a rationale for article deletion. Ingersollian (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very notable, and with plenty of secondary sources. Also if the article is biased, tag accordingly. Likeminas (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might like to read Wikipedia:Speedy keep and explain which of the criteria the nomination meets. CIreland (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just read There are zero remaining arguments for deletion and I thought it was good enough. But I guess you're right. A better vote would been Strong keep Likeminas (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this has caused enough of a stir to be mentioned on mainstream media, it's notable enough. As with khfan93's comment, biased portions can be edited to comply with NPOV. GB86 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Notability is not an issue, its been firmly established. That said, I honestly wonder if this doesn't fall under WP:NOTNEWS. The problem is, that at least right now, its too difficult to know without a crystal ball, whether this will be a blip on the news radar, or something with lasting encyclopedic merit. So I say leave it for now, and come back in a month or two and re-examine. If there's no further coverage than this initial current burst and any minor followups, then deletion might be warranted. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very similar to Star Wars Kid, and while "other crap exists" is typically an argument to avoid, that particular article has been heavily vetted and stands up. Concerns about content are valid, but not reason for deletion; the article should be kept and maintained carefully to avoid becoming an attack page. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NOTNEWS is routinely ignored at AfD, so why not here too? Resolute 22:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. The best argument I see put forth is WP:NOTNEWS which does raise the question of "will this still be notable two years hence?" At the present time however it's something of a hotbutton issue, has received coverage on Good Morning America and several print and online news outlets, etc, so notability in the present is virtually beyond question. The article could use some sprucing but is surprisingly not that bad, relatively free of bias, decently sourced, etc. My only reservation is that this could die down to sheer nothingness at any time and if that happens I would end up likely supporting deletion, as I do not believe something that merited a few days of minor news coverage is truly noteworthy - still I support keeping at this time since prematurely deleting it is jumping the gun. - OldManNeptune (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That logic fails WP:N - If it is notable now, its notable forever. But we dont keep something on the premise that it MIGHT become notable in the future, particularly something with such troublesome BLP issues. Active Banana (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Remember, simply saying NOTNEWS is not an argument. the actual guidelines for news and current events are pretty complex. This, to me, appears to be a unique, new form of cyberbullying, in that the person bullied first engaged in apparently very irresponsible behavior for a person their age. not that im justifying the bullying, but i think the details make this inherently notable. it may not be talked about as much 2 years from now, but it will, in my opinion, be a part of a lot of writings on cyberbullying, age of consent to post on ones own, parental controls. I would prefer such articles begin as sections in larger articles, but this has the marks of import.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - /yawn, WP:NOTNEWS, a blip with no lasting significance other than to tug at middle America's think of the children heartstrings. Whiny tween mouths off on the internet, attracts the wrath of the Killer /b/'s, hilarity ensues. Her encyclopediadramatica article is a hoot, though. Tarc (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (question): Is her own will known? A professional Wikipedia article can help her situation (turning the possible moralizing / victim-blaming attitudes of mass into a broader view), but an article of that quality may require expert supervision. An article can be both a nuisance and a great relief for her. Knowing her own will would make the decision easier. Is anything known about this, or is any way of checking this possible? (In the Hope Witsell and Ryan Halligan cases of cyberbullying-induced suicides, this question is not more valid, but Jessi Slaughter is living, and viewing from legal aspect, she may turn out not to be a public figure, although I lack knowledge to judge it). Anticyberbullying (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
to a certain degree, her own will is irrelevant. she is too young to make decisions for herself about how public she wishes to be. that is the sole responsibility of her parents/guardians, until she is of consent/emancipated. she may want her name on the front page of the NYT, and the parents can legally deny her that. however, if any reliable sources show her thoughts, they can be added to article. I wonder if the parents might request that WP protect her identity on her behalf. probably too late for that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that any goal other than simply recording the straight facts as they are made available by reliable sources is both unattainable and doomed to failure. First, as Mercury points out she's not just underage but in some jurisdictions not even a juvenile. "Her will" is therefore a legal non-entity. Second, her judgement should probably not be taken as a reference point; with all due respect for the situation, this girl made decidedly vulgar videos, pasted her name all over the place, and told a hive of trolls that "any fame is ok with her." Third, her family went on national TV with their real names in the midst of a cry that their privacy had been violated. I don't want to introduce critical bias to the article, or this discussion, but the facts to me suggest that trying to act as a protector in this case is a complete lost cause. In short, WP:BLP is the one and only thing I think we have an obligation to concern ourselves with. - OldManNeptune (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In borderline cases where the subject wishes deletion, the subject's wishes are generally considered a tipping !vote to delete. (in this case it would probably be the subject or her parents.) Active Banana (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think i agree with you. But more to the point, i think that this thread should be copied onto the talk page of the article, as its important to the discussions occurring there.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment if this is kept, it needs to be on permanent lockdown and high oversite. We are dealing with threats to a living person who is a minor. Active Banana (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reliable source stating that actual threats were made and verified by police? BTW, these discussions need to go to talk page. - OldManNeptune (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they werent then we are totally dealing with a non-event and the article needs to be deleted. Active Banana (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete in the quickest time possible. Extremely egregious BLP attack. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the name of the guy whose article was deleted by Jimbo because even though it was a well-documented internet meme, the meme was an attack on him because of his looks? "First do not harm." This little girl is eleven years old, for God's sake. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is bad, see Category:Suicides_due_to_cyber-bullying. Not sure though if this article contributes to her trouble. Should be deleted if subject of the article asks it to be deleted. Biophys (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to respond to someone who so casually dismisses my attempt at writing a difficult article as a "steaming pile of shit," but here goes: The article isn't a biography of "Jessi Slaughter," and it was deliberately written with WP:BLP1E concerns in mind. It discusses the broader impact of the cyberbullying case and its aftermath in the context of other notable groups and figures including 4chan and Parry Aftab. How is there a violation of the biographies of living persons policy when the article has never tried to be a biography? What is it about this cyberbullying case that warrants deletion when other articles of similar scope and topic exist? It's certainly not the availability of reliable, mainstream sources. Ingersollian (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP applies to ALL content about living people no matter where it appears. This article cannot exist without content about living MINOR. Active Banana (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:BLP1E? "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." That is exactly how this article has been handled from the very beginning. Ingersollian (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have. My statement was in response to your "The article isn't a biography" as if that exempted it from BLP criteria. Active Banana (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you replied to an argument I never made while ignoring every point I actually wrote. Ingersollian (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a clear violation of WP:BLP1E: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." This is exactly the type of article we have been trying to outgrow as a project. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this is covered by WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. It's a news story this week, no one will remember it in a few. AniMate 03:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. As animate has said, this will disappear from peoples minds in a few weeks.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Textbook BLP1E. Re-create if notability persists beyond this event. I wouldn't wager too much on it though, and I don't trust your predictions to the contrary. Cool Hand Luke 03:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly a "textbook" WP:BLP1E: "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." And that's exactly how this article was written from the very beginning. The sheer thoughtlessness with which these recent delete voters are treating the pains that have been taken in writing this article in compliance with WP:BLP1E is deeply unappreciated. Ingersollian (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the carelessness of your dismissal is no less unappreciated. "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." This story has persisted for what, 50 hours? As I said, if this becomes a lasting significant event, an article might be justified. As it is, it's nothing but news (NOTNEWS, recall), with the weight of BLP against it. Cool Hand Luke 04:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, five days (News Limited, Australia, July 19, 2010) is not fifty hours. In fact, I intentionally waited several days after the initial coverage began to create the article. I didn't write the article until after the Good Morning America interview aired. I took the GMA interview as obviously breaking beyond the level of previous coverage. Ingersollian (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it with fire, already - what's wrong with you people? WP:BLP1E and WP: NOTNEWS, just for starters. It's a BLP nightmare and relates to the inane behavior of a child, who's clearly out of control. This does not need to haunt her adolescence, especially after she grows up a bit and realizes what an idiot she's been -Alison ❤ 04:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the sake of humanity and the reasons given above. Really... Dendlai (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: BTW, YouTube has taken the videos down. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alison, Cool Hand Luke etc. While the author has made a good faith, conscientious effort to write a balanced article, Wikipedia isn't a tabloid newspaper and there's nothing of lasting notability in this. Just because we can write about something, that doesn't mean we always should. EyeSerenetalk 07:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as always, arguments must be made by policy. At least this is slightly more grounded in valid deletion arguments than the Donny whatshisname one was. I agree it probably is not notable, however I do not concur with the BLP argument. The reasoning of "this will haunt her adolesence" is totally irrelevant - it is not been made up, any source that Wikipedia is quoting from will remain in existence, cache'd by Google and the like. The information is out there, Wikipedia is merely colating it. She's already done it. S.G.(GH) ping! 07:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tabloid newspapers claim to be .. tabloid newspapers. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? Thus, we should aim to be a little better than that. Furthermore, as our Googlejuice™ is way stronger than anyone else's, for whatever reasons, we also have the responsibility for being one of the most visible hits. We're not here to exacerbate the problem, quite frankly, nor give credence to gutter journalism. And yes, the BLP argument is more than valid here - Alison ❤ 09:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: What Alison said above. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article on the bullying of an 11 year old girl would be great in a Page Three newspaper, but the current article has zero encyclopedic content (apart from "girl acted her age without any thought; girl got bullied; news outlets exploited the situation"), and has no place here. Glorifying 4chan idiots is not part of Wikipedia's role. Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alison. This isn't worthy of anything past a tabloid newspaper mention, it's a BLP nightmare, and entirely WP:NOTNEWS. Skinny87 (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete – this is what happens when users blindly follow WP:V and WP:RS without respect to any common sense or anything else. –MuZemike 08:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does an 11 year old girl throwing a tantrum (and /b/ being /b/) really need to be documented in an encyclopedia? --SB_Johnny | talk 11:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this title and Jessi Slaughter, and don't merge the contents elsewhere, per BLP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this tabloid bullshit. Malleus Fatuorum 12:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Per Cool Hand Luke, Allison and the others. Please let's use some common sense with a dose of common decency. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as classic examples of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Currently. I do appreciate that the creator delayed the article creation and took some care with it, but we don't need an article until it is clear that there is significant, longer term impact. This is an encyclopedia not a gossipy thrill-mill. --Slp1 (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to embarrass 11-year old girls for the rest of their lives. 86.145.163.208 (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CHL, SV, Alison, Malleus et al.  Begoontalk 12:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As explained above, it's a simple BLP1E. There's nothing beyond "event→aftermath" to the story. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Tony Fox, CHL, Alison, et al. We just don't need this. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:DECENCY. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - decency. Ug, I cant believe this is even being debated. Ceoil (talk) 14:00, 25 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) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Water Records[edit]

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

Fails notability test. Duke Uke (talk) 17:21, 23 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) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Shea (footballer)[edit]

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

BLPprod removed after good faith attempt to source article. Footballer who has made no appearances as a professional, closest is being named as substitute, but not playing. Ffails WP:ATHLETE. No 3rd party sources that discuss the subject, fails the WP:GNG for WP:BIO. No prejudice against recreation if or when he plays at a professional level. Tassedethe (talk) 17:01, 23 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 nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Council of India MCI Screening Test[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted for copyvio. Author claims they have re-written it but it is a particularly unclear article. The same author also created another page which I have just nominated for speedy that appeared to boast that this article could not be deleted because no speedy criterea apply to it. The author also seems to have had issues in the past (see talk page history, since author has recently blanked it.) WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After getting deleted my earlier article on subject of Medical Council of India Screening test citing copy right violation with some site reference but then created new page with whole different content. Subject matter is very much important to all those thousands of Indian student who spends six year and thousands of in studying Medicine out side India. Wikipedia is used like first information source for many such subject matter. Given subject matter is not at all covered no where else on Wikipedia and can not be deleted. Please remove your deletion tag from newly created article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaiyaji2 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems some of administrator with some click (kill !!) privileges on Wikipedia are delete hungry! In stead of appreciating contributors for covering some untouched useful subject, they just keep busy in some time going in totally opposite 180 degree direction from very own core principle and importance of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has flourished to so successful height only because it is always first source of such information on given like subject which you just want to delete citing one or other irrelevant reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaiyaji2 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have stubbed and rewritten using reliable sources. The test was fairly controversial and was subject to litigation that went all the way up to the Indian Supreme Court. It has generate a large amount of coverage in Indian newspapers (thus satisfying GNG). The content issues can be addressed by educating the new editors not to add syllabi and regulations. (currently an external link has been provided to those details). Also it has to be moved to Medical Council of India Screening Test with a redirect from MCI Screening Test--Sodabottle (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks will survive now. Every thing is happening so fast on wikipedia that just during process of Re-editing only, some thing new comes out making busy for nothing!! Said article was free from any tag but got dragged here same movement when I declared at old deleted page of this new creation with so many new tag like - WP:NPV, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:What Wikipedia is not and don’t know what more will follow. Now thanks to Sodabottle who has nicely trimmed it to size and manner it should and now I believe it will survive at least on Wikipedia contrary to my assumption that so (too!!) many expert admins (cook) with privileged click may will -cake it or crash it!!--Bhaiyaji2 (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. New version is looking a lot better, and the subject certainly seems notable enough. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I agree with the move and redirect too. (And as an aside, it's good to see India-related articles being developed towards good quality - that very important part of the world is severely under-represented here). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my opinion to Keep based on the rewrite done by Sodabottle. Also agree with the proposed rename. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The re-write has made the article a lot better, along with the reliable sources and assertation of notability. WackyWace converse | contribs 08:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I removed delete tag mark earlier on this page without knowing what to act just for the purpose for keep. Now hope acting in correct manner. --DrSurgeon7 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DrSurgeon7, I'm glad you understand. Please don't remove any tags or take any action. We are just here to discuss. A Wikipedia administrator will make the decision about this discussion and this article, and the administrator will do any removing or closing that needs to be done. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 26 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. CopyVio  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elnaz Rezaei Ghalechi[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Non-notable author, self-promotional article. Gwebs hits (even in Persian) are wikimirrors and some articles by the subject.Farhikht (talk) 16:26, 23 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) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reality bites (album)[edit]

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

Trouble with notability for this album. It is available for sale and download but I can find no reliable or significant coverage. Note: search for "Reality Bites" in conjunction with one or both of the band names so you don't get stuff about the movie of the same title. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:08, 23 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) 02:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Financial Services, Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Cited references include:

  1. a piece in a Sports Club management magazine that appears largely promotional;
  2. a reference to the company's profile on the Bloomberg investing website that supposedly likens the company to MetroLink (which MetroLink is unspecified, but the only ones that can be found appear to be light rail transit operators) and Fortius One (an apparently non-notable company in its own right) -- but which reference does not mention either company;
  3. a reference to the International Health, Raquet and Sports Club Association website that purportedly list them as a "top supplier" (in fact it only lists them in a list of suppliers exhibiting at a particular convention); and
  4. a press release.

None of these citations, nor any that could be found, indicate any particular notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Sources are quite weak. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Article was tagged for rescue without explanation by the article's creator, and the editor who tagged it hasn't even !voted here. Tagging an article you created for rescue solely because you don't want it to be deleted is inappropriate. I have deleted the rescue tag. If the article's creator (or anyone else) would like to add the rescue tag to this article, please also include a brief comment here explaining why this item should be rescued and how that could happen (per the instructions at WP:ARS#Instructions). SnottyWong chatter 17:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, sorry. I didn't know I had to give a reason for marking the article with {{rescue}}. And I didn't know I as the article creator should vote or could vote. I suppose the {{hangon}} tag would be more appropriate. I wanted time to find additional sources, which I think there are. Thanks for you patience. Dcsm23 (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dcsm23 (talk · contribs) has once again tagged the article for rescue, and I believe the action is no more appropriate now than it was the first time. {{hangon}} would not have been the appropriate choice either, as this is only for speedy deletion candidates. The proper action would be to express an opinion at this discussion as to why the article should be allowed to remain. This discussion will continue for 7 days, so there will be time to find the sources if they exist. If the article improves during this discussion, it will probably survive this deletion discussion. If it takes longer to find the sources, then the article (with improved sources) can be recreated later. If (as I believe is likely or I would not have nominated in the first place) there are no better sources, then the article will be deleted as appropriate. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dscm23, you are free to !vote in this AfD, and you have 7 days from the date of nomination (which was July 23rd) to find additional sources. SnottyWong chatter 02:31, 29 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) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Alliance of Buffalo[edit]

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

promotional puff piece with extremely high COI probability. WuhWuzDat 15:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's good to know that people are out there promoting arts and culture, but Wikipedia requires that outside independent reliable sources take note. That doesn't seem to have happened here; I could find almost nothing on Google or Google News, and the sixteen (now 20) member theatres do not appear to be individually notable. The article was created and primarily edited by User:Buffalo Theatre, which has been blocked indefinitely as a spam name. --MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 29 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) 01:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip H. Corboy[edit]

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

Nominating with related articles on similar terms: WP:N, WP:PEACOCK, WP:ADVERT, etc. — Timneu22 · talk 15:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Related AfDs:
  • Keep- I believe a lawyer who is awarded a life time achievement award by the American Association for Justice, the leading organization for lawyers, as shown here [21]. A man who has a building named after him by one of the leading law schools in the country Loyola as shown here, [[22]. A person that has appeared numerous times on Nightline as an expert, as shown here [23]]. Plus appearances on20/20 - ABC 60 Minutes - CBS John Callaway Show - WTTW (Channel 11, Chicago) - Court TV/Miller's Law - Daybreak - Phil Donahue Show - Face The Nation – CBS - Inside the Law - Reliance National and the ABA - Kup's Show - WTTW (Channel 11, Chicago) - Nightline with Ted Koppel - Town Hall Meeting, ABC - Joan Rivers Show - David Susskind Show - Oprah Winfrey Show would at least meet our requirements under Creative professionals. I have added appropriate references to the article. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 18:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Philip Corboy is a prominent and note-worthy attorney. He is a member of several highly selective legal organizations, including the Inner Circle of Advocates (limited to the top 100 plaintiff trial lawyers in the U.S.), which has a Wiki page and Mr.Corboy is listed on it. If the Inner Circle of Advocates is noteworthy then the lawyers listed are as well. He has been written about and recognized as a top lawyer in national publications such as the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times, National Law Journal, and American Lawyer and has served in leadership positions in legal organizations - as president of the Chicago Bar Association and the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. One of the major law schools in the U.S. has named its law school building afer him and he has been awarded 2 honorary law degrees. Thanks. AlexBTY —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexBTY (talk • contribs) 19:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC) — AlexBTY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep One of the most notable personal injury lawyers in the US for several decades. The article provides many reliable sources with significant coverage. The nomination is very ill-conceived. If the article has too many peacock terms not found in the references, or reads like an ad for the individual, then editing is indicated, not deletion. Edison (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood in popular culture[edit]

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

Delete - another unreferenced trivia-heavy listing of every time someone mentions Clint Eastwood or says something that Eastwood or one of the characters he played supposedly said or says or does something that in the opinion of whatever random editor happens to see it is vaguely reminiscent of something that Eastwood or one of his characters said or did. Wikipedia is not a repository of every time anyone on TV or the movies says "Clint Eastwood" or squints. See this recent AFD for a similar trivia list which was deleted. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree fully with the nomination. This article as currently written isn't encyclopedic at all; rather it's just a trivia list of every namedrop and implied reference to Clint Eastwood that could be found. A well-written article on this topic may benefit the encyclopedia, but that wouldn't contain any of this material as 99% of it appears to be uncited original research. ThemFromSpace 16:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you agree, then, that the article could benefit from cleanup? Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article? No. What is presented can only benefit from deletion. An entirely new article built from the ground up that is not a triviafarm may be welcomed, but I would rather delete this and have a caring editor start it over from scratch than keep any of the trivia around. A redirect to the parent article may be welcome until this caring editor comes along. ThemFromSpace 00:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does seem like rather an odd idea for an article. The question that immediately comes to mind is what part of Clint Eastwood does it leave that is not in popular culture. (The edit history tells us that this is — alas! — yet another case of sweeping unwanted content under the rug.) Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IPC. No need to merge content back into Clint Eastwood, as there's plenty of room for an article on these. Each entry is implicitly sourced to its own primary source, but making those references explicit wouldn't hurt. Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of those items is sourced, and since they both initiated in the Eastwood article, if sourcing can be found they can be restored from the history with no merge or redirect required. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clint Eastwood played a major role In American Movie History. Adding this information to the main Clint Eastwood article might cause it to be cluttered. I would suggest to re-write this article to make it sound more like a Wikipedia article. LibertyNT ( talk ) 10:31 29 July 2010 (CDT) —Preceding undated comment added 03:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • So then, not relying on any reliable sources, just saying "Clint Eastwood is important and that means collecting every time his name is said is also important." Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- this is the most awful cruft imaginable. The "sources" are hopelessly inadequate (a blog and stuff ripped off of Wikipedia), and the "article" itself is just a dodgy list of times Mr. Eastwood has been mentioned in various places. This "article" fails WP:V through having precisely zero usable sources, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH by dint of the fact that you can't just cobble together a bunch of random passing mentions and declare that to be an encyclopedia topic, WP:FANCRUFT because- well, just read the "article" and WP:TRIVIA. This "article" looks like it got lost on its way to TvTropes. Reyk YO! 06:00, 30 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) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PrintUsage Pro[edit]

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

Non notable product? Very promotional, no evidence of secondary sources and refs that are listed are self-published. Paste Let’s have a chat. 14:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The heliacal rising of Sirius was three weeks ago; it's high-summer here now. The cicadas have begun sawing in the trees whose leaves are beginning to look moth-eaten and outworn, with a glimpse toward their certain change and fall. The sun is a vague patch of unbearable light in a sky filled with a diffuse yellow incandescence, while at night the moon hangs low in the sky. The heat makes you listless and indifferent.

    But cutting through all this haze and heat, a frigid wind blows into the mind, cold enough to make the soul shiver: the thought that some person out there, some bean counter is making software whose sole purpose is to keep track of printer toner and paper costs. It might be your neighbour. It might be that fellow you saw on the train. No doubt, such software is technically trivial to create; what startles the conscience is that anyone bothered. And this is obviously promotional for such a product, so delete: PrintUsage Pro’s main function is to reduce the cost involved in running and maintaining a fleet of printers. PrintUsage Pro uses a quota scheme to charge users for their printing, thereby controlling the company’s printing costs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 23 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helidon Gjergji[edit]

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

The article fails WP:BIO thus WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Please note that the article's creator ([[Materials2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)]]) only contributions to Wikipedia have been linking this article to other pages. Which also seems to be in violation of WP:SPIP for self-promotion. Likeminas (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There may well be some self-promotion going on. However this artist appears to be notable. There are articles about him. His work has been included in major exhibitions such as the Venice Biennale as noted in the previous Italian language source and confirmed here. Unfortunately, none of the books are viewable in a google book search, but the snippets in the results indicate he does receive coverage. I am satisified that additional sourcing is available and notability is established. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is not well referenced, but there are plenty of sources and articles on him to determine notability. Clearly passes wp:artist. --Sulmues (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tag with cite and expand templates, but subject is fully notable. Just another bad article on a good topic: no cause for nuking. Sources are not hugely obvious, mostly academic & art related, but they're plentiful. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Exhibition record established notability easily. Other issues can be dealt with as necessary. freshacconci talktalk 01:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable and encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per inclusion in Venice Biennale and other shows. Needs work. Ty 17:43, 29 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) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business control and support system[edit]

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

Not a single reference, no indication of importance, and a promotional page for "LHS Group" and/or to redirect people to billing-systems.net. BSCS is a "very powerful platform", but no indication that it actually is. — Timneu22 · talk 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability in the article. Searching has produced no evidence that there is any significant coverage of "Business control and support system" anywhere: Google hit, apart from Wikipedia, only two pages, both of which made only very brief mentions of the expression. Creator of article has twice added a link of doubtful relevance to a site. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 23 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 but strongly encourage a rewrite to gain a more neutral point of view. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas A. Demetrio[edit]

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

This person is not especially notable. This is highly promotional, and created by a WP:SPA who also created Corboy & Demetrio, which is heavily tagged with issues like WP:PEACOCK and similar. It's fine that the guy may have been featured in USA Today once, but this is just an attorney, and not a particularly notable one. WP:ADVERT is all over this thing; I think WP:NOTFACEBOOK is quite applicable to these articles. — Timneu22 · talk 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete fails WP:N and is written in a very self-promotional way. Likeminas (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it fails speedy because of a couple claims. :( — Timneu22 · talk 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know about speedy deleting it, but the subject certainly fails WP:N. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, also nominated:
  • Keep –I believe Mr. Demetrio is a well known prominent attorney in the Illinois area, as well as seeing national attention, as shown here [[24]]by the news coverage. I have also added several references by independent – 3 rd party - creditable sources such as the American Bar Association Journal Lawyers Network Magazine and USA Today. I believe Mr. Demetro meets our guidelines for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 15:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -Thomas Demetrio is a notable and prominent attorney. He is a member of several highly selective legal organizations - one of them, the Inner Circle of Advocates, which is limited to the top 100 plaintiff trial lawyers in the U.S., has a Wiki page and Mr. Demetrio is listed on it. If the Inner Circle of Advocates is noteworthy then the lawyers listed are as well. He has been written about and recognized as a top lawyer in national publications such as the National Law Journal, American Bar Association Journal and USA Today and has served in leadership positions in legal organizations - as president of the Chicago Bar Association and the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexBTY (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Preceding editor has edited only the AfD pages in question.— Timneu22 · talk 19:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:BIO as one of the leading attorneys in the US, and satisfies general notability via significant coverage im multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a law student, I look at this guy's bio and say, "wow." Even if the main purpose of this article was promotional, it meets notability. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the main purpose of this article is promotion, then it needs to go or be rewritten. WP:NPOV is one of the core principles. — Timneu22 · talk 01:57, 24 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) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pâques Man[edit]

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

A non-notable film, for whom I could not find any reliable sources; the only claim of notability I could dig from the text is "has clearly inspired many horror films such as Saw by James Wan." Saying "clearly" without providing a reliable source is WP:POV/WP:OR. Though I'm keen on discovering new revelations of plagiarism and the like, and prone to believe there are certain similarities between both films, this one assertion is not sourced by reliable sources. Maashatra11 (talk) 13:21, 23 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) 01:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advancement of Sound Science Center[edit]

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

No proof of notability, current ref`s seem to be primary documents. Full of OR which i have removed along with content sourced to dead domains. mark nutley (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found a couple sources that mention this group: Washington Post, USA Today book review of Mechants of Doubt, presumably in Merchants of Doubt, Toronto Star, Mother Jones. Minor mention in all of them; I don't see how we could write an article about it. Has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:ORG. I don't know if there is anything worth merging to the Steven Milloy article, otherwise, redirect to Milloy as possible search term, per WP:PRESERVE. Changing to keep in light of peer-reviewed medical sources provided by Mastcell. -Atmoz (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GNG is clearly satified - TASSC has had significant coverage in numerous independent reliable sources including The New York Times ([25], reviewing a book by Chris Mooney), a book by Clive Hamilton [26], the New Scientist ([27] - "Other corporate tactics include the creation of phoney grassroots organisations. The pioneer was The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) ...") and The Guardian [28].

The nominator's statement about "current ref`s" notwithstanding, it is also worth examining the numerous sources removed by himself immediately prior to the nomination. For example,the Center for Science in the Public Interest's publications are widely used as external links and references elsewhere on Wikipedia, I don't understand why their article on the topic was removed. It cites further reliable sources, e.g. Village Voice (online copy) and the Tulsa World.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed as it is an advocacy site making claims about a BLP, such a source is not allowable under wp:blp As were a lot of other sources removed. mark nutley (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, but I don't think this interpretation of WP:BLP applies here. In any case, it certainly does not apply to the ten other reliable sources that have been listed on this page by now, including two books by reputed publishers - Earthscan (ISBN 9781849710817) and Basic Books (ISBN 9780465046751). Many more book sources can be found using Google Book Search - it seems that TASSC has literally become a textbook example for this kind of organization. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep and rewrite: There appear to be sufficient reliable sources to meet notability criteria. Guardian 2006 describes TASSC's founding by Philip Morris' PR firm. The New Republic 2006 similarly covers TASSC. Although I have not read Merchants of Doubt, it appears that there is significant non-trivial coverage of TASSC therein (see review from USAToday). (If the article is kept, I will acquire a copy of the book to see what, if anything, would be appropriate for Wikipedia).

    TASSC is also discussed in the peer-reviewed medical literature. See PMID 11684593 (free text from PubMed Central), an article from the American Journal of Public Health, and the accompanying editorial in the same journal. TASSC is similarly covered in PMID 10770318 (article from The Lancet, 2000). That's without getting into more borderline secondary sources, or the wealth of primary sources available at the University of California, San Francisco tobacco-documents archive. There is clearly enough solid secondary sourcing here to meet notability criteria and build an encyclopedic article, although the current text needs a substantial rewrite. MastCell Talk 18:29, 23 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peckhammer TV[edit]

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

I've requested the creation of a deletion discussion for this page at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. A speedy deletion template (G4) was removed, so discussion is needed. The article appears to reproduce the content of another article (Peckhammer.blip.tv) which was previously deleted pursuant to a deletion discussion. The article contains numerous references, as noted by the editor who removed the G4 template -- but none of the referenced secondary sources actually appear to mention the article subject itself, so the notability problems (which were the reason for the original deletion) don't seem to be resolved. If an administrator follows up on my request, the deletion discussion should appear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peckhammer TV. 67.127.57.254 (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC) ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 09:33, 23 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) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors of the Dragon Kingdom[edit]

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

Unfinished fantasy novel. There is nothing I can find in a Google search to indicate any importance to this work. The article gives no mention of any interest by a publisher. Malcolma (talk) 09:24, 23 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. I'll be happy to userfy the page on request. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ola's Kool Kitchen[edit]

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

This has been deleted, redireected, and deleted again. It's a minor DJ show on a minor radio station, and all the references are to Wayback archives of unreliable sources. Most of the content is by user:Aspland11, a single-purpose account who has been assiduously promoting this article and (as a way of anchoring it) the article on the radio station. A COI is extremely likely. Most of the supposed sources are just the show's own site with listings to resume-pad with all the Really Cool People who have been on the show. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The article does not sound like a promotion anymore, after my copyediting, and your claims about Aspland11 are a bit baseless. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aspland11 is the sole editor of the article, other than your copyedits. His/her other significant contributions are to Radio23, the station that Ola's Kool Kitchen is apparently broadcasting on. I do see some COI problems here. -download ׀ sign! 17:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A COI may be possible, but JzG's claim that Aspland11 is "a single-purpose account who has been assiduously promoting this article and (as a way of anchoring it) the article on the radio station" is a bit baseless, and verges towards a personal attack. Either way, I'll try to find more reliable sources for the article. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see nothing notable about this show, and looking over the references, almost all seem unreliable blog posts with little or no meaningful content. I also sense a conflict of interest and even after MC10's copyediting, there could be some POV problems. -download ׀ sign! 16:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This article meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion 1 (Soundcheck Magazine) and criterion 10 (Primavera Sound Festival), thereby showing that the article is notable enough to merit its own article. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see how the article meets the criteria that it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." The only reference to Soundcheck Magazine mentioned in the article is that DJ Ola "formerly wrote for Sound Check Magazine." I see no content or sources that show that it has been the subject of multiple published works. In addition, I don't think the article meets as it isn't a musical group! In fact, it appears that Ola's Kool Kitchen reports on Primavera Sound Festival. These contribute nothing to your claim of notability. -download ׀ sign! 02:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, after re-reading WP:MUSICBIO and your response, I realized that the article actually doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. In that case, let's userfy the page, as it fails WP:GNG, but Aspland11 has indicated that he wishes to keep the page. I've struck my response above. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per user:download. Diego Grez what's up? 17:26, 27 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OwnerIQ[edit]

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

Company without any claim to notability other than a general and unreferenced "collects ownership signals from millions of consumers". The references provided are trivial mentions. There is also a possible conflict of interest issue, since the creator's name coincides with that of the online marketing manager of the company. bonadea contributions talk 13:03, 8 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, 15 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! 07:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep DigiDayDaily and CEPro Online appear to be RSes that cover the topic in detail enough (and yes, interviews are fine). The Miami Herald blogy thing and The Alarm Clock provide material that is more than in-passing, but not a lot. Both appear to be RSes. The other sources aren't worthless, but aren't really worth mentioning. Meets WP:N, there is enough to write about. Still boarder-line though.Hobit (talk) 16:53, 23 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) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proto (file manager)[edit]

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

This file manager has no third party references that show notability. Existing reference 1 (Wakoopa) is unreliable. Existing reference 2 (Humane Interface book) does not mention this software, this software is based on guides in the book. Authors of the article are believe to have a COI on the subject matter, making Wikipedia a promotional venue for the product - this article is spam. Miami33139 (talk) 07:05, 23 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The result was delete. what a bizarre discussion but we do seem to be in agreement that this isn't sourced with stuff about him so it doesn't cut the mustard. Spartaz Humbug! 19:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 15. Regards SoWhy 06:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Emadi[edit]

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


Fails WP:BIO. Article seems to be well-referenced, but many of those are articles he wrote rather than sources about him (like 2 ref in Jaras). Other references like poets.ir is a website created by the subject[29], and the other is not a review (as mentioned in the article) but a presentation of an upcoming book. Another reference is from Amazon.com and I couldn't find any relevant to the article. Finally I don't know why an admin kept an article who is partly based on Ahmad Shamlou's article, and the creator just changed the name of Shamlou to Mohsen Emadi!Farhikht (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The references No. 1 is a link to the translation of his poetry in a Spanish literary journal. No. 2 refers to radio Farda where is an interview with Mohsen Emadi as a digital publisher of Ahmad Shamlou on Ketab Kuche. References from No. 3 to 8 show some of his research talks and poetry reading in Turkey and around Europe- Spain and Finland. Refrences No. 9 and 10 refer to two main websites Emadi created and manages; one of them- the official website of Ahmad Shamlou is an acclaimed website and Wikipedia and many other websites used it as a main reference for Shamlou. Every writer has the right to create a media and publish his own works, as T.S. Eliot and many others did. 'Iranian Books News Agency' and 'Young Literature of Iran' are two established media that do not publish uncertain information about upcoming books and do not interview writers if the publishing is uncertain. The link to Amazon (reference No.18) is the link of the original book Emadi translated into Persian and the Iranian Books News Agency published the news and interview about the Persian version (reference No. 19). If the user Farhikht is interested in editing the article he can propose an alternative, however deletion is out of the question here. As I informed before, tracing Farhikht's activity show incomprehensible interest in deletion of many other writers involved in election protests in 2009; important and influential authors like Pourmohsen or Alikhani. This way of deletion has two reason: personal problems or political reasons that lie behind these removing activities in order to manipulate with history. The article about Mohsen Emadi was not based on Ahmad Shamlou, but referenced by Clara Janes and Vladimir Holan, the list of Mazandaranian writers, however the used Farhihkt removed his entry from them, as you one can see when tracing his contributions.--Newpoesia (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I googled to find out more online sources that prove the nobility and importance of this figure in contemporary Persian literature.--Newpoesia (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC) — Newpoesia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep By tracing all the references, the subject has at least one book translated into Spanish, also six time participation in international events as poet or scholar and one literary Grant. Four secondary source materials namely 'Barcelona Review', 'Adamar', 'The other voice international project' and 'International Poetry Festival of Moncayo' tell the same story as the article. Considering the fact that the subject is an Iranian young poet and important figures like Clara Janes with more than 60 published books in Spanish and Montserrat Abelló i Soler with more than 20 published books in Catalan have translated his poetry, it must be clear that the subject must have acceptable reputation inside his country or must be influential enough to be selected by such a writers. I think the article perhaps need some clean-ups but the notability of the subject is out of question. Finally a hint out of the subject : I dislike both the anger of Farhikht and the enthusiasm of Newpoesia, I prefer to be more rational specially when we are dealing with a living person. --Transcelan (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC) — Transcelan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: According to WP:AUTHOR, works of Mohsen Emadi has to be the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, but in fact, many of your sources are the articles by Emadi, and not the articles on him, and the others like poets.ir are not independents from the subject. Take a look at this, which is the main problem of your article. You can't mention an article of Emadi from Jaras (rahesabz.net) and write [Mohsen Emadi]could be considered also as a passionate political activist for the Green Movement and his essays on politics has been published in Jaras reformist website. Other thing that I have to say: Many of what you call reviews not in fact reviews, they are just a news on an upcoming book. I say it again: there is no review on Emadi's work in the reference section.

and no comment for this:

  • From Shamlou's article: Shamlou has translated extensively from German and French to Persian and his own works are also translated into a number of languages. Aside from his first passion which was poetry, he had a number of other activities which included writing stories and film scenarios, contributing to children’s literature, and journalism.
  • From Emadi's article: Mohsen Emadi has translated extensively from English and Spanish to Persian and his own works are also translated into a number of languages. Aside from his first passion which was poetry, he had a number of other activities which included writing stories and film scenarios, contributing to children’s literature, and translation.

And you transle the title of this source (again an article by Emadi) چند تکه حرف پراکنده (literally:some sporadic point) to Student Movement, Green Movement and experience of Islamic Republic? Could you tell me why?

And you write: Mohsen Emadi has translated extensively from English and Spanish to Persian and his own works are also translated into a number of languages but in this source, all I can see is a statement of Emadi on Forough Farrokhzad and the source is not El Pais.Farhikht (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was the exact reason that I left Wikipedia for a long time, efforts of somebody to exaggerate some rhetorical interpretation of himself on an existing article and persisting a lot to fulfill his/her intent and not to see with open eyes: I expressed my opinion before that you can edit or correct the titles and also there could be some challenges on the name selected in the article, but you can not neglect the fact that you are dealing with a notable characters. One can categorize all the references in this article in three different categories: references announcing his book and publication: all the announcements appeared in reliable sources like "Iranian Book News Agency" or "Hamshahri Newspaper". References talking about his participation in International Festivals and Congress which all are known and reliable sources(at least 6 references) and references to his own works and writings to strengthen the fact described in the essay. The similarities between expressions about him and Shamlou could not hide the fact that the subject has translated extensively from English and Spanish to Persian, neglecting his published books, one can see among different literary journals like Bastaar, Vazna and many others (if one persists to neglect poets.ir) that the quantity of his own translations was more than Shamlou's works at least in translating poetry, Shamlou translated about 220 poems and Emadi has at least 500 poems as online publication. It is clear that his responsibilities on Shamlou's works as the only official digital publisher of Shamlou's works was not pleasant for many rivals who did not like to see a young poet could have such a right and it is clear that more than five times they were trying to fight with him in different newspapers and I see those fights came back here in Wikipedia. Farhikht persists that there is no review on his works, first if he agree that he has at least one book published in Spanish translated by Clara Janes, I invite him to read this essay as a review on his works in El Periodico De Aragon Review On Emadi, his works has such an importance that reviewer name him as the Rimbaud of Persian. If you translate the essay entitled as "چند تکه حرف پراکنده" as 'some sporadic points' nobody could understand about the content of the essay but the title chosen could reveal the content and guide the reader of the Wikipedia article. --Transcelan (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but predicado.com is not a reliable source, it's a social network of new writers. Is this the only review on his works?Farhikht (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
predicado.com published the essay which had been appeared before in newspaper edition of perioco de aragon, I am trying to contact some writer friends who kept the archive and I will let you know if you are that much interested in opposing.--Transcelan (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is too much source about him, just now I could find this interview with him in the same newspaper Iran en Trasmoz--Transcelan (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found the main source of the reference entitled as El Pais in their archive. In this article El Pais uses some explanasion of the subject about Forough Farrokhzad as a valuable description about her poetry. El Pais--Transcelan (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that actually the Spanish translation of Forough Farrokhzad appeared by his introduction and it seems that El Pais refers to his introduction on her poetry, I put the reference of the report by BBC on this case among references. --Transcelan (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only say that Persian literature is not that well-known in Euro-American zone, as in the case of Asian or African literature itself. There is not a question of notability when a writer from country as specific and closed as Iran regurarly performs at International Poetry Festivals and his books has been translated into foreign languages, therefore this concern of notability occurs very odd to me. There is a dictatorship and strong censorship in Iran. Online publishing gained importance mainly last year after the coup, when there was an unsuccesful effort to break this censorship. I have to express again that what I see is nothing else but a political manipulation which I strongly disagree with.--Newpoesia (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note: I have expressed concern that the users Newpoesia and Transcelan are the same individual using multiple accounts. The discussion on that topic is here. I mention it here so that the SPI case can be factored in when determining consensus on this AfD. Further discussion on this topic should be contained in the SPI discussion and should not be expanded or addressed any further here unless it is found that the AfD process has been manipulated. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice.
Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 15. Regards SoWhy 06:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - a classic example of how ISBN numbers are used as bookselling tools on Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here the ISBN numbers have been used to approve the books. If you think they are not necessary we can remove them. I have the books and I approve them.--Transcelan (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only 4 Gbooks hits, 2 of which are from Books, LLC, which seems to publish copies of Wikipedia articles. Edward321 (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment- I tried to clarify some points in the discussion on deletion review that perhaps could be useful here : According to BLP, an article must be NPOV, V and NOR. It seems the first author of the article used Adamar Literary Journal, published in September 2002 as the start point, these are older than Wikipedia article, with almost the same content. This text also appears in Barcelona Review in May 2008; other sources about the subject uses almost the same information(NOR). The article also uses a neutral point of view (NPOV). neglecting four references(self-published online websites) other source of the article have acceptable ranges of verifiability like Olifante, El Periodico de aragon or Radio Farda (V). Another question about the article could be the question of notability and this question is tight to the situation and the ground of notability. If the editors are interested they can just have a look in report on censorship p.34-p.39 to know more about the situation of modern poetry inside Iran. The subject belong to the very first generation of Iranian poets after Islamic revolution that Euro-American society heard their voice and translated them. The censorship inside Iran also restricted western media to know more about a generation of poets and writers who appeared after the revolution. Iran student protests, July 1999 had important role to announce new voices of the country out of the country. The fist book of the subject in Spanish translation by Clara Janes appears in 2003 and the website for National Award for Work of a translator is verifiable enough to approve the book. Notes like Gizonak sugeari written by Kirmen Uribe in Berria and interviews like Iran en Trasmoz in El Periodico de aragon speak about a good coverage about his works. Also his presence in international ground of poetry festivals hold by Olifante or Imac founded by Ernest Benach bring some degrees of significance; the referenced talks of the subject in research and academic ground as in international symposium of Rumi hold by Tukish Government and UNESCO or International Nietzsche Symposium could also support the idea. Also he won the translation grant of FILI hold by Finnish Literature Society that approves his other mentioned activity as translator. While I was searching I found another reference speaking about his presence[30] in Semana Poética hold by Dickinson College, USA. Therefore, I think the article has all the conditions of being restored.--Transcelan (talk) 21:58, 29 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 Mew discography. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Her Voice Is Beyond Her Years"[edit]

"Her Voice Is Beyond Her Years" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
She Came Home for Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Am I Wry? No (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comforting Sounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
156 (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Apocalypso (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Special (Mew song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Why Are You Looking Grave? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Zookeeper's Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Introducing Palace Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is every single by this artist really notable? A couple links in the template which includes them all pointed (accidentally) at completely unrelated things, such as Mica, too. Anyway, the criteria for notability here is at WP:NSONG. These articles are really little more than lists of release data, with the odd description. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all to a Mew discography. Several of these were chart hits, so they are notable, but with this amount of information the individual articles would be better merged into a single article and trimmed a little.--Michig (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also linked by the template via a redirect was Kong Kristian stod ved højen mast, the Danish royal anthem :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Some of these articles have rather more information than just release data; see Apocalypso and 156 for (unsourced) examples. If merging is an appropriate solution for the just-release-data articles, is it really appropriate for ones such as these two? Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the additional info can be sourced then separate articles should be fine. For those with just tracklisting and release dates, probably better to merge.--Michig (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - of the two identical articles Her Voice Is Beyond Her Years and "Her Voice Is Beyond Her Years", shouldn't one of them be speedy deleted immediately as a duplicate, while the survivor remains part of this discussion? --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the duplicate with the quote marks in the title should go. Since it's the one chosen to head the whole discussion, though, I would suggest waiting until the discussion ends in case anyone thinks the article under discussion has been speedied and the discussion is therefore moot. Unless someone can suggest a better approach.--Michig (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There could be a bunch of crazy moving and renaming of one or both articles now. But to avoid even more confusion, it can probably wait until after this AfD debate concludes, as long as someone remembers to follow up. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All these songs have charted in Denmark and many have charted in the top 40 in the UK. They are, like hundreds of thousands of Wiki articles, stubs at the minute but that doesn't mean they can't, or won't be expanded. I will look for sources but I'm very busy with other things at the minute. Cavie78 (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to a new Mew discography as suggested by Michig. If you look at the band page now, there is already a fairly well-developed discography section. The band is eligible for a full discography article. (See WP:DISCOGRAPHY.) That would be a good place to keep the information on the individual single releases that is already in the articles under discussion here. That would keep everything well-organized, and while some of the songs under discussion are notable because they charted, I don't believe that they have all reached that point. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:26, 25 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) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Colon[edit]

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

Promotional autobiography of a journalist with no apparent third party coverage, seems to fail WP:BIO.  Sandstein  06:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Blalant self-promotion. Also fails WP:N. Likeminas (talk) 15:24, 23 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 aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhopal Janata Express[edit]

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

I am not convinced this is notable. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 06:02, 23 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 Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010. Jujutacular talk 20:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Anthony Dorschner[edit]

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

I am not convinced his television appearances are adequate to establish notability. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 05:55, 23 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 redirect to Justified (TV series) per both nominator and creator's requests. (But just for the record, Skydog892, this isn't your page.) Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd Crowder[edit]

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

Unreferenced and possibly unnotable per WP:IINFO. Contested PROD.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Frankly, I do not think my page, Boyd Crowder should be deleted. I do not find it unnotable in any way whatsoever. I have not cited the page due to the fact that I do not know how to cie on Wikipedia. I contested the PROD for these reasons. Deleting said page would be thoughtless and ridiculous. Skydog892 (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Skydog892[reply]
I agree with the deletion nomination at this point. There's not enough information out there to provide enough real world info for the character for it to warrant its own article. Perhaps that will change in the future but right now, even with what few citations would be available, it's all in-universe. Millahnna (mouse)talk 06:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am slightly confused by Millahna's comment. This is a fictional character. There doesn't need to be "real world" info. Please clarify what you mean. Skydog892 (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Skydog892[reply]
WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:NOTABILITY cover the gist. If there were lots of sources talking about the casting of the character and how the character (as a purely made up example) were based on several real world criminals, then it might warrant its own article. Even then, there would have to be an awful lot of that information; enough to potentially overwhelm the current Justified (TV series) page (or possibly a Characters in Justified page if one is ever warranted). Millahnna (mouse)talk 20:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Real world information would be creation, development, casting, reception etc. of the character. See for example Malcolm Reynolds or Derrial Book. Side notes: after typing ~~~~ you don't have to type your name again, it's automated; you also indented the paragraphs on Boyd Crowder which should not be done in an article, it is intended for making discussions easier to read, see WP:INDENT. Xeworlebi (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I feel that merge is better than delete because this character could become notable in the future.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Xeworlebi What you have written is very well done and will be a great start for the character profiles there. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the page for the TV show per all of the above. elektrikSHOOS 23:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge could not WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY of this topic but I am ok with a merge as a compromise. Would a non-admin closure be fine in this case since the nominator is also ready to merge? Shooterwalker (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skydog892 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 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 keep. Sodabottle's sources seal it for me, and no one other than the nominator has !voted "delete". Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aastha: In the Prison of Spring[edit]

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

fails WP:NOTFILM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Szalla[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO; in addition, we have an OTRS request for deletion from the subject, found at VRTS ticket # 2010072310004528. Ironholds (talk) 04:26, 23 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) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Pellicer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joshua Pellicer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
EdrevEpac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

American dating coach. No evidence of substantial coverage. Only claim of notability is to have appeared on TV a few times. Fails WP:BIO. A few SPAs and suspected paid editors have been involved in creating these 'seduction community' type articles. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJ Harbinger. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The Art of Charm which has significant coverage on secondary sources including msnbc, and significant coverage in New York Press [32]. A definite keep per WP:NOTE. BE——Critical__Talk 03:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage by any source. The New York Press article linked above mentions him in passing twice - that's not significant coverage. We've not found a single source about Pellicer that meets WP:BIO, instead a few sources that mention him in passing. --Ronz (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply not true, I viewed the significant coverage, and noted it above. BE——Critical__Talk 16:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true?! You think there are more than two sentences mentioning him? That the two sentences constitute significant coverage? --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are more about what he does than about him, so we might want to redirect to an article on his school. But they are real sources. BE——Critical__Talk 16:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we cleared that up. You'll be changing your recommendation then from Keep to Redirect?
How about redirecting to The Art of Charm? --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 23 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 both to Tour de France. Jujutacular talk 20:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Tour de France[edit]

2012 Tour de France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, removed without edit summary. There exists no verifiable information on this event. Yes, it's highly likely to take place, and yes, it's highly likely that there will eventually be verifiable information on it, but we at Wikipedia don't deal in "highly likely" speculative futures. There is precedent for deleting an article at AFD and then subsequently re-creating it when verifiable information emerges. Should 2013 Tour de France be de-prodded (I'm a little surprised that prod is currently still up), I'd like to bundle it in with this, for the same reeasons. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Tour de France was just deprodded (silently by an IP) a few minutes ago. Can it be considered bundled in? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 15:28, 24 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 Jehovah's Witnesses publications. i'm going for redirect. There's a consensus for no seperate article here, a redirect allows editors to merge and preserved the attribution if this has already happended. Scott Mac 19:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses reference works[edit]

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

Article was previously nominated for deletion, with a formal result of no consensus, but close to a result of merge. The results of AfDs for three other similar articles in this series (Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents, Jehovah's Witnesses publications for youths, and Jehovah's Witnesses publications for evangelizing) was to merge to Jehovah's Witnesses publications. All of the information that is sourced from third-party sources in this article is already at Jehovah's Witnesses publications. Jeffro77 (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If nobody !votes delete then 7 days later I'll have to close it by saying "no arguments for deletion aside from the dominator". :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteRedirect: Whilst I am effectively seeking to Merge the article to Jehovah's Witnesses publications, this has already been done. All third-party sourced material is already at the other article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed per comments from User:Mike Rosoft below.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: At three of the four of the previous AfDs for the articles in this series, User:AuthorityTam made an irrelevant personal attack on me, including dredging up out-of-context and entirely irrelevant Talk comments from over four years ago in an attempt to claim that merging this series of articles to Jehovah's Witnesses publications was out of bias. AuthorityTam was directed to strike out the comments, but failed to do so and simply stopped editing Wikipedia articles for a couple of weeks instead. Other than AuthorityTam's objections, the previous suggestions to Keep were from:
    • User:Heymid: Said the article looked well sourced and well written. After I pointed out that the sources were primarily not from third-party publications and that I created the article (a year ago, as a favour to AuthorityTam[33], and with warning at the time that it would be subject to deletion[34]), Heymid suggested a Speedy Delete {{Db-g7}}).
    • User:Mandsford: Was concerned that the deletion may be discriminatory. However, the information is retained at Jehovah's Witnesses publications.
    • User:George_m: George compared the alleged notability of specific JW publications (not JWs in general or JW publishing activities in general) with the Catholic Encyclopedia. He based this comparison on a misleading statement that JWs are the second-most prevalent religion in some countries, without indicating that it meant at most 1% of those countries' populations.)
    • User:GabrielVelasquez: Contended that reference works are always notable. However there is provision at Jehovah's Witnesses publications for any notable information from third-party sources.
    • User:Mike_Cline: Indicated that a list of JW reference works was appropriate. However there is provision for these at Jehovah's Witnesses publications, and List of Watch Tower Society publications also already exists.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from myself, the following users previously proposed that the article be Deleted/Merged:
  • Note: The reference works involved do not meet the criteria for notable books, and are (through official channels) only made available to members of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeffro77, do you have some diffs or something on the personal attacks and everything. I'd be interested (and I think the user that closes this AfD might be interested) in seeing what went down. Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses reference works, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for evangelizing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive620#User:AuthorityTam and User talk:AuthorityTam#Notice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't read the pages in question, but how about simply redirecting the page to Jehovah's Witnesses publications? (If anything more needs to be merged, this can be decided without needing a VfD debate.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried that already.[35][36] AuthorityTam objects.[37][38]--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect - just as I voted last time per WP:NBOOK. (My actual vote last time was merge, but as is said above, that is pretty much already done. I would vote for a redirect, but as also said above, that move has proven too controversial, besides, it is not really a useful redirect; nobody is going to search Wikipedia for Jehovah's Witnesses reference works.) — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though the presentation is condensed, the information is already in the other article with consideration to due weight appropriate for publications that are (officially) only given to JW members.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete / redirect. My comments at the previous AfD are still valid. Can we get the objecting party -- AuthorityTam -- to explain, using Wikipedia's guidelines and documented consensus, why separate articles are appropriate and called for? As a JW, I would love such expounding elucidation of our literature ad infinitum, but strictly within the parameters and guidelines of the Wikipedia project I cannot support it. As a side point, "straining out the gnat" like this invites notorious critics to whittle away at such minutae, slowly warping and morphing them into evidences for their claims about JWs. This is precisely why I left the JW Wikipedia project in the first place. And such micro-iterative degeneration of the NPOV quality of the articles, such as in this manner, is both unhelpful to the JWs' misson, and corrosive to the Wikipedia project. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from vitriol, AuthorityTam claimed that the books are notable because Jehovah's Witnesses release lots of books, and millions of each book are published. However, the publications in question are only distributed to members of the religion. Number of copies published does not satisfy the relevant criteria for notability. He also claimed that because individual articles on some of the non-notable books previously existed, that this should be kept, ignoring the fact that a) they are not notable per the criteria, b) the publications are mentioned at Jehovah's Witnesses publications with sufficient coverage for their notability, and c) any additional notable information about JW literature can be added to that article. AuthorityTam claimed the books are notable based on a Google Books search of other books that mention the JW publications (about other JW books at one of the other related AfDs in the series), however those results only indicated brief citations from some of the books rather than discussion about the books to establish notability (some of the results incidentally matched words in JW book titles but did not refer to the JW publications at all).
Please note that all content at Wikipedia is irrelevant to "JWs' mission". Your references to "micro-iterative degeneration" and "notorious critics [who] whittle away" are ambiguous and it is unclear how they relate to this discussion. However, in reference to my best guess, please note that this article and the others in the series that had AfDs raised at the same time were only created as a concession to AuthorityTam, who was told at the time the articles were written (a year ago) that they did not meet the notability criteria.[39][40][41]--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't hash out old stuff, but suffice it to say, the two "sides" at play here are both damaging to Wikipedia. Misplaced zeal on the part of JW believers may lead them to feel that this is a place to 'defend and legally establish the good news', when the community-accepted goal here is to provide a neutral and academic perspective. Conversely, those who've proven in the past that they wish to dissect, debate and negate every point of belief evolve to edit with a smile, all the while slowly continuing their efforts in nuanced and subtle ways. This is also detrimental to Wikipedia, in that these individuals are editing with a purpose other than the accepted and neutral. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, no matter how minute and subtlely skewed the perspective being presented is from the ideal NPOV. I'd be happier if this series of articles was written by robots.
The point made below by Mike Rosoft is very valid: the material in question exists in the intended redirect target, so instead of deleting outright, the title should be simply redirected, and the redirect title remains with its history. That history can be called on to review content later, especially if the subject may gain independent notability in the future. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, & Delete per nom. Likeminas (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If the article has already been merged, then deletion is not an option; it should be redirected to the other article, and - if need be - protected. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already tried doing a simple redirect instead of an AfD, but User:AuthorityTam objected, as previously stated above. Additionally, as stated by User:Parent5446 above, it seems unlikely that anyone would specifically search for 'Jehovah's Witnesses reference works'. There are no similar articles with the article title "Religion reference works". That said, I don't particularly mind if the redirect is put back in instead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the policy; we have to preserve the history of a merged article (for copyright reasons). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably an obvious point, but AuthorityTam is not community consensus. Unless the user has the support of other users who have spoken up before or may choose to do so now -- neither this user, nor any others, seem to be willing to speak up in support of the opposing !vote. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. That's why we're here. AuthorityTam persistently reverted when I tried the redirect option. But now he's apparently away or (less likely) has lost interest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Any material of note is already in Jehovah's Witnesses publications. Nothing of value remains. And highly amusing that former Governing Body member Raymond Franz, demonised as an unreliable, biased "apostate" on the talk page of every JW article by members of the religion, is used as a source here to prove notability! BlackCab (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeking clarification: What is the copyright policy that prevents a merged article from being deleted? What copyright is being breached by deleting an article? BlackCab (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure either, but from what I can gather, the concern is regarding retaining the edit history of the material that is merged into another article, so that the contributors of the information can be identified. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. (To demonstrate the purpose, go to any article, and use the 'Download as PDF' in the 'Toolbox' on the left - the file rendered includes end-pages listing the usernames of all the contributors.) However, in this instance, I have summarised the third-party-sourced information in the target article rather than copy-and-pasting the text from the source article, therefore the concern of copyright regarding deleting a merged article does not strictly apply. That said, the article name is not especially controversial (though also not particularly useful), so I don't mind whether it's deleted or simply redirected.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffro77 is largely correct. Both the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses require that the primary contributors to an article be listed as authors whenever anybody uses material in another location. But even summarizing the information is still a merge: standard procedure is to copy-and-paste, and then edit it so it fits smoothly in the article, so summarizing is just combining those steps into one. We could sit here and argue the minute details of copyright policy (because I cannot even claim to know what I'm talking about), or we could just play it safe and redirect. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 21:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but make it a subarticle to Jehovah's Witnesses publications (using a "main" template). This is a particular class of the Witnesses' publications. I am not a Witness, and have little time for them, but that is no reason for voting for delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a 'class' of publications that does not have sufficient notability to warrant a separate article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jehovah's Witnesses publications. Jeffro77's arguments are good ones. John Carter (talk) 00:01, 27 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. If an editor is interested in merging the content, just let me know and I'll restore the history. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fantasy Clichés[edit]

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

Random selection, original research. Unsourced and some of the entries really would have to be sourced (e.g. that the damsel in distress is typically a princess.) Also, we already have Category:Clichés. Schuhpuppe (talk) 00:06, 23 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) 16:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MailShare[edit]

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

Lack of sources showing notability of this product. Removed quite time ago from pl.wiki for being non-notable and unsourced. Sir Lothar (talk) 08:37, 16 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, 23 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) 16:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Nemesis Theory (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. No references are provided, and I could find none. No records on notable labels, no notable tours or members, etc. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 16 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, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable band. Lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Three years old and no references section. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:35, 23 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 aside from the nominator. (and even he's on the fence) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Transport[edit]

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

Notability of company has not been established; sources provided establish existence, but not notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:44, 16 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, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The third party coverage is non-trivial and sufficient to meet WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG. What sort of news coverage does one expect a bus company to generate? The cited references confirm they are one of the largest bus operators in the Philippines, as are competitors listed in this article who have their own articles. This one is an obvious keep. patsw (talk) 00:21, 23 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) 16:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alice![edit]

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

Webcomic which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Claritas § 18:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I started this article. The passage in WP:WEB about being hosted in a reliable, independent medium was specifically made to include Keenspot (I was told by an editor who was involved). This ia a former Keenspot comic. A few people have recently been making noise about a consensus that Keenspot no longer counts, but haven't mentioned where and when this happened.

    This bit of whining aside, the article has a much more serious problem in verifiability. I don't suppose anyone knows where we could look for sources to fix it? --Kizor 20:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning consensus that Keenspot "doesn't count", see this recent example - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Goonish Shive (2nd nomination). I think it will be pretty easy to find sources if they are there, but I had no luck - [42]. Claritas § 20:14, 16 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, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. "One decent RS" suggested above is neither decent nor RS. It's just a website without a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:27, 23 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew McKenzie[edit]

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

Not notable, self-promotion, repeatedly created, deleted from userspace (MfD), at one point salted, now pops up again. I would like this to go through AfD, so that it can be deleted as a re-creation in the future. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:34, 16 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, 23 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 aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption Hymnbook[edit]

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

I see no evidence that this article meets our standards of notability. There are currently no sources cited, so it fails verifiability requirements, and a quick Google Books search shows only a few passing mentions - not enough on which to build an article. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that the alleged "Redemption Hymnbook Only" movement mentioned in the article may be a hoax - I was not able to find any evidence of it on Google except for Wikipedia mirrors. *** Crotalus *** 15:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - as described below I have moved this article to Redemption Hymnal. Thparkth (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm 99% sure this is mistitled and should be named "Redemption Hymnal". If so, I can assure you that the book does exist, is red-covered, was published by Elim, and is a favorite of old-school conservative evangelical churches. I'm so certain that this is that book that I'm going to go ahead and move the article. Oh, and keep because it will be easily verifiable and is notable. Thparkth (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google finds multiple mentions of the book (under the new, correct, title). Four books are cited as sources. Unsourced material on the alleged "Redemption Hymnbook Only" movement (noted by the nom) no longer exists in the article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:07, 17 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, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with new title). This is (or was) a widely used hymnal in Pentecostal churches in UK, and so deserves an article. The present one is rather bland. My impression of Pentecostal hymn singing is that most hymns had a chorus, perhpas so that the less literate could easily join in (but that is probably my WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:47, 25 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) 16:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norma Lewis (singer)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Subject is British singer known for her version of "For All We Know". Only source is discogs. Cannot find evidence she meets notability criteria. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:07, 16 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, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My copy of British Hit Singles (1952-1994) contains no listing for this artist. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, no sources, no chart success, no multiple major label albums etc. Tassedethe (talk) 17:17, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_July_23&oldid=1142641276"